The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/08/92"The only people who fail are those who never try." -Ilka Chase AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 8, 1992 - Council Chambers, City Hall MAYOR Robert Essertier MAYOR PRO TEM Albert Wiemans COUNCILMEMBERS Robert Benz Sam Y. Edgerton Kathleen Midstokke Closed Session - 6:45 p.m. Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. CITY CLERK Elaine Doerfling CITY TREASURER Gary L. Brutsch CITY MANAGER Frederick R. Ferrin CITY ATTORNEY 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, the Office of the City Clerk, and the Cham- ber of Commerce. During the meeting a packet also is available in the Council foyer. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PROCLAMATIONS: Constitution Week, September 17 - 23, 1992 Coastweeks, September 19 thru October 12, 1992 with 'Adopt -a -Beach' Coastal Cleanup Day to be held on September 19. PRESENTATION REGARDING SOUTH BAY HOSPITAL DISTRICT SENIORS' PRO- GRAM. Marilyn Aldrich, Director. 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) dining 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". 1. 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 August 25, 1992. (b) Recommendation to ratify Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) Recommendation to receive and file the August, 1992 monthly investment report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated September 2, 1992. (e) Recommendation to approve reappropriation of funds from 1991-92 budget. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated August 25, 1992. (f) Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing Prop A fund exchange with City of West Hollywood for acquiring General Funds. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated September 3, 1992. (g) Recommendation to approve lease agreement between the Association for Retarded Citizens and City of Hermosa Beach for use of Rooms 1, 2, and 15 in the Community Center. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated August 27, 1992. (h) Recommendation to approve lease agreement between the Easter Seals Society and City of Hermosa Beach for use of Rooms 14, 16 and 17 in the Community Center. Memo- randum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated August 27, 1992. (i) (7) Recommendation to approve lease agreement between the South Bay Center for Counseling and City of Hermosa Beach for use of Room 9 in the Community Center. Memo- randum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated August 27, 1992. Recommendation to approve request to call for bids for cleaning of downtown sidewalks for the period from November 1, 1992 to October 31, 1995. Memorandum from Public Works Department dated August 31, 1992. 2 (k) (1) Recommendation to approve request to call for bids for bids for municipal pier maintenance for the period from November 1, 1992 to October 31, 1995. Memorandum from Public Works Department dated August 31, 1992. Recommendation to approve request to call for bids for downtown area maintenance for the period from November 1, 1992 to October 31, 1995. Memorandum from Public Works Department dated August 31, 1992. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. (a) ORDINANCE NO. 92-1074 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT IN REGARDS TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IN THE R-3 AND R -P ZONES, AND ADOPTION OF AN EN- VIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. For adoption. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. * Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. (a) Letter from Board of Parking Place Commissioners dated August 25, 1992 regarding year-end revenue and expendi- ture report of VPD. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. REVIEW AND RECONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF A 70 -ROOM HOTEL WITH RETAIL, A RESTAURANT WITH ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL, AND A PIANO BAR WITH ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AT 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, with resolution for adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated August 27, 1992. 6. SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT RE: RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARA- TION, with ordinance for introduction. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated August 27, 1992. 7. SPtCIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT RE: ADULT USES AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, with ordinance for introduction. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 23, 1992. HEARINGS 8. VEHICLE PARKING ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG BEACH DRIVE. Memorandum from Public Works Department dated September 1, 1992. 3 MUNICIPAL MATTERS 9. DISCUSSION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS MEMBERSHIP IN THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (P.E.R.S.). Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated September 1, 1992. 10. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN EXCEPTION FOR REFUSE ENCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS. Memorandum from Building and Safety Di- rector William Grove dated August 3, 1992. (Continued from August 11, 1992 meeting.) 11. FUNDING OPTIONS FOR ENHANCED LEFT HAND TURN FROM PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY INTO PARK PACIFIC SHOPPING CENTER. Memo- randum from City Manager Frederick R. Ferrin dated Sep- tember 3, 1992. 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER 13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL 14. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: 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. (a) Request by Councilmember Benz for discussion of City parking lot located at Pacific Coast Highway between Second and Third Streets. (b) Request by Mayor Essertier for consideration of setting a date for a special budget session. 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 minute. 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 (Wednesday) 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 comp- 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 of 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. 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. SPREAD . oq-o$-qa MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, September 08, 1992, at the hour of 7: P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - ROLL CALL Present: Benz, Edgerton, Midstokke, Wiemans, Mayor Essertier Absent: None ANNOUNCEMENTS - PROCLAMATIONS - Constitution Week, September 17 - 23, 1992 tig3(74' 1/1 Coastweeks, September 19 thru October 12, 1992 with 'Adopt -a -Beach' Coastal Cleanup Day to be held on September 19. /126"Al ?„, bo 7)7 - PRESENTATION REGARDING SOUTH BAY HOSPITAL DISTRICT SENIORS' PRO- GRAM. Marilyn Aldrich, Director. 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 City Council Minutes 09-08-92 Page 1 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: Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place, Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, Dave Reimer - 802 Monterey Blvd., Jerry Compton - 1200 Artesia Blvd., Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., Parker Herriott - 224 Twenty-fourth Street, Jim Lissner - 2715 El Oeste Drive, Jim Rosenberger - 1121 Bayview Drive, Tom Morley - 516 Loma Drive, Richard Sullivan - 824 Third Street, Edie Webber - 1210 Eleventh Street, Gene Dreher - 1222 Seventh Place, Joseph Di Monda - 610 Ninth Street, 1. 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. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR KI% Action: To approve the Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (1), with the exception of the following N a items which were removed for discussion in item 3 but are listed in order for clarity: (a) , (b) , (c) (d) , (e) , (f) (g) (h) , (i) City Council Minutes 09-08-92 Page 2 (j) , (k) , and (1) Motion , second So ordered. Coming forward to address the Council on items not removed from the consent calendar were: No one came forward to address the Council on items not removed from the consent calendar. (a) Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on August 25, 1992. Action: To approve the minutes of August 25, 1992 as (b) Recommendation to ratify Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive. Action: To ratify 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. City Council Minutes 09-08-92 Page 3 (d) (e) Recommendation to receive and file the August, 1992 monthly investment report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated September 2, 1992. Action: To receive and file the August, 1992 monthly investment report as presented. Recommendation to approve reappropriation of funds from 1991-92 budget. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated August 25, 1992. Action: To approve staff recommendation to reappropri- ate the following amounts for items budgeted in 1991- 1992 but not received (or paid for) by June 30, 1992: 1) $3,568 to Emcon Associates for recycling and source reduction consultation: Building and Safety Department; 2) $3,100 to Melvyn Green and Associates for seismic hazard mitigation program: Building and Safety Department; 3) $1,046 to CIP 92-150, PO #4887 (6/11/92) for final materials to complete misc. traffic signal improve- ments: Public Works Department; and, 4) $10,000 to CIP 90-151, for preliminary engineering of state grant funded traffic engineering program: Public Works Department. (f) Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing Prop A %�% /" ° fund exchange with City of West Hollywood for acquiring General Funds. Memorandum from Planning Director ��/ Michael Schubach dated September 3, 1992. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 92-1075, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF $84,000 Cit\\Council Minutes 09-08-92 Page 4 • (g) (h) (i) IN PROPOSITION A TRANSIT FUNDS IN EXCHANGE FOR $44,520 IN GENERAL FUNDS FROM THE CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD." Recommendation to approve lease agreement between the Association for Retarded Citizens and City of Hermosa Beach for use of Rooms 1s 2s and 15 in the Community Center. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated August 27, 1992. Action: To approve the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission and staff recommendation to approve the lease between the City of Hermosa Beach and the Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC) for Rooms 1, 2 and 15 at the Community Center for a one year period commencing October 1, 1992 and ending September 30, 1993 at the approved rate of $1,982 per month (2,360 square feet at $.84 per square foot); and, to authorize the Mayor to sign the lease agreement. Recommendation to approve lease agreement between the Easter Seals Society and City of Hermosa Beach for use of Rooms 14, 16 and 17 in the Community Center. Memo- randum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated August 27, 1992. Action: To approve the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission and staff recommendation to approve the lease between the City of Hermosa Beach and the Easter Seals Society for Rooms 14, 16 and 17 at the Community Center for a one year period commencing October 1, 1992 and ending September 30, 1993 at the approved rate. of $2,318 per month (2,760 square feet at $.84 per square foot); and, to authorize the Mayor to sign the lease agreement. Recommendation to approve lease agreement between the South Bay Center for Counseling and City of Hermosa Beach for use of Room 9 in the Community Center. Memo- randum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated August 27, 1992. City Council Minutes 09-08-92 Page 5 • (k) , Action: To approve the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission and staff recommendation to approve the lease between the City of Hermosa Beach and the South Bay Center for Counseling for Room 9 at the Community Center for a one year period commencing October 1, 1992 and ending September 30, 1993 at the approved rate of $352 per month (419 square feet at $.84 per square foot); and, to authorize the Mayor to sign the lease agreement. Recommendation to approve request to call for bids for cleaning of downtown sidewalks for the period from November 1, 1992 to October 31, 1995. Memorandum from Public Works Department dated August 31, 1992. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to au- thorize staff to call for bids for downtown sidewalk cleaning for the period from November 1, 1992 to October 31, 1993 and to issue addenda as necessary. Recommendation to approve request to call for bids for bids for municipal pier maintenance for the period from November 1, 1992 to October 31, 1995. Memorandum from Public Works Department dated August 31, 1992. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to au- thorize staff to call for bids for Municipal Pier main- tenance for the period from November 1, 1992 to October 31, 1993 and to issue addenda as necessary. City Council Minutes 09-08-92 Page 6 fr/0„4 A2r41- 6ry,, 42 -d" -t" ?Clap =Ald moi' s 1 Recommendation to approve request to call for bids for downtown area maintenance for the period from November 1, 1992 to October 31, 1995. Memorandum from Public Works Department dated August 31, 1992. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to au- thorize staff to call for bids for downtown area main- tenance for the period from November 1, 1992 to October 31, 1993 and to issue addenda as necessary. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. (a) ORDINANCE NO. 92-1074 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT IN REGARDS TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IN THE R-3 AND R -P ZONES, AND ADOPTION OF AN EN- VIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. For/ adoption. �, ✓d`"�'v% /7i4.•' ��.%Pi'G-+�f.�S- * � �.-t as.°4')42 Ag &Pe¢/Pc-l-vi-fte- Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 92-1074. Motion , second . The motion carried, noting the L, dissenting votes of Midstokke and Wiemans. -,- N 6/9 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Action: Items 1( ) and ( ) were heard at his time but are shown in order for clarity. Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar are shown under the appropriate item. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. Letter from Board of Parking Place Commissioners dated' August 25, 1992 regarding year-end revenue and expendi- ture report of VPD. City Council Minutes 09-08-92 Page 7 A--� 0/0-,.__0(_„. i %vim 5 ,X° -,"`.w (% -1-- 2 2 7'-'' e..—ci Ce°/`? --- 6_ ..-e-, ,--r-- 7 --t27(e 0 6 — ------ i_ 409-,-- 9---,-XL--)0 ,01-e-A)t, e_„ ,,,/-7,, `---7,::/ , 1/4---e. ). ..---1-v- P--- )-v ., , ,,e,,,, //-6., ,p -J. "?' ,)-- --2_ r,--6_ --- ( / 7 ) - --- jvim- b yrnt_,-, A‘t- & � ? � .E. I---- C --e /-',,,, ''' v r ,,, _ , c.,, ,,,7-,,, -. s -,pp, --Lt "2,,6 --r..' 1/4---60',--2 ,,., c.)--3 ,,,e ,,..e.)X14._/,-i_A-t7A-.-... ,0 y t - - a - > .-(,,---' '., ,--; 62 .-) ? (. z-- , ,I. o ,1---1-b--t 4,0,,---"L- /...2.....-/ — 9 - 4 ),,,e -4(--e-.4 olv 14;17/=, / /v_;„r:,4, ______ ,4 -?, _76, (A_ , _____ Z' /1.- 3 ,.20(7--P\ '-e.- -* ----': i ,x'`, /6204 a_ , Cd' 35, i - e--za ) .7.1==,-7 c.-42: .. ..... _., .06 r#3-€, 6;;;;fr ..., 0 -ex, g -di -e-) — ic%'- Com. —. C 4 5AA/‘-'7 eer---, .-2, /v-%-/- od-te_,-7k4c_7(, c:. L ilf.,--- ____s -, N. -2\ , 5, • /v/he 9...y /2A 2--rz 0 .1V, ----y--) ,.,_; .- 6 P, Action: To receive and file. Motion , second . So ordered. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. REVIEW AND RECONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF A 70 -ROOM HOTEL WITH RETAIL, A RESTAURANT WITH ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL, AND A PIANO BAR WITH ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AT 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, with resolution for adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated August 27, 1992. Jc.,2 Planning Director Schubach presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. 9=35 The public hearing opened at Ow P.M. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: /0-4,1"//2/a-fk-k-- nyw cc14 61/ '- /e21X) 1,4? /tea d�Y The public hearing closed at P.M. //4'14-./ /7„:„._, 7,2_3 City Council Minutes 09-08-92 Page 8 a' 7/_5"/ • /ro JA-vc y „ ) 2_2_6 p //5 i;15 ,,c50eAt---e-ZeL-) 7 erg” (6eetA-4/ in e (1"P ' .3s /- 4 • --() - 6 /\-(:" Action: To sustain the decision of the Planning Commis- sion to approve the project subject to the conditions as 5zle.A.40 i Q--Ciai_ contained in the Planning 92- t411"/0P F-2) n t 'eP(75,,,er), ,pe--, 50e c---2------7 X17 k/' > > /17----,--- --P ,001/ d_ ac 7' -2, c __,‘- --i-c. Ait..Le_sTs ?' 48 and to adopt Resolution No. 92-55 , entitled, 'IA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE PLAN- NING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A SEVENTY UNIT HOTEL WITH RETAIL, A RESTAURANT AND PIANO BAR WITH ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL.“ Motion , second . The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of /red es s c�- 6. // 34) /fir G)'1)-jz SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT RE: SPACE REQUIREMENTS AND ADOPTION OF A TION, with ordinance for introduction 'so •lanning Director Michael Schubach #06, fi 67'2T/A a/r 1992. RESIDENTIAL OPEN NEGATIVE DECLARA- . Memorandum from dated August 27, Planning Director Schubach presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. The public hearing opened at dress the Council on this item P.M. Coming forward to ad - were: City Council Minutes 09-08-92 Page 9 • The public hearing closed at P.M. Action: To approve the staff recommendation and Motion , second dissenting votes of Planning Commission and the introduce Ordinance No. 92-107 The motion carried, noting the Final Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 92-107 , entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT IN REGARDS TO THE RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS TO REQUIRE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE TO BE ACCES- SIBLE TO PRIMARY LIVING AREAS IN MULTI -FAMILY ZONES AND TO MAKE THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT A FUNCTION OF LOT SIZE IN THE R-1 ZONE, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION." Motion , second AYES: NOES: 7. SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT RE: ADULT USES AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, with ordinance for introduction. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 23, 1992. Planning Director Schubach presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. The public hearing opened at P.M. Coming forward to ad- dress the Council on this item were: City Council Minutes 09-08-92 Page 10 eer cr- 3t-t_cA 7v,Akise ;:f 2 -.0(//27 ( c:27/ i(,(° , • Ze l • • The public hearing closed at P.M. Action: To approve the Planning Commission and the staff recommendation and introduce Ordinance No. 92-107 Motion , second . The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of Final Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 92-107 , entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE PROVI- SIONS ON THE REGULATION OF ADULT BUSINESSES AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION." Motion , second AYES: NOES: HEARINGS 8. VEHICLE PARKING ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG BEACH DRIVE. Memorandum from Public Works Department dated September 1, 1992 with Ordinance for introduction. Sup- plemental letters from: Darrell Lee Greenwald, 840 and 900 Strand, dated August 27, 1992; Thomas P. Allen III, 1602 Strand, dated August 31, 1992; Gloria Walker, 2040 The Strand, dated September 2, 1992; Steve Yeager, 18- 19th Street, dated August 31, 1992; Roy M. and Lois M. Knox, 99 Hermosa Avenue, dated August 31, 1992; Ed Nash, 600 The Strand, dated August 31, 1992; Caroline Short, 1740 The Strand, dated August 29, 1992; Jeanne M. En- glish, 30 -13th Street, dated August 30, 1992; Donna En- glish, 2240 Strand, dated August 31, 1992; Ricardo F. Icaza, 38 -8th Street, dated August 29, 1992; Diane and City Council Minutes 09-08-92 Page 11 ‘,to �o.P.01),(vrA, tm of\ iNv) \) kt) \C)) kg1\ c) ‘0\ r6 ( ( c%).) lk�kqf/ �tci", )„,- (1 -1r -W) --/,A11 )(Nrs''"u\.c\\\)`Ahr \k'j%) Ai )r•c\6 '•\ /,,c1 ,,,‘\\(rk ) tV) \\N 1 / ) i t4 x ON " 4 tL) t Z . "fr (1\ k \i" ' \ ?)/ i Eric Aherns, 700 Strand, dated August 31, 1992; Jacque- line S. Marks, 702 The Strand, dated September 1, 1992; George J. Lanz, 17 -16th Street; Al and Viola James, 78 Strand, dated September 1, 1992; Madeline E. Trina, 402 Stand, dated August 30, 1992; Yoshiko Koyama (daughter of owner) and Bunhaku Yano (property manager), 17 -19th Street, dated September 1, 1992; Mr. and Mrs. Donald Prichard, 604 Strand, dated September 2, 1992; Alfred W. Salido 20B -4th Street, dated August 31, 1992; Leonor Salido, 26 -4th Street, dated August 31, 1992; Linda Kaye, 2040 The Strand, dated September 1, 1992; Jeannine Howell St. John, 22 -18th Street, dated September 1, 1992; Charles E. Danforth, 18 -18th Street, dated Septem- ber 2, 1992; Charles M. Walker, 2040 Strand, dated Sep- tember 2, 1992; Simon J. Mani, 542 The Strand, dated August 31, 1992; and, Missy Sheldon, 1800 The Strand, dated September 2, 1992; 4.--- 0( A/A, y- ///4c 9 9 . Deputy "pity Engineer Lynn Terry presented the staff re- port and responded to Council questions. // :OD , ,,, -_., C I' , A "--.1-1-.2 G� The hearing was opened at •P.M. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: /?// /I/ ) ee, .c /) 4 ,/ r-----; -.-c--i y _-(/- x0,n7- -..i.,.4--‹--ii--21 e7a--(---i-A__ot 3„,..f.,:id,,,,,Lic-A-t& --, ‘- - /-r_2----- `'per- / // , = City Council Minutes 09-08-92 Page 12 A vr\4) / Po ,L \ i ) \I nk, j ,v, ,, \ i )„,c x \s‘i, ‘D , f\ /3, f,,,o , ‘ kt IIN •.e4'\`';\)/ ivl % (-44\ft\., \‘Or \1)\;( Q0‘ \) 4(1 c4N vNi:¼1'%v • The hearing was closed at P.M. Action: To return this item to staff/ Planning Commis- sion to consider the vacation of the public right-of-way along Beach Drive and return to the Council with its recommendation. Motion , second The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 92-107 , as amended Motion , second . The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of Final Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 92-107 , entitled, 'IAN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO AMEND THE CITY CODE TO ALLOW VEHI- CLE PARKING ON PUBLIC STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG BEACH DRIVE." Motion , second AYES: NOES: City Council Minutes 09-08-92 Page 13 • MUNICIPAL MATTERS 9. DISCUSSION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS MEMBERSHIP IN THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (P.E.R.S.). Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated September 1, 1992. Personnel Director Blackwood presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Action: To authorize the City Manager to execute any documents required by the Public Employee's Retirement System (P.E.R.S.) to amend the existing contract to dis- continue elected officials' retirement benefits, with the understanding that there was no way that the con- tract could be amended to include current elected offi- cials but would apply to future elected officials only. and would save the City approximately $6,948 annually. Motion , second . The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of Action: To receive and file. Motion , second . The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of 10. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN EXCEPTION FOR REFUSE ENCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS. Memorandum from Building and Safety Di- rector William Grove dated August 3, 1992. (Continued from August 11, 1992 meeting.) Building and Safety Director Grove presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. City Council Minutes 09-08-92 Page 14 • Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 92-107 . Motion , second . The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of Final Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 92-107 , entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AMENDING THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE WITH RESPECT TO ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE FOR ISSUANCE OF AN EXCEPTION TO THE REFUSE CONTAINER REQUIREMENTS." Motion , second AYES: NOES: 11. FUNDING OPTIONS FOR ENHANCED LEFT HAND TURN FROM PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY INTO PARK PACIFIC SHOPPING CENTER. Memo- randum from City Manager Frederick R. Ferrin dated Sep- tember 3, 1992. City Manager Ferrin presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER City Council Minutes 09-08-92 Page 15 • City Manager Ferrin reported 13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL 14. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to discuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Coun- cil action tonight. Request by Councilmember Benz for discussion of City parking lot located at Pacific Coast Highway between Second and Third Streets. Councilmember Benz discussed his request. Action: To (b) Request by Mayor Essertier for consideration of setting a date for a special budget session. City Council Minutes 09-08-92 Page 16 • Mayor Essertier discussed his request. /\-d Action: To set the date of for a special budget session. Motion , second . So ordered. 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. Coming forward to address the Council at this time were: Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place, Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, Dave Reimer - 802 Monterey Blvd., Jerry Compton - 1200 Artesia Blvd., Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., Parker Herriott - 224 Twenty-fourth Street, Jim Lissner - 2715 El Oeste Drive, Jim Rosenberger - 1121 Bayview Drive, Tom Morley - 516 Loma Drive, Richard Sullivan - 824 Third Street, Edie Webber - 1210 Eleventh Street, Gene Dreher - 1222 Seventh Place, City Council Minutes 09-08-92 Page 17 Joseph Di Monda - 610 Ninth Street, ADJOURNMENT - The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California,djourned on Wednesday, September 09, 1992, at the hour of /:3 A.M. to a Regular Meeting to be held Tuesday, September 22, 1992, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. Deputy City Clerk City Council Minutes 09-08-92 Page 18 ACTION SHEET ACTION SHEET REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 8, 1992 - Council Chambers, City Hall Closed Session - 6:45 p.m. Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: ALL PRESENT PROCLAMATIONS: Constitution Week, September 17 - 23, 1992 ACCEPTED BY WILMA BURT FOR EL REDONDO CHAPTER OF DAR. Coastweeks, September 19 thru October 12, 1992 with 'Adopt -a -Beach' Coastal Cleanup Day to be held on September 19. ACCEPTED BY MARY ROONEY PRESENTATION REGARDING SOUTH BAY HOSPITAL DISTRICT SENIORS' PRO- GRAM. Marilyn Aldrich, Director. WITHDRAWN DUE TO ILLNESS. CITY MGR. INTRODUCED CHARLES MCDONALD, NEW PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. C.M. SPOKE OF HERMOSA POLICE ARREST OF MASSEY BROTHERS. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DON BARTH, M.B., SPEAKING AGAINST LOWERING OF R-3 HEIGHT LIMIT DUE FOR ADOPTION. JACK ANDREN - CAME TO SPEAK ABOUT R-3 HEIGHT LIMIT. HOWARD LONGACRE - SAID BLUEPRINT ON HOTEL ITEM (AGENDA ITEM 5) NOT AVAILABLE TO PUBLIC IN THE LIBRARY. MAUREEN ANDERSON - VOICED COMPLAINT AGAINST CHANGING HEIGHT LIMIT IN R-3 ZONE. CONSENT CALENDAR: Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on August 25, 1992. Recommendation to ratify Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive. Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) (e) (f) Recommendation to receive and file the August, 1992 monthly investment report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated September 2, 1992. Recommendation to approve reappropriation of funds from 1991-92 budget. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated August 25, 1992. Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing Prop A fund exchange with City of West Hollywood for acquiring General Funds. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated September 3, 1992. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 92- . OK 4-1 (KM -NO). (g) (h) (i) (i) Recommendation to approve lease agreement between the Association for Retarded Citizens and City of Hermosa Beach for use of Rooms 1, 2, and 15 in the Community Center. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated August 27, 1992. Recommendation to approve lease agreement between the Easter Seals Society and City of Hermosa Beach for use of Rooms 14, 16 and 17 in the Community Center. Memo- randum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated August 27, 1992. Recommendation to approve lease agreement between the Routh Bay Center for Counseling and City of Hermosa Beach for use of Room 9 in the Community Center. Memo- randum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated August 27, 1992. Recommendation to approve request to call for bids for cleaning of downtown sidewalks for the period from November 1, 1992 to October 31, 1995. Memorandum from Public Works Department dated August 31, 1992. PULLED BY RB. (k) Recommendation to approve request to call for bids for bids for municipal pier maintenance for the period from November 1, 1992 to October 31, 1995. Memorandum from Public Works Department dated August 31, 1992. PULLED BY RB. (1) Recommendation to approve request to call for bids for downtown area maintenance for the period from November 1, 1992 to October 31, 1995. Memorandum from Public Works Department dated August 31, 1992. PULLED BY RB. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. -�i (a) ORDINANCE NO. 92-1074 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT IN REGARDS TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IN THE R-3 AND R -P ZONES, AND ADOPTION OF AN EN- VIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. For adoption. PETER BODD - 918 MANHATTAN AVE. FEELS ENOUGH RESTRICTIONS AL- READY ON R-3 PROPERTY. NO REASON TO CONTINUALLY AFFECT R-3 PROP- ERTY SINCE SO MANY CHANGES MADE IN LAST FIVE YEARS. MARY MCGEE - AGAINST CHANGING HEIGHT LIMIT. SHIRLEY CASSELL - AGAINST LOWERING HEIGHT LIMIT. MIKE MEYERS - 104 FIRST STREET. IN FAVOR OF LOWERING HEIGHT LIMIT. JAN MCHUGH - WANTS COUNCIL TO RECONSIDER IT OR PUT IT ON THE BALLOT. WILMA BURT. - FEELS CAN'T BE DONE IN A UNIFORM WAY. SHOULD BE DONE ON A BLOCK BY BLOCK BASIS BASED ON WHAT IS SURROUNDING THE PROPERTIES. RALPH HARBROUGH (?) - AGAINST LOWERING HEIGHT LIMIT. FEELS WE WILL END UP WITH BOXES. ROB SAEMANN - LOMA DRIVE - AGAINST THIS ORDINANCE BECAUSE UNFAIR TO PROPERTY OWNERS. WOULD URGE PUTTING ON THE BALLOT AS A MANDA- TORY MEASURE. STAN CONAN - 925 LOMA DRIVE - IF YOU LOWER THE HEIGHT, CITY SHOULD PAY PROPERTY OWNERS FOR THE DROP IN THEIR PROPERTY VALUE. JACK JENKIN - HAS HOUSE ON THE STRAND. IF C.C. REALLY REPRESENTS CITIZENS, THEY WOULD LISTEN TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS AND REALLY REP- RESENT THEM RATHER THAN THEIR OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS ON THE SUBJECT. TOM HESS - 326 MANHATTAN AVE. - ASKS THAT ORDINANCE BE REJECTED OR PUT TO A VOTE OF PEOPLE ON HEIGHT. NOBLE FORD, M.B. - OWNS 3022 HERMOSA AVENUE - THIS CHANGE DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE BULK AND DENSITY. FEELS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE COMMUNITY. PETE HENDERSON, STRAND, - FEELS PEOPLE SHOULD BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MEASURE. HOWARD LONGACRE - 1221 SEVENTH PLACE - WANTS RECONSIDERATION AND PUT IT TO A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. MICHAEL KEAGON - 907 LOMA DRIVE - C.C. IS TAKING AWAY RIGHT OF PEOPLE WHO ALREADY HAVE THE HEIGHT BUT CANNOT REPLACE IF EXISTING BURNS DOWN. 3 SAM HICKSON - 409 MONTEREY - NEW RESIDENT OWNER, LEAVE HEIGHT ALONE. MIKE SWADE - 548 MANHATTAN AVE. - LEAVE AT 35 FT. GREG REYNOLDS - PLEASE DON'T LOWER FROM 35 FT. JACK ANDREN - THINKS IT SHOULD GO ON THE BALLOT. JERRY COMPTON - AGAINST THE ORDINANCE. HE IS A PROPERTY RIGHTS ADVOCATE. KEN COLEMAN - 19TH ST. - FEELS NEEDS MORE HEARING. MIKE MCCASKILL - 925 MONTEREY - ASKED FOR VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. RICHARD ZELKE - AGAINST ORDINANCE AND WILL SUPPORT A LEGAL SUIT TO FIGHT IT TO THE END. GARY HYATT - AGAINST ORDINANCE. THINKS COUNCIL SHOULD THINK ABOUT PUTTING THIS BACK IN HANDS OF PEOPLE TO VOTE ON IT. JOHN MCHUGH - FIRST STREET - SAYS DON'T FURTHER REDUCE R-3. ED NASH - 600 STRAND - FEELS UNFAIR TO PEOPLE HAVE PURCHASED PROPERTY WITH IDEA OF BUILDING LATER AND ALSO OPPOSED TO IT BE- CAUSE OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IN FUTURE. JIM GALLAGHER - HIGHLAND AVE. - AGAINST ORDINANCE. PUT ON BALLOT. ELLEN ANDERSON - 30TH ST. - AGAINST ORDINANCE. TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT AND PUT IN HANDS OF VOTERS. DAVE (?) - C.C. MAKING MISTAKE. HELEN COPE , MB. - OPPOSED TO LOWERING HEIGHT LIMIT. (?) SPOKE AGAINST. MOTION AW/TO SUSPEND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AND PLACE THE MATTER ON THE BALLOT. SECOND KM FOR PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION. VOTE: FAILS 2-3 MOTION KM TO HAVE A RECONSIDERATION HEARING WITH ALL PROPERTY OWNERS OF R-3 AND R -P TO BE NOTIFIED. SECOND AW. VOTE: FAILS 2-3 (RB/RE/SE) MOTION RE/SE - TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 92-1074. OK 3-2 (KM/AW-NO). MOTION SE/TO PUT ON BALLOT AT NEXT MUNICIPAL ELECTION IN NOV. 93. SECOND (?). VOTE: OK 3-2 (KM/RE-NO). 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. ITEMS 1J, 1K, AND 1L CONTINUED TO MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. (a) Letter from Board of Parking Place Commissioners dated August 25, 1992 regarding year-end revenue and expendi- ture report of VPD. CONTINUED TO 9/22 MTG. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.K. 5. REVIEW AND RECONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF A 70 -ROOM HOTEL WITH RETAIL, A RESTAURANT WITH ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL, AND A PIANO BAR WITH ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AT 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, with resolution for adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated August 27, 1992. KM QUESTIONED WHETHER SIGNS PUT UP FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ARE MONI- TORED AFTER THEY ARE PUT UP ON A PROPERTY. KM QUESTIONED CITY ATTY. RE. GRANDFATHER CLAUSE. OTHER QUESTION RAISED WAS WHETHER PROJECT ORIGINALLY CONCEPTUALLY APPROVED WAS THE SAME PROJECT AS EVENTUALLY APPROVED BY P.C. QUESTIONED WHY NO CONDITION FOR DOUBLE PANE GLASS ON WINDOWS OF ROOMS FACING PCH. RB SAYS EVERY POSSIBLE ISSUE ON THIS HOTEL HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 9:35 P.M. GARY HORNER AND JEREMY YEH, REPRESENTING OWNERS, SPOKE ON BEHALF OF PROJECT. KM - REGARDING OUTDOOR SEATING FROM PIANO BAR ON THIRD FLOOR, NONE MENTIONED IN STAFF REPORT. SCHUBACH SAID WAS NOT PART OF APPLICATION AND WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO P.C. FOR APPROVAL IF THEY WISH TO HAVE SAME. HOWARD LONGACRE - EXPRESSED CONCERN OVER METHOD OF HANDLING THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE. WILMABURT - QUESTIONED WHY THE NOTES FROM JANUARY 9 P.C. MTG. WERE NOT IN PACKET. SHIRLEY CASSELL - QUESTIONED TRAFFIC CIRCULATION. MAKE DEVELOPER ABIDE BY THE RULES. JAN MCHUGH - OPPOSED TO HOTEL EVEN IF SHE CAN KEEP HER 18 FT. WALL. RICHARD LARRABEE - OPPOSED TO HOTEL. DON KARASEVICH - HAS CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THE PROJECT HAS BEEN HANDLED. SONYA NICHOLS, 703 FIRST ST. - OPPOSED TO HOTEL AND COMPLAINED ABOUT SPOTTY NOTIFICATION. GEORGIA (?) 715 FIRST ST. - NEED A WALL THAT IS AT LEAST 18 FT. IN HEIGHT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. RAY DIVORSKY - SPOKE RE. LACK OF PARKING. SID COLBY 719 FIRST PLACE - CONCERNED ABOUT THE RESTAURANT AND WHAT HOURS IT WILL BE OPEN.. ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT PIANO BAR. OP- POSED TO HOTEL USE. JIM PARKMAN - PORTER LANE. CONCERNED ABOUT NUMBER OF PROJECTS THAT COME UP ALMOST SECRETLY. THINKS WE HAVE ENOUGH TRANSIENTS IN TOWN. JOHN MCHUGH - OPPOSED TO HOTEL. MARY COLBY - AGAINST HOTEL. JO LUCIA - DOESN'T WANT WALL LOWERED. MARK HANSON, 926 FIRST ST. - REJECT HOTEL. FRED NICHOLS - OPPOSED TO HOTEL. MIKE SCHUBACH SAID SOME LANDSCAPING HAS BEEN APPROVED, BUT P.C. HAS ASKED FOR MORE SPECIFICS, SO THAT WILL BE GOING BACK. ROY JUDD - SPOKE AGAINST HOTEL EVEN THOUGH HE LIVES AT NORTH END OF TOWN. SUSAN OCHOA - QUESTIONED FIRE AND POLICE DEPT. CAPABILITIES TO HANDLE SUCH AN INTENSE USE. JOHNNY BRUCE - OPPOSED. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 11 P.M. MOTION RB/SE TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. VOTE: FAILS 2-3 (KM/AW/SE-NO) MOTION SE/AW - TO SEND BACK TO P.C. FOR REVIEW OF THE WALL AND THE HEIGHT OF BUILDING, AND NOTICE AS PUBLIC HEARING. OK 3-2 (RB/RE-NO). 6. SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT RE: RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARA- TION, with ordinance for introduction. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated August 27, 1992. OPEN HEARING AND CONTINUE TO 9/22 MEETING. 7. SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT RE: ADULT USES AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, with ordinance for introduction. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 23, 1992. OPEN HEARING AND CONTINUE TO 9/22 MEETING. HEARINGS 8. VEHICLE PARKING ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG BEACH DRIVE. Memorandum from Public Works Department dated September 1, 1992. MOTION KM/? - TO HAVE HEARING TONIGHT FOR ALL WHO WISH TO SPEAK AND CONTINUE TO NEXT MEETING FOR ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY. 3-2 (RB/ RE -NO). MARGARET SCHUMACHER - 1612 STRAND - OPPOSED TO RECOMMENDATION. DAVID SCHUMACHER - 1612 STRAND. OPPOSED SHIRLEY CASSELL - CHARGE THEM FOR PROPERTY. JACK JENKINS - SAYS COUNCIL UNRESPONSIVE, INSENSITIVE, ETC. TOM ALLEN, 1602 STRAND. FEELS ISSUE SHOULD BE HANDLED BY A SUB- COMMITTEE. NEED TO DEFINE THE PROBLEM. PAUL SHANK - 1838 STRAND. DAVID ADKINS, 2307 HERMOSA AVE. EVELYN STOTEN, EAST SIDE OF BEACH DRIVE. NEAR 16TH ST. MISSY SHELDON, 1800 STRAND - JIM GIERLICH SUSAN OCHOA - WHAT IS THE PROBLEM. JIM RYAN ED NASH, 600 STRAND JERRY COMPTON - CONCERNED ABOUT ENCROACHMENT PERMITS THAT P.W. DEPT. IS GOING TO HAVE TO PREPARE. SUGGESTS VACATING THE PROPERTY. CHRIS WIENBERGER - IN FAVOR OF PUTTING ON RESTRICTIONS. SUSAN MACFARLANE, 25 8TH ST. TAKE RECOMMENDATION OF P.C. AS IT STANDS NOW. DARRELL GREENWALD, 32 10TH ST. TAKE CARE OF ISOLATED PROBLEMS AND LEAVE REST OF PEOPLE ALONE. JOHN MACFARLANE, 8TH ST. - IN FAVOR OF CONTROLS. CHUCK SHELDON 1800 STRAND. OPPOSED. GLORIA WALKER, 2040 STRAND - REFERRED TO A PETITION WITH 1,200 SIGNATURES. (TURNED TURN IT IN) HOWARD LONGACRE - SPOKE IN FAVOR OF REGULATIONS. MOTION SE/RE TO PLACE FIRST ON AGENDA WHEN IT COMES BACK. SE PROPOSES A SUBCOMMITTEE OF AW/SE FROM C.C. PERHAPS TOM ALLEN ON SUBCOMMITTEE OF STRAND RESIDENTS, SUSPEND HEARING AS PROPOSED AND CONTINUE TO SECOND MEETING (10/27) IN OCTOBER. HAVE THREE STRAND RESIDENTS. OK 4-1 (RE -NO). MUNICIPAL MATTERS 9. DISCUSSION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS MEMBERSHIP IN THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (P.E.R.S.). Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated September 1, 1992. CONTINUED TO 9/22 MTG. 10. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN EXCEPTION FOR REFUSE ENCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS. Memorandum from Building and Safety Di- rector William Grove dated August 3, 1992. (Continued from August 11, 1992 meeting.) CONTINUED TO 9/22 MTG. 11. FUNDING OPTIONS FOR ENHANCED LEFT HAND TURN FROM PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY INTO PARK PACIFIC SHOPPING CENTER. Memo- randum from City Manager Frederick R. Ferrin dated Sep- tember 3, 1992. CONTINUED TO 9/22 MTG. 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER 13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL 14. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to discuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Coun- cil action tonight. Request by Councilmember Benz for discussion of City parking lot located at Pacific Coast Highway between Second and Third Streets. CONTINUED TO 9/22 MTG. (b) Request by Mayor Essertier for consideration of setting a date for a special budget session. MAYOR SET SEPT. 23 AT 7:30 P.M. FOR SPECIAL BUDGET WORKSHOP. 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 AT 1:40 A.M. IN MEMORY OF WILLIAM STIDHAM. 8 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, August 25, 1992, at the hour of 7:41 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Albert Wiemans, Mayor Pro Tempore ROLL CALL Present: Benz, Edgerton, Midstokke, Wiemans, Mayor Essertier Absent: None PLAQUE OF APPRECIATION - Ted Dalton, for service on the Civil Service Board, 1981-92. Mayor Essertier presented the plaque of appreciation and commend- ed Ted Dalton for his service on the Civil Service Board for the past eleven years and stated that during that time the Board had not only performed its regular functions, but had developed pro- cedures by which the City and employees meet and confer over wages and conditions of employment. Mr. Dalton thanked the City and his fellow commissioners for their support and stated that the Board is an independent body to serve the citizens of Hermosa Beach. ACKNOWLEDGMENT - Mayor Essertier directed the audience's atten- tion to the Perpetual Trophy donated by Anchor Glass Container Co. of Tampa for the Hermosa Beach Two -Man Volleyball Tournament to be held August 28, 29 & 30, which was on display in the coun- cil Chamber below the dais. Community Resources Director Mary Rooney thanked Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commis- sioner Dick McCurdy for his efforts in securing the trophy. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Coming forward to address the Council at this time were: Mary Perry - 939-941 Third Street, spoke on a continuing problem with a neighbor's harassment and asked for Police protection of her property; Dallas Yost - 65 Pier Avenue, complimented the of- ficers on the Police Downtown Foot Patrol and asked that the patrol be retained year-round; Garrison Frost - 58 Pier Avenue, owner of Coast Drugs, spoke in favor of continuing the Police Downtown Foot Patrol; Janet McHugh - (no address given), asked that the 18 foot high wall between her property and the proposed King Harbor Hotel on Pacific Coast Highway be retained, rather than lowered to the proposed 12 foot height; Gary Wayland - 1097 Aviation Blvd., requested to speak on items 4(c) and no. 7; and, Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., spoke on the Fiesta de las Artes; suggested the City ask for a larger percentage from the Chamber of Com- merce or take over and run the annual fiestas. City Council Minutes 08-25-92 Page 7908 8 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve the Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (i), with the exception of the following item which was removed for discussion in. item 3 but is listed in order for clarity: (i) Edgerton. Motion Edgerton, second Benz. So ordered. No one came forward to address the Council on items not removed from the consent calendar. (a) Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on August 11, 1992. Action: To approve the minutes of August 11, 1992 as presented. (b) Recommendation to ratify Demands and Warrants Nos. 41538 and 41608 through 41776 inclusive, noting voided warrants Nos. 41610, 41611, 41639, 41640, 41686, 41687, 41688, 41689, 41691, 41692, and 41723. Action: To ratify the demands and warrants as presented. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. This item was removed from the agenda of this meeting by City Manager Ferrin for staff revisions in order to have certain items clarified and updated. (d) (e) (f) Recommendation to receive and file the July, 1992 finan- cial reports: 1) Revenue and expenditure report; 2) City Treasurer's report. Action: To receive and file the July, 1992 financial reports. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #20342 for a 3 -unit Condo located at 226 Manhattan Ave. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated August 17, 1992. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 92-5572, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #20342 FOR A THREE -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 226 MANHATTAN AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA." Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map $22666 for a 2 -unit condo located at 36 - 15th St. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated August 17, 1992. City Council Minutes 08-25-92 Page 7909 • (g) (h) (i) Action: To adopt Resolution No. 92-5573, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #22666 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 36 15TH STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA." Recommendation to deny claims and refer to City Claims Administrator. Memorandum from Risk Manager Robert A. Blackwood dated August 11, 1992. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to deny the claim of Don and Carmel Larsen and the claim of David Krause, and refer both to the City's Liability Claims Administrator. Recommendation to adopt resolution establishing red curb along a portion of Massey Street, north of Prospect Avenue. Memorandum from Interim Public Works Director William Grove dated August 12, 1992. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 92-5574, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING RED CURB ON MASSEY STREET IN THE VICINITY OF PROSPECT AVENUE.", in order to decrease the potential for accidents due to inadequate sight distance for vehicles entering Prospect Avenue from Massey Street. Recommendation to authorize sale of forfeited property pursuant to Section 11473.3 of the Health and Safety Code. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wis- niewski dated August 18, 1992. This item was removed from the consent calendar by Coun- cilmember Edgerton for separate discussion later in the meeting. Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski responded to Council questions. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to au- thorize the sale, through Nationwide Commercial Auction Company, of a 1977 Chevrolet Pickup, VIN #CKR147S127448, as it is unsatisfactory to be utilized by the narcotics unit due to its condition, height, and oversized tires. Motion Midstokke, second Mayor Essertier. The motion carried, noting the dissenting vote of Edgerton. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES - None 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Item 1(i) was heard at this time but is shown in order for clarity. City Council Minutes 08-25-92 Page 7910 * Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar are shown under the appropriate items. (The order of the agenda was suspended at 8:10 P.M. to move to the public hearing, item no. 5.) 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (a) MEMORANDUM FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL'S RECONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMIS- SION'S APPROVAL OF A HOTEL AT 125 P.C.H. Action: To receive and file. At the request of Coun- cilmembers Edgerton and Benz, Councilmember Midstokke read the letter aloud in its entirety. Motion Midstokke, second Wiemans. The motion carried unanimously. (b) MEMORANDUM FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING ILLEGAL OVER -THE -SIDEWALK PARKING. Action: To direct staff to include this letter with the background information when the matter comes before the Council. Motion Midstokke, second Mayor Essertier. So ordered. (c) LETTER FROM THE HERMOSA BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REQUESTING THAT THE AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17-5 BE POSTPONED AND THAT THE CITY MANAGER BE INSTRUCT- ED TO IMPLEMENT A TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP PROCEDURES TO COORDINATE AND SIMPLIFY THE BUSINESS LICENSE PROCESS. Coming forward to address the Council on this item was: Gary Wayland - 1097 Aviation Blvd., (comments shown under item 7.) Proposed Action: To combine this item with item no. 7 and hear it with no. 7 in the order of the agenda. Motion Mayor Essertier, second Midstokke. The motion failed due to the dissenting votes of Benz, Edgerton and Wiemans. Action: To combine this item withitem no. 7, suspend the order of the agenda, and hear no. 7 now. Motion Benz, second Edgerton. So ordered. (The subsequent action on this item is shown for clarity under item no. 7.) PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. TEI1' AMENDMENT TO LOWER THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IN R-3 AND R -P ZONES, with ordinance for introduction. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated August 18, 1992. City Council Minutes 08-25-92 Page 7911 Planning Director Schubach presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. The public hearing opened at 8:14 P.M. Coming forward to address the Council were: Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., stated there was no way anyone in R-3 could meet all four criteria; questioned why this was being con- sidered since no one spoke in favor of lowering the height limit; questioned why the Building and Safety Department was not combined with the Planning Department since there were so few permits issued now; Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, stated the City did not have a view Ordinance; questioned roof heights and styles; questioned noticing of af- fected properties; stated she considered con- dominiums as lot splits which allowed more density; John McHugh - 718 First Place, asked that this specific Ordinance be put to a vote of the people; Jack Andren - 521 Gentry Street, spoke on the need for larger homes and the loss of property values; stated the Ordinance would stifle new construction; questioned the latitude for per- sonal interpretation by the Planning Commission (giving it the status of design review); stated that if the Ordinance were enacted, to have the effective date in five years in order to avoid lawsuits; Jan McHugh - 718 First Place, stated the Ordinance would create inverse condemnation; and, Jerry Compton - 1200 Artesia Blvd., #300, ques- tioned the lack of noticing to affected proper- ty owners; spoke on the subjective nature of the conditions listed on page one. The public hearing was closed at 8:32 P.M. Councilmember Wiemans read the following statement and requested it be included in the record: "This evening this Council will decide whether or not a five foot height reduction will be im- posed in only the R-3 zone of this City. The majority of my learned colleagues say that they are leaving things as they are and are not taking anything away. That is bunk. Anyone saying that this is not down -zoning, needs psychiatric care. The majority of this Council points to existing structures and say that they want to leave things 'as -is.' By doing so, they are taking away some or all of the property owners' rights to build what is not zalready standing on the property at this time. Does the majority think that property rights deserving protection are only those physically embodied in some structure visible to the naked eye? Down -zoning involves reducing or taking away rights which owners now enjoy or could enjoy, and by its nature, as to City Council Minutes 08-25-92 Page 7912 all owners who had not maxxed-out their property, those rights are incapable of being perceived. Yes, property rights are more zealously guarded by the law. If local government wants to re- duce property rights, it must individually notice each owner, so that the latter by objecting, can protect his property interest. Here, R-3 owners received no notice. TV broadcast of the Plan- ning Commission is tape -delayed. Yet, this Council's majority is not bothered. Just because this Council is vested with con- siderable discretion, can this Council be allowed to wreak finan- cial havoc on the rights of R-3 property owners? Is Hermosa's strained budget fat enough to pursue litigation? What if the minority believes such litigation to be a waste of time? When will individual Councilmembers learn to act as fiduciaries in the interest of the City? Any taking of property without due process of law deserves to be condemned. Doing so under color of au- thority, is reprehensible. As a member of this Council, I make this opening statement, perceiving it to be my duty to announce precisely what is happening here. To be sure, the majority of this Council wants to establish a brand new view protection or- dinance. It is clear to see why R-3 property owners are singled out. They constitute a clear and present danger to the ocean views, which those who already have one, want tocontinue to pre- serve in perpetuity. The people paying for this view protection ordinance are those who have not as yet maxxed-out their proper- ty. Why does justice at the hands of this Council's majority appear more closely akin to highway robbery? To each of you who mustered enough courage to confront this Council which appears hell-bent on reducing your property rights, I applaud your ef- forts. Notwithstanding your objections, I can be candid enough to speculate that this down -zoning will pass with a -3 to 2 majority. Citizens are better advised to seek relief by way of public referendum. This vote of the people stops this Council's constant finagling with property rights. Tell them who is boss." Proposed Action: To deny the proposed Ordinance. Motion Wiemans. The motion died due to the lack of a second. Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 92-1074.. Motion Edgerton, second Benz. The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of Midstokke and Wiemans. Final Action: To waive further reading of Ordinance No. 92-1074, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT IN REGARDS TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IN THE R-3 AND R -P ZONES, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION." Motion Edgerton, second Mayor Essertier. AYES: NOES: Benz, Edgerton, Mayor Essertier Midstokke, Wiemans City Clerk Doerfling read Ordinance No. 92-1074 in its entirety. City Council Minutes 08-25-92 Page 7913 The meeting recessed at 9:05 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:17 P.M. and resumed the order of the agenda at item no. 4. HEARINGS 6. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PROGRAM, CIP 90-151 AWARD OF PROFES- SIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT. Memorandum from Ed Ruzak City Traffic Engineer dated August 6, 1992. Deputy City Engineer Lynn Terry presented the staff re- port and responded to Council questions. City Manager Ferrin responded to Council questions, stating that the Strand study would be done last, the approximate date would be early May or June of 1993. The hearing opened at 10:08 P.M. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, concerned that Prospect Avenue had been left out of the survey (was told that it was included); Michael Schwartz - 632 Eighth Street, stated that he had been in discussion with the traffic -en- gineer and questioned why he and other home- owners had not been notified that this item was on the agenda; spoke in favor of approving the agreement as there was a problem on Eighth Street due to noise, fumes and speeding; Dane Harrison - 627 Eighth Street, spoke in support of the study; concerned with the dangerous traffic on the residential street; Eric Orton - 638 Eighth Street, cited the danger of pulling onto the street from his driveway due to speeding traffic; and, Jerry Compton - 1200 Artesia Blvd., Suite #300, asked that the study also include the problems with the drainage grate at the bottom of Eighth Street. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) authorize the Mayor to sign the attached _Profes- sional Services Agreement, as amended by the City Attorney on page 5, Article XII - Termination, to read, "This contract may be terminated at any time for breach 'or either party' may terminate unilaterally and without cause upon thirty (30) days written notice to the 'other party'." The amount of the contact shall not exceed $40,000 (the grant amount from the Office of Traffic Safety) to be paid to Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. to conduct a High Accident Identification and Surveillance Study and a Neighborhood Intrusion Study; and, 2) authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary within budget limitations. • City Council Minutes 08-25-92 Page 7914 Motion Mayor Essertier, second Benz. The motion carried unanimously. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 7. AMENDMENT OF HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17-5 CLARIFYING THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS OF OBTAINING A BUSINESS LICENSE, with ordinance for introduction. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated July 30, 1992. (Continued from August 11, 1992 meeting.) This item was heard in combination with item 4(c) but is shown in order for clarity. Business License Inspector Mary Fehskens presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. City Manager Ferrin responded to Council questions. City Attorney Vose responded to Council questions. Coming forward to address the Council on this item was: Gary Wayland - 1097 Aviation Blvd., thanked staff for their work on this item; stated that the business owners were not overly concerned with the possible loss of a month or so on business license; requested the vote on this Ordinance be postponed in order to appoint a task force of staff members and members from the business community to streamline the process as a whole and not to apply a band-aid. Proposed Action: To approve the staff recommendation to introduce the proposed Ordinance related to the issuance of business licenses. Motion Mayor Essertier, second Midstokke. The motion failed due to the dissenting votes of Benz, Edgerton, Midstokke and Wiemans. Action: To direct that City staff members be'appointed within seven days to meet with members of the Business Advocacy of the Chamber of Commerce to form a task force to streamline the entire procedure and come back to Council within 60 days, in the interim the staff is to follow the current policy. Motion Edgerton, second Midstokke. The motion carried, noting the dissenting vote of Wiemans. (At 10:00 P.M. the order of the agenda was returned to item 6.) 8. ADDITION OF A SUPERVISORY POSITION TO THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT. Memorandum from City Manager Frederick R. Ferrin dated August 4, 1992. (Continued from August 11, 1992 meeting.) City Council Minutes 08-25-92 Page 7915 City Manager Ferrin presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. Finance Director Viki Copeland responded to Council questions. Personnel Di- rector Robert Blackwood responded to Council questions. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., requested the City not hire at the top as two clerks were preferable to one supervisor; and, Mike Flaherty - Chief Union Steward, Teamster Local 911, presented the possible scenarios if expe- rienced finance personnel were fired to hire a new supervisor; stated that the Union did not object to the ultimate goal, but in this reces- sion, the timing was very bad. Proposed Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) amend the personnel allocation for the Finance Department by deleting the Accountant position and adding an Accounting Supervisor position; 2) approve the attached class specification for Ac- counting Supervisor; 3) authorize the City Manager to execute a supplemen- tal to the Administrative Employees Bargaining Unit establishing the salary range for the Accounting Supervisor position as $2963 - $3601; and, 4) appropriate $3420 to the Finance Department for the Accounting Supervisor salary from Prospective Expenditures. With the change that a B.S. or B.A. degree is required and an M.B.A. is preferred. Motion Edgerton. The motion died due to the lack of a second. Action: To receive and file. Motion Mayor Essertier, second Midstokke. The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of Edgerton and Wiemans. 9. MEMORANDUM FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING. LIVE BROADCAST OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS. Action: To approve the Planning Commission and Planning staff recommendation to continue Planning Commission meetings on Tuesday nights and demand that Multivision Cable TV split the channel immediately. Motion Mayor Essertier, second Midstokke. The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of Edgerton and Wiemans. 10 MISbELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER City Manager Ferrin reported: 1) Redondo Beach has asked to use 20 yards of sand City Council Minutes 08-25-92 Page 7916 (four truck loads) from Hermosa's beach for a vol- leyball court at the Seaside Lagoon; and, 2) the appraisal of the Biltmore site was under way at an approximate cost of $4,000 for one appraisal of the site under the old zoning of less than 4,000 square foot residential lots. At Council direc- tion, a second appraisal would be made of the site with 4,000 square foot residential lots. 11. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Vacancies - Boards and Commissions Expiration of terms - Board of Parking Place Commissioners Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling, dated Au- gust 5, 1992. Supplemental memorandum from Elaine Doer - fling, dated August 20, 1992. (Continued from August 11, 1992.) Action: To consider applications submitted after the deadline. Motion Benz, second Mayor Essertier. The motion car- ried, noting the dissenting votes of Midstokke and Wiemans. Proposed Action: To appoint Robert Evans to a three- year term on the Board of Parking Place Commissioners. Motion Mayor Essertier, second Benz. The motion failed due to the dissenting votes of Edgerton, Midstokke and Wiemans. Action: To appoint Patricia Spiritus to a three-year term on the Board of Parking Place Commissioners. Motion Mayor Essertier, second Benz. The motion car- ried, noting the dissenting vote of Wiemans. Final Action: To re -appoint Helene Frost to a three- year term on the Board of Parking Place Commissioners. Motion Mayor Essertier, second Wiemans. The motion car- ried unanimously. 12. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Request by Councilmember Midstokke for discussion of letter from the Superintendent of the Hermosa Beach City School District dated July 9, 1992 re. their desire to sell a portion of school property currently leased to the City as part of Valley Park, with response from City Manager Frederick Ferrin dated July 23, 1992. (Con- tinhed from August 11, 1992 meeting.) Councilmember Midstokke discussed her request. City Council Minutes 08-25-92 Page 7917 Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, stated that school land goes with the School Board and the City should change the open space designation to park land for protection against possible development; Betty Martin - 257 -27th Street, questioned if the land in discussion was the sand hill and the flat land; and, Jerry Compton - 1200 Artesia Blvd., Suite 300, stated the City could sell the Biltmore site and purchase the property and in the interim requested that the land be rezoned as park land. (b) Action: To refer this item to the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission for its review and recommendation to the Council, with the direction to staff to verify whether the School portion of Valley Park was included as open space by a vote of the people. Motion Midstokke, second Mayor Essertier. The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of Edgerton and Benz. Request by Councilmember Edgerton to reduce amount of parking infractions for various violations. (Continued from August 11, 1992 meeting.) Councilmember Edgerton discussed his request. Proposed Action: To send the item to staff to review lowering the amount of the fine for parking violations. Motion Edgerton, second Benz. The motion died due to the dissenting votes of Midstokke, 'Wiemans and Mayor Essertier. There was no further action taken. (c) Request by Councilmember Edgerton to continue Police Foot Patrol in downtown area and the Strand. Councilmember Edgerton discussed his request. Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski responded to Council questions and stated that a cost/benefit study would be coming before the Council in October. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, stated that the City could use offshore oil revenue for the Beach Patrol if it were kept in the budget; and, Mary Magee - (no address given), objected to fumes of Police vehicles on the Strand; questioned why the Police could not use mountain bikes as other cities have done. City Council Minutes 08-25-92 Page 7918 Action: Mayor Essertier directed, with the consensus of the Council, that this item be continued and combined with the cost/benefit study coming before the Council in October. (d) Request by Councilmember Benz to consider removal of red painted buffer zones on curbs between parking spaces. Councilmember Benz discussed his request. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., stated that there was a need to remove the white lines on the streets, designating the parking stalls, if the red zones were removed or changed; and, Joseph Di Monda - 610 Ninth Street, agreed that this issue should be included and combined with other parking issues currently under study by the Planning Commission. Action: To direct staff to review this item and to re- turn a recommendation to Council that includes parking alternatives and the criteria used to determine the length of parking spaces and red curb areas for parallel street parking. Motion Midstokke, second Benz. The motion carried unanimously. (e) Request by Councilmember Benz to consider instituting a cap on the amount of UUT on Hermosa Beach businesses. Councilmember Benz discussed his request. City Manager Ferrin responded to Council questions. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., stated the former cap on the U.U.T. was $1,000 annually; and Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, spoke on the previous Utility User Tax (U.U.T.) cap. Proposed Action: To send the item to staff to study and report back on instituting a cap on the U.U.T. for businesses. Motion Benz, second Edgerton. The motion failed due to the dissenting votes of Midstokke, Wiemans and Mayor Essertier. There was no further action taken on this item. CITIZEN COMMENTS Coming forward to address the Council at this time were: Jerry Compton - 1200 Artesia Blvd., #300, stated there had been a vote of the people to sell the • City Council Minutes 08-25-92 Page 7919 Biltmore site and questioned the delay by the City; spoke on the role of citizen activists and questioned the propriety of Councilmember's negative comments to those speaking before the Council; Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., concurred with the previous speaker and expressed concern regarding Councilmember Edgerton's comments; Parker Herriott - 224 Twenty-fourth Street, spoke on the amount of reserves in the City budget and stated that the City was not bankrupt or broke as long as it had $1,500,000 in reserve; and, Mary Magee - (no address given), objected to Councilmember Edgerton's comments. ADJOURNMENT - The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Wednesday, August 26, 1992, at the hour of 12:12 A.M. to a Regular Meeting to be held Tuesday, September 08, 1992, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. aLimiuu Deputy City Clerk City Council Minutes 08-25-92 Page 7920 TO: FROM: DATE: MEMORANDUM Mayor and Members of City Council City Clerk Elaine Doerfling September 8, 1992 SUBJECT: Response to questions raised by Councilmember Midstokke with regard to 8/25/92 Council minutes (Agenda Item la) Item #5, Page 7912 I concur with Councilmember Midstokke's concern regarding the inclusion in the minutes of lengthy, verbatim, for -the -record statements made by Councilmembers. Past procedure has been to include such statements in the minutes when requested by the Councilmember at the time the statement is made. While previous verbatim statements have been shorter in text, I was unaware of any policy or standard limiting the text of a statement, and it did not seem to be appropriate to change past practice in the preparation of these minutes without Council direction. The following section of the City's Municipal Code has since come to my attention. Section 2-2.12 states "A councilman may request through the presiding officer the privilege of having an abstract of his statement on any subject under consideration by the council entered in the minutes. If the council consents thereto, such statement shall be entered in the minutes." Item #6, Page 7914 The tape reflects that it was explicitly stated by the City Manager that the Strand study would be done last, in May or June of 1993, and that statement is included in the minutes (first paragraph of the item). However, it was not part of the motion. The following is verbatim from the tape: Essertier - Any objections to the motion for staff recommendation (with the contract modification suggested by the City Attorney)? Midstokke Edgerton - Did we need to put in the motion regarding the Strand being carried over? - No, I think we excluded it --that was mentioned. Item #11, Page 7917 With regard to the appointment of Patricia Spiritus, the tape reflects a "no" vote by Wiemans, and "yes" votes by Benz, Edgerton and Mayor Essertier. The tape does not reflect any statement of explanation and did not pick up a voice vote by Midstokke, nor was one heard by the Clerk during the meeting. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 'FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 09:50:06 PAY •'`VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION ' PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/JULY 1992 PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT RETIREMENT/JULY 92 .1 ' '.PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT RETIREMENT ADV/JULY 92 • ,PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/JULY 1992 PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/JULY 1992 • SYS. . SYS. PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/JULY 1992 ,PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/JULY 1992 PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/JULY 1992 'PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/JULY 1992 PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/JULY 1992 PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. RETIREMENT/JULY 1992 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/27/92 VND N ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN N AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ k ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00026 001-222-0000-2222 08/24/92 PAGE 0001 DATE 08/27/92 INV/REF PO M CHK N AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 00016 $67,588.13CR /DEFERRED PERS CREDIT 00026. 001-400-1213-4180 00608 $97,926.76 08/24/92 RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT 00026 001-400-1213-4180 •00609 '$39,474.59CR -08/24/92 RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT 00026 105-400-2601-4180 00182 $1,188.38 08/24/92 STREET LIGHTING /RETIREMENT 00026 109-400-3301-4180 00052 $173.36 08/24/92 VEH PKG DIST /RETIREMENT 00026 110-400-3302-4180 00186 $4,857.23 08/24/92 PARKING ENF /RETIREMENT 00026 155-400-2102-4180 00157 $128.91 08/24/92 CROSSING GUARD /RETIREMENT 00026 160-400-3102-4180 00183 $1,021.48 08/24/92 SEWER/ST DRAIN /RETIREMENT 00026 170-400-2103-4180 00057 $5,774.13 08/24/92 SPEC INVESTGTNS /RETIREMENT 00026 705-400-1209-4180 00108 $276.39 08/24/92 LIABILITY INS /RETIREMENT 00026 705-400-1217-4180 00108 $384.60 08/24/92 WORKERS COMP /RETIREMENT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** *** PAY CODE TOTAL • ADAMSON INDUSTRIES MISC. CHARGES/AUG 92 00138 001-400-2101-4309 6691 • 08/05/92 POLICE $4,668.52 ' $4,668.52 00548 $65.00 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS VENDOR'TOTAL******************************************************************** FAMERICAN STYLE FOODS PRISONER MEALS/AUG 92 7052 • 08/18/92 POLICE $6.5.00 00857 001-400-2101-4306 01229 $101.70 41777 $0.00 08/26/92 41777 $0.00 08/26/92 41777 $0.00 08/26/92 41777 $0.00 08/26/92 41777 $0.00 08/26/92 41777 $0.00 08/26/92 41777 $0.00 08/26/92 41777 $0.00 08/26/92 41777 $0.00 08(26/92 41777 $0.00 08/26/92 41777 $0.00 08/26/92 6691 00083 41780 $0.00 08/26/92 7052 00085 . 41781 /PRISONER MAINTENANCE $0.00 08/26/92 1b 1 FINANCE—SFA340 ; TIME 09:50:06 ' PAY VENDOR NAME 1 DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/27/92 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION BANK -OF AMERICA pBANK CHARGES/JULY 92 • i* ***VE DO • **$ ;DANK.OF AMERICA,. `NT & SA SAFEKEEPING CHCS/JULY 92 05005 01195 07/31/92 M 001-400-1141-4201 00124 CITY TREASURER PAGE 0002 DATE 08/27/92 INV/REF PO * CMP * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $101.70 $2,386.70 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT * $2,386.70 04677. 001-400-1141-4201 00125 $21.70 005005 08/13/92 CITY TREASURER /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT VENDOR TOTAL'*************************************'ir*********+r*'r****************'n* +GARY*BRUTSCH. - PETTY CASH/8-1 GARY*BRUTSCH, PETTY CASH/8-1 i GARY*BRUTSCH, PETTY CASH/8-1 • GARY*BRUTSCH, PETTY CASH/8-1 GARY*BRUTSCH, PETTY CASH/8-1 GARY*BRUTSCH,' PETTY CASH/8-1 GARY*BRUTSCH, PETTY CASH/8-1 GARY*BRUTSCH, PETTY CASH/8-1 :GARY*BRUTSCH, ' PETTY CASH/8-1 CITY TREASURER TO 8-20 CITY TREASURER- -. TO 8-20 CITY TREASURER TO 8-20 CITY TREASURER TO 8-20 CITY TREASURER TO 8-20 CITY TREASURER TO 8-20 CITY TREASURER TO 8-20 CITY TREASURER TO 8-20 CITY TREASURER TO 8-20 02016 001-400-1121-4305 00212 08/20/92 CITY CLERK 02016 001-400-2201-4309 01353 08/20/92 FIRE 02016 001-400-2401-4311 00275 08/20/92 ANIMAL CONTROL 02016 001-400-3103-4309 01415 08/20/92 ST MAINTENANCE 02016 001-400-4101-4305 00646 08/20/92 PLANNING 02016 001-400-4102-4305 00163 08/20/92 PLANNING COMM 02016 001-400-4601-4305 01081 08/20/92 COMM RESOURCES 02016 001-400-4601-4308 06742 08/20/92 COMM RESOURCES 02016 115-400-8152-4201 00003 ',08/20/92 CIP 152 $21.70 $40.04 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $20.00 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $4.25 /AUTO MAINTENANCE $35.34 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $3.13 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $22.92 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $15.48 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES .$60.31 %PROGRAM MATERIALS $1.60 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT :*** VENDOR TOTAL.******************************************************************** $203.07 •:'BUSINESS SYSTEMS SUPPLY 'REPAIR FINANCE CHAIR 87971 00034 001-400-1202-4305 00444 $34.64 - FINANCE ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 08/14/92 03869 41782 $0.00 08/26/92 03870 41783 $0.00 08/26/92 03871 41784 $0.00 08/26/92 03871 41784 $0.00 08/26/92 03871 41784 $0.00 08/26/92 03871 41784 $0.00 08/26/92 41784 $0.00 08/26/92 03871 03871 41784 $0.00 08/26/92 03871 41784 $0.00 08/26/92 • 03871 41784 $0.00 08/26/92 03871 41784 $0.00 08/26/92 187971 04735 . 41785 $34.64 08/26/92 0 • fib i • • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 09:50:06 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/27/92 < PAY VENDOR NAME VND M ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN N 1 AMOUNT DESCRIPTION • DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** • CENTINELA S0. BAY VISA PUB WKS DIR ORAL BOARD 0 CENTINELA SO. BAY VISA MEALS/ZERTUCHE WITNESSES *** VENDOR TOTAL PAGE 0003 DATE 08/27/92 INV/REF PO * CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $34.64 03353 001-400-1203-4201 00948 486.10 08/13/92 PERSONNEL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT COAST SIGNS & GRAPHICS STREET SIGN OVERLAYS 10043 03353 705-400-1209-4201 00295 446.61 08/13/92 LIABILITY INS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $132.71 00352 07/16/92 001-400-3104-4309 00946 43.286.47 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** COLLEGE OF THE SEGUOIAS TUITION/N. COOK *3,286.47 04829 001-400-2101-4312 01988 4950.00 /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST 08/11/92 POLICE ***'VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** dP :CONNECTING POINT LEASING 03617 001-400-2101-4201 01101 COMPUTER RENTAL/AUG 92 10473 08/07/92 POLICE $950.00 $583.00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PR. :: CONNECTING POINT LEASING 03617 001-400-2201-4201 00324 $189.81 COMPUTER RENTAL/AUG 92 10473 08/07/92 FIRE • /CONTRACT SERVICE/PR CONNECTING POINT LEASING 03617 001-400-2701-4201 00055 4393.19 COMPUTER RENTAL/AUG 92 10473 08/07/92 CIVIL DEFENSE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PR CONNECTING POINT LEASING 03617 170-400-2103-4201 00124 $189.81 COMPUTER RENTAL/AUG 92 10473 08/07/92 SPEC INVESTGTNS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PR .*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** OFCR NANCY*COOK MEALS/HOTEL/POST CLASS 41, 355. 81 02173 001-400-2101-4312 01989 4244.25 08/11/92 POLICE • IVAT IVAT IVAT IVAT /TRAVEL EXPENSE POST , *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** , $244.25 04680 41786 $0.00 08/27/92 04680 41786 $0.00 08/27/92 10043 05209 41787 33, 286. 47 08/26/92 04575 41788 $0.00 08/26/92 3610473 00051 41789 $0.00 08/26/92 3610473 00051 41789 $0.00 08/26/92 3610473 00051 41789 $0.00 08/26/92 3610473 00051 41789 $0.00 08/26/92 04574 41790 $0.00 08/26/92 DALE & BARNEY'S TELEVISION 02362 001-400-1101-4305 00444 $200.51' K06088S-& 03909 41791 TAPE DECK REPAIR/COUNCIL 88S-& 08/11/92 CITY COUNCIL /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 30.00 08/26/92 I' • • • • VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACHW' DEMAND LIST FOR 08/27/92 VND M ACCOUNT 'NUMBER TRN M AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ M ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 'DATA SAFE' TAPE STOR/8-12 TO 9-11 4 ***`VENDOR TOTAL PAGE 0004 DATE 08/27/92 -INV/REF PO N CMK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $200. 51 00156• 001-400-1206-4201 01028 $171.00 63758 00015 41792 63758 08/12/92 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 08/26/92 ..EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY COPIER MAINT/JULY 1992 *** VENDOR TOTAL • 75197 $171.00 02840' 001-400-1208-4201 00912, $298.00 ' 006M75197 00725 41793 08/02/92 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 08/26/92 : 'ECONOLITE CORPORATION .3 FLASHERS/"WALK" SIGNAL 70698 - 01093 115-400-8150-5499 00001 07/27/92 CIP 89-150 $298. 00 $1,045.70 70698 04887 /NON -CAPITALIZED ASSETS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** • L'Fi MORTON PITT'. HELMETS/PARKING ENF ***VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** $1,045.70 00210 110-400-3302-4187 00363 $409.19 07/08/92 PARKING ENF /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE FIREFIGHTERS' SAFETY CENTER BOOTS/RIOT DAMAGE 25833 ***'VENDOR•TOTAL.******************************************************************** 04737 ' 001-400-2201-4187 08/06/92 FIRE $409. 19 00329 $198.30 /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE • r FRANSCELLSTRICKLAND,` `ROBERTS - LEGAL FEES/LIAB CLAIMS' 29/30 FRANSCELL,' STRICKLAND, ROBERTS- EXPENSES/LIAB CLAIMS 29/30 ***;VENDOR TOTAL, 04757 705-400-1209-4201 00296 08/19/92 LIABILITY INS 04757 705-400-1209-4324 00313 08/19/92 LIABILITY INS $198. 30 41794 $0.00 08/26/92' 20222 03391 41795 $0. 00 08/26/92 25833 03456 41796 $198.22 08/26/92 ' $11,877.00 00028/29/30 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PR.IVAT 04682 ' $0. 00 41797 08/26/92 $3,850.09 ; 00028/29/30 04682 41797 /CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS 'GTE CALIFORNIA,` INCORPORATED TELEPHONE CHCS/AUG 92 $15, 727. 09• 00015 001-400-1206-4304 00537 $49.10 08/25/92 DATA PROCESSING /TELEPHONE $0.00 08/26/92 00830 41798 $0.00 08/26/92 v O r • • • F I NANCE-SFA340 ' TIME 09:50:06 PAY VENDOR NAME / DESCRIPTION R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELEPHONE CHGS/AUG 92 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/27/92 PAGE 0005 DATE 08/27/92 VND M ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN M AMOUNT INV/REF PO M CHK M DATE INVC PROJ M ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00015 001-400-2101-4304 01094 *163.86 08/25/92 POLICE /TELEPHONE GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED ' 00015 001-400-2201`-4304 00474 $17.40 TELEPHONE CHCS/AVG 92 08/25/92 . FIRE /TELEPHONE 'GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4202-4304 00666 ' *53.51 TELEPHONE CHCS/AUG 92 08/25/92 PUB WKS ADMIN /TELEPHONE VENDOR TOTAL*e******ee******************************************************+r*** HERMOSA BCH CITY SCHOOL DIST. :FIELD MAINT/SEP 92 NO. -8 *283. 87 AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 00830 41798 $0.00 08/26/92 00830 41798 $0.00 08/26/92 00830 41798 $0.00 08/26/92 02066 001-400-6101-4251 00018 $1,100.00 NO. -8 00074 41799 08/25/92 PARKS /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT *** VENDOR. TOTAL******************************************************************** VALERIE*MOHLER . REIMB BOOKS/FALL 92 *1 100. 00 00956 001-400-1202-4316 00419 $170.33 08/26/92 FINANCE ADMIN /TRAINING •*** 'VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $170.33 'NO-NONSENSE ATTORNEY SERVICE 04830 705-400-1209-4324 00311 $80.00 SUBPOENA FEES/FELBURG 00020 08/20/92 LIABILITY INS /CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS *** VENDOR TOTAL. OLIVER, BARR & VOSE $80. 00 02892 705-202-0000-2020 00067 $225.00 LEGAL COSTS/MC CLELLAN 00026 08/18/92 /ACCOUNTS PAYABLE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** *w* $225. 00 PORTERS ALIGNMENT & BRAKE SERV 03910 001-400-4601-4311 00142 $35.00 ALIGN COMM RES CAR 0867 08/07/92 COMM RESOURCES /AUTO MAINTENANCE VENDOR TOTAL RADIO SHACK • MISC. CHARGES/AUG 92 93593 $35.00 01429 001-400-4204-4309 02446 08/18/92 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 08/26/92 04780 41800 $0. 00 08/26/92 00020 04678 41801 $0.00 08(27/92 00026. 04677 41802 $0.00 08/26/92 0867 05348 41803 $35.00 08/26/92 093553 00858 41804 $0.00 08/26/92 'i 4 S • • S S. • • FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 09:50:06 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST • FOR 08/27/92 PAGE 0006 DATE 08/27/92 VND N ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK * DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION .0,� R ..REGENTS OF UNIV OF CALIFORNIA 02456, 001-400-21014316 00927 4325.00 TUITION/J. CARUSO OB/24/92 POLICE /TRAINING y [,***:ENDORTOTAL:•"** 4 s4,aEr ;R i REBECCA SUE*SCOTT 04831 • 001-202-0000-2020 01364 $100.00 CLARK RENTAL REFUND'''r''s:=42196 `. 08/19/92 /ACCOUNTS PAYABLE VENDOR TOTAL *8. 11 A. $325.00 * * * 4100. 00 SHORELINE PRINTING ` 03505 001-400-1202-4305 00443 492.01 BLANK P.O. FORMS .9804 08/13/92 FINANCE ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES SHORELINE PRINTING BUS CARDS/S. LAWRENCE ***VENDOR TOTAL 9808 03505 001-400-1207-4305 00277 427.06 08/10/92 BUS LICENSE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES .-'SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 4119.07 00114 001-400-4601-4308 00743 491.59 MISC. CHARGES/AUG 92 49733 08/04/92 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS VENDOR TOTAL_ I: THE*SOUND COMPANY 01398 001-400-1205-4309 00009 4135.00 REPAIR COUNCIL SOUND — YS 6601 08/07/92 CABLE TV /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS . *** VENDOR -TOTAL AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP • 05049 41805 40.00 08/26/92 42196 05361 41806 $0.00 08/26/92 - 9804 04754 41807 492.01 08/26/92 9808 04315 41807 427.06 08/26/92 149733 00862 41808 40.00 08/26/92 491.59 • • $135.00 SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00400 110-300-0000-3302 47319 4262.00 —.•CITATION COURT BAIL 08/25/92 /COURT FINES/PARKING VENDOR ',TOTAL,-******************************************************************** 4262.00 SOUTH BAY WELDERS' 00018 • 001-400-2201-4309_ 01354' 472:22' MISC. CHARGES/JULY 92.:4. 04746.: 07/30/92 FIRE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 6601 05226 41809 4100.00 08/26/92 05128 ' 41810 40.00 08/26/92 04746" 00765 • 41811 } 40.00 °08/26/92 •. FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 09:50:06 PAY " VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION • " *** VENDOR TOTAL****w***********************w**a*******+ *•w************************** CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • DEMAND LIST PAGE 0007 FOR 08/27/92 DATE 08/27/92 1 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT INV/REF PO N CHK * DATE INVC PROD * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $72.22 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. 00170 001-400-4204-4303 00599 $299.01 00867 41812 GAS BILLINGS/JUL-AUG 92 08/25/92 BLDG MAINT /UTILITIES $0.00 08/26/92 II *** VENDOR TOTAL $299.01 SPARKLETTS DRINKING WATER CORP 00146 001-400-4601-4305 01082 $35.55 1468162-61 00033 41813 WATER COOLER RENT/JUL 92 62-61 07/31/92 COMM RESOURCES /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 08/26/92 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $35.55 THOMAS*STUBBS 04228 705-400-1209-4324 00312 *2,993.00 00027 04681 41814 SETTLEMENT/T. STUBBS 00027 08/19/92 LIABILITY INS /CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS $0.00 08/26/92 *** VENDOR TOTAL****************************************•**************************** SUMITOMO BANK LEASE PAYMENT/SEP 92 ***:VENDOR TOTAL $2,993.00 04751 001-400-3104-6900 00104 $855.11 00066 41815 08/15/92 TRAFFIC SAFETY /LEASE PAYMENTS $0.00 08/26/92 ';CHARLES*SWARTZ IREIMB TUITION/FALL 92 *** VENDOR TOTAL $32.00 $855.11 04832 001-400-4201-4316 00296 $32.00 04245 41816 08/25/92 BUILDING /TRAINING $0.00 08/26/92 CITY OF*TORRANCE CITY SHARE/MAX/JUL-SEP92 06758 00841 08/17/92 145-400-3402-4251 00001 $4,737.25 COMMUTER BUS /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $4,737.25 106758 01995 41817 $0.00 08/26/92 •UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 00740 001-400-2401-4305 00228 $362.50 PERMIT -52 05126 41818 ANIMAL CONTROL /OFFICE OPER. SUPPLIES $0.00 08/26/92 DOG LICENSE POSTAGE IT -52 .08/19/92 VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** `TRACY*YATES REIMB BOOKS/FALL 92 $362. 50 04268 001-400-4202-4316 00249 $140.62 08/19/92 PUB WKS ADMIN /TRAINING 05239 41819 $0.00 08/26/92 116 W • • • • • •, • • t• FINANCE—SFA340' TIME 09:50:06 PAY 'i'.,•VENDOR NAME. 'DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 08/27/92 'VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ N ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR•TOTAL *** PAY CODE.. TOTAL'*********************•r****************•w******•r*******•w•w*+r•w•******** ::***,TOTAL WARRANTS PACE 0008 DATE 08/27/92 INV/REF PO M CHK N AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP . *140. 62 *39, 294. 07 $43, 962. 59. 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE DEMANDS OR CLAIMS COVERED BV THE WARRANTS LISTED ON PA S..7_/-- INCLUSIVE, OF TN! ! WARRANT REGISTER FOR yi/s.,i _ ARE ACCURATE, FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PAyp,IEN�F,,.AND ARE IN CONFORMANCE TO THBUDGT. BY FINArCL /IRECTOR DATE • V • • • FINANCE-SFA340 .----.T I ME • 13: 59:33 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION COLLEGE .OF -THE -.SEQUOIAS TUITION/N. COOK CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 09/03/92 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # 1 AMOUNT DATE-.INVG-------- PROJ # - - ----ACCOUNT-DESCRIPTION-- INV/REF CCOUNT DESCRIPTION----- • PAGE 0001 DATE --09/03/92 INV/REF PO # CHK * --- - AMOUNT UNENC - -- DATE EXP 04829 001-400-2101-4312--01992 ----$9.50 08/31/92 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE . POST ***._VENDOR..TOTAL--*****************•w• ****a* ******- **a******** *********a************a *4* PAY -CODE -T TAL-***.*.***#*.**.*.*r*.*******************.******************************** -$9,50 'ADVANCE.. ELEVATOR 00003 001-400-4204-4201 00537— -- ELEVATOR MAINT/SEP'92 29321 i 09/01/92 BLDG MAINT /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 09/03/92 *** VENDOR TOTAI:-*******.*************.*******************.*.**************************** 30100 $9.-50 04582 41820 $0.00 09/03/92 5 6 7 6 9 10 12 1.3 14 15 6 ADVANCED -ELECTRONICS RADIO MAINT/SEP 92 59290 ADVANCED ELECTRONICS RADIO MAINT/SEP 92 59290 00935 ---001-400-2101-4201--01105 08/25/92 POLICE 00935 -.--001-400-2201-4201-00326 08/25/92 FIRE 17 :85 2n 21 22 23 24 :5 -.7 ---- --32.307. 50--------------.59290--=-00048 ----41826--- " /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 30.00 09/03/92 29 $195. 00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR-TOTAL._******************************************************************** 32.-502.-50 131:" , "Y** igj74 y35I' 35i �. R_ •AMERICAN -EAGLE 03118 145-400-3409-4201--.00029 $470,00' 05360-----41828 .:,:r• i.. ... „ DISNELAND TRIP/COMM RES 09/01/92 REC TRANSPTN /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT ' $470.00 09/03/92 �._ 39•-'';;` *** VENDOR ..TOTAL******************************************************************** .x.10 ;470.-00 4� 41 .42 : 143. AMERICAN.-DATAMED 04808 705-400-1209-4324----00319-- -$244.37 LIAR EXPENSE/CEKALOVICH 00031 08/21/92 LIABILITY INS /CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS. VENDOR-.TOTAL--********************************************************************- $244,-37 59290-00048 41826- 30.00 09/03/92 :7°31 32 34 35 00031-04683 41827 $0.00 09/03/92 37 3" 39 .30 41 42 43 47 1A8 R AMERICAN-STYLE_.FOODS 00857- 001-400-2101-4306 —.01232 $68.70 PRISONER MEALS/AUG,92 7089 08/25/92 POLICE /PRISONER' MAINTENANCE 46 47 49 50 51 52 7089-00085- 41829 $0.00 09/03/92 54 55 r4 _***_VENDOR--TOTAL_******************************************************************** $68-70 AVIATI0N-LOCK_-KEY 00407 001-400-2101-4306-0123L— $96-35 08/31/92 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE MISC. CHARGES/AUG 92 00087 -41830 57 n .,) 61 112 63 (4 $0.00 09/03/92 d 67 7.1 J J J 0 • J J J J - i 0 • J J J 'J J • • FINANCE-SFA340 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST TIME. 13: 59: 33 FOR..09/03/92 PAY VENDOR NAME mil r' VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE-.INVC PROJ M .ACCOUNT- DESCRIPTION -.AVIATION_LOCK_.&_KEY 00407----001-400-2101-4309 --00550 MISC. CHARGES/AUG 92 08/31/92 POLICE R..`..:_, AVIATION..LOCK-& KEY MISC.'CHARGES/AUG 92 AVIAT.ION.. LOCK_.& KgY MISC. ''CHARGES/AUG 92 *** - VENDOR -TOTAL--..**** ******a.*** 00407---001-400-2401-4309---00190- 08/31/92 0407...-....---.001-400-2401-4309 -.-00190- 08/31/92 ANIMAL CONTROL 00407-----.001-400-4204-4309----- 02448- 08/31/92 BLDG MAINT • PAGE 0002 DATE -09/03/92 INV/REF PO N CHK * 3 - - --- - AMOUNT UNENC --DATE EXP. -- $16.24- XP. --- $16.24---- - __... /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS ------ 00087. -- 41830,- $0.00 1830,$0.00 09/03/92 - - $12.99 ---.__....... -- - -. 00087 -----41830 - /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 09/03/92 .$89,80 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS BANC-ONE-LEASING'-99 ' . 02154 LEASE PMT/SEP 92 66-01 08/27/92 -$215,38. 00087-----41830-- $0.00 09/03/92 5 6 6 0 11 12 13 14 15 15 7 19 13 .3.0 001-400-4205-6900--.-00118----- -$417.- 96--63 5500566-01--00030-----41831 EQUIP SERVICE /LEASE PAYMENTS $0.00 09/03/92 *** VENDOR TOTAL***.**.***************************************************************- 'BATTERY -SPECIALTIES 1 '. '' 03420 001-400-2201-4309. 01357 $197:-51 212567-03461 PORTABLE RADIO BATTERIES 12567 08/14/92 FIRE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 7; 24 *** VENDOR-TOTAL._********************************************************************- $197-54 R—KIMBERLY*BROWN 04836 001-300-0000-3893-00119 $60.00 4561405363--.--41833 11 41832- $194.85 09/03/92 :5 27 29 36 31 32 3:1 34 35 35 w SUMMER CLASS REFUND 45614 08/27/92 /CONTR RECREATION CLASSES ***_VENDOR -TOTAL-******************************************************************** R 1 BUSINESS -SYSTEMS SUPPLY PRINTER RIBBONS 00034. 07/30/92 • ;�?7} 001-400-1206-4305---00569- ----$651 32 '34 ***_VENDOR-TOTAL******************************************************AF******a******--- ---- $651,2 $60:-00 • $0.00 09/03/92 r 3'7 39 45 41 42 43 44 DATA PROCESSING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 04019 41834 $651.31 09/03/92 45 46 47 49 49 51 52 'CALIF NARCOTICS-DFCRS-ASSOC. 01798 170-400=2103-4316---00032 ----------..$175.-00 TR412-00412-41835 REG/D. MENART TR412 CALIF-NARCOTICS-DFCRS-ASSOC. .'REG/K. MICHEL TR410 :>U MSO CALIF -NARCOTICS OFCRS-ASSOC, REG/N. COOK TR40? 09/01/92 SPEC INVESTGTNS /TRAINING. 01798 170-400-2103-4316 00033- -$175.00 ' 09/01/92 SPEC INVESTGTNS /TRAINING -01798 -170-400-2103-4316-- .00034. -..- ----$175..00 09/01/92 SPEC INVESTGTNS /TRAINING 53 54 56 $0. 00 ' 09/03/92 • TR410 00410 41835- '$0.00 09/03/92 TR409--00409- -41835— $0. 00 '09/03/92. 57 56 59 5n 61 62 63 r4 07 CP /J 70 71 72 74 J 6 J r J D var • v V r FINANCE—SFA340 ---TIME 13:59:33 PAY VENDOR NAME -."- :- DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 09/03/92 VND N ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE"-INVC--------" PROJ M ---ACCOUNT--DESCRIPTION---------• PAGE 0003 DATE -09/03/92 INV/REF PO M CHK N AMOUNT UNENC "--DATE EXP CALIF NARCOTICS-OFCRS_ASSOC. .01798 170-400-2103-4316-00035—.- *175.90 TR411-00411 -41835 REG/G. GARRETT TR411 09/01/92 SPEC INVESTGTNS /TRAINING ..***-. VENDOR " TDTAL--*****•n*-n*•r***•r***•r• ****•r*•w*********************4*************** *•�*** --JEANNE*CARUSO *700.-00-- 03293-.- --001.-400-2101-4316"— 00930 -----"-*95,-24 REIMI3IIATERIALS/SUMMER92 08/31/92 POLICE /TRAINING -***.VENDOR-.TOTAL-:-*************************-r******************************************. • MELODY*CHACKER SUMMER CLASS REFUND $95,24-, *0.00 09/03/92 05060-----41836- *0.00 09/03/92 04833 001-300-0000-3893---00118---- $60.00 —42166 05365- 42166 08/27/92 /CONTR RECREATION CLASSES $0.00 ***.. VENDOR ...-TOTAL-******************************************************************** r .7 CHAMPIONCHEVROLET MISC. CHARGES/AUG 92 CHAMPIONCHEVROLET MISC. CHARGES/AUG 92 CHAMPIONCHEVROLET MISC. CHARGES/AUG 92 • ***'VENDOR--TOTAL-***.****************.****.*.******************************************** $60. 00 41837- 09/03/92 00014- 001-400-2101-4311 -01492 ---$106,58 00813 -41838 08/31/92 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE *0.00 09/03/92 ---"-" 00014----001-400-2401-431100277-----------"$32:54 00813 -------41838-""--- 08/31/92 ANIMAL CONTROL /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 09/03/92 00014- 110-400-3302-4311--- 00812 $60.54 00813 -41838- 08/31/92 PARKING ENF /AUTO MAINTENANCE. $0.00 ,04/03/92 136 41 4 CHANDLER'S_PV_READY-MIX DISCOUNT OFFERED $199-66 00009 001.-202-0000-2021, 00269 $2 00 08/31/92 DISCOUNTS OFFERED CHANDLER'S" PV. READY -MIX 00009.---001-202-0000-2022----.00265------.............._.*2. OOCR DISCOUNT TAKEN 08/31/92 /DISCOUNTS TAKEN 00814 41839 $0.00 09/03/92 00814-----41839— $0.00 09/03/92 — CHANDLER'S. PV READY -MIX 00009"-001-400-6101-4309--"01292 --- -$112.74 00814-- 41839 MISC CHARGES/AUG 92 CHANDLER'S -PV READY -MIX MISC CHARGES/AUG 92 08/31/92 PARKS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00009----415-400-8152-4309 - - 00007--"----- -.. " . $112.74 08/31/92 CIP 92-152 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS **.*__VENDOR TDTAL-**************.*****.*******;*******.***************************.******* $225 48 CHEVRON -USA. INC.. WESTNET GAS/AUG 92 .• • 2 3 J 5 6 417 to 11 • 12 1t 15 • 16 J 21 22 2t '1 :n .:o 3n . 31 J 13 34 15 3." 37 3R 4'3 41 42 .11 • 4.1 45 41 • m1 a 54 n r.! 17 1R In 44 $0.00 09/03/92 00814-----41839 $0.00 09/03/92 04 00634---470-400-2103-4310 -..--.170-400-2103-4310 - - 00069- ---.- -..--..--.-._ $544.00 1417284419-- 00815 ------41840 - 84419 08/21/92 SPEC INVESTGTNS /MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES $0.00 09/03/92 67 J r „.„. • „ „ • FINANCE-SFA340 43: 59: 33 • r' PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR -09/03/92 • PAGE 0004' DATE -09/03/92 VND ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN AMOUNT INV/REF PO M CHK DATE INVC. .PROJ ACCOUNT DESCRePTION AMOUNT.UNENC- -.DATE • 6 0 ,--LI__***NENDOR-TOTAL__.******************************************************************** 03929------001-400-4202-4316 05250- -41841.-- 7 • : REIMB TUIT/BOOKS-FALL 92 : 08/31/92 PUB WKS ADMIN /TRAINING 40.00 09/03/92 s; ,• _Lf:2L***LVENDOR___TOTAL_***************** ***** *** ***** ** --4498 56 $544.00 • -.2.THE*DAILY.-•BREEZE -''' ' ' 00642—L...001-400-1207-4305-- 00280 ' 419.50 ------SCN-549354- 04313.---.41842 BUS LICENSE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES ' i • , 419.50- 09/03/92 00642-----001-400-4201-4305 -----00794 ------------$19.•50-------SCN-549354-04313------41842 49354 ,.. 08/21/92 BUILDING /OFFICE DPER SUPPLIES 419.50 09/03/92 SUBSCRIPTION/BUS LICENSE 49354 08/21/92. ';• -THE*DAILY__BREEZE SUBSCRIPTION/BUILDING • VENDOR TOTAL_ 10 11 14 15 6 7 10 J 13 R _DAPPER -TIRE ' MISC. CHARGES/AUG 92 DAPPER -TIRE -CO. - ' MISC. CHARGES/AUG 92 01390 001,-400-2101-4311-01491.— -4217,46 00819- -41843- 25 25 27 35 31 32 08/31/92 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE ' 40..00 09/03/92 • 01390 -----110-400-3302-4311--- 00811----- ----$179.13 00819 41843-- 08/31/92 PARKING ENF /AUTO MAINTENANCE • , • R DELAV'S PRINTING „, ,' BUS LICENSE APPLICATIONS ***_VEkDOR-TOTAL_***************************************** ********* * ******* ********** •r3A , • R :'''DEPARTMENT -OF GENERAL-SERVI,CE5 00440_____-001-400-4101-4305 —00648- PUBLICATIONS/PLANNING39495 08/21/92 PLANNING /OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF -GENERAL -SERVICES - PUBLICATIONS/BUILDING 39495 . 08/21/92 BUILDING /OFFICE .08/05/92 BUS LICENSE /OFFICE 40.00 09/03/92 OPER SUPPLIES EASTMAN. .INC OFFICE SUPP/STOCK/AUG 92, $45 -47 • ” 04314 .41844... $45.47 09/03/92 :13 34 '36 .37 38 39 .12 .11 ,13 .15 47 $18.00 39495- 01992 OPER SUPPLIES 41845- 418.00 09/03/92 .$18-00 ---,--39495 01992 41845 OPER SUPPLIES' *18.00 09/03/92 ____ —436-00 • 02514-----001400-1208-4305---01112-- —.4497,93 08/31/92 GEN APPROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES • 00824 40.00 09/03/92 4,1 52 54 0 56 137 7171 61 62 66 67 611 771 71 72 74 w • 71 - :• FINANCE-SFA340 .... TIME 13:59:33 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 09/03/92. PAGE 0005 DATE 09/03/92 2 ..... - PAY VENDOR NAME VND St ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * - . AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK * .i)':-.• .' -, • ...L ..... - DESCRIPTION----------- ------ ---- - -- ---- DATE -INVC PROJ IS ACCOUNT-DESCRiPTION. ' AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP-- . . . 160 _•_***.VENDOR _TOTAL_****** $497,93' 3 6 7 --- R. • . ELGIN SWEEPER COMPANY 02354- -001-400-3103-6900. 00113 • $1,73678 3792-00043.---,--41847- LEASE PMT/SEP 92 • 3792 . 08/16/92 ST MAINTENANCE /LEASE PAYMENTS $0.00 09/03/92 • 'Y***IVENOOR_TOTAL_*********4*************************** ***** ************************** $1.736.78 ---i--ROBERT*FONZI-ENTERPRISES EXPENSE/ZERTUCHE 00035 10 11 12 5 qt 11+ , 7, ..0 04841 ---- -705-400-1209-4324- -00318- - $550. 00 -. --------- ------ 00035 - 04684 ------ 41848 ----- A 08/26/92 LIABILITY INS /CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS . $0.00 09/03/92 ,..2. 2.-, 20 ***vVENDOR-TOTAL-******************************************************* ***** * ******* $550,00 R '-BECKY*FULMER 04834 001-300-0000-3893- 00117- 676,00 -42191.--.05367----4--41849.--- .77:'. SUMMER CLASS REFUND 42191 08/27/92 /CONTR RECREATION CLASSES $0.00 09/03/92 . . , *** VENDOR .-TOTAL_***.*****************************************************************. , - R - GTE. CALIFORNIA. -INCORPORATED FAX BILLING/AUG 92 -6186 00015---L-001-400-1101-4304 - 00491 08/19/92 CITY COUNCIL GTE -CALIFORNIA. --INCORPORATED R R GTE .CALIFORNIA.- INCORPORATED TELEPHONE CHARGES/AUG 92 TELEPHONE.CHARGES/AUG 92 GTE -CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED FAX BILLING/AUG 92 -6186 00015 ---001-400-1101-4304 00492 08/31/92 CITY COUNCIL 00015- 001-400-1121-4304 -00549. 08/19/92 CITY CLERK $76.00 $0. 52 /TELEPHONE $6. 29 /TELEPHONE 61-72 /TELEPHONE 372-6186-00832-----41852 $0.00 09/03/92 00830 41852 -.5 -55 77 28 30 31 33 35 .17 3-0 39 $0.00 09/03/92 372-61E16-00832 - 41852 $0.00 09/03/92 • i -GTE CALIFORNIA, -INCORPORATED -------00015 001-400-1121-4304- 00550- $18-51 00830 41852 TELEPHONE CHARGES/AUG 92 08/31/92 CITY CLERK /TELEPHONE $0.00 09/03/92 43 481, 149 154 00015----001-400-1131-4304.--00397--- -- $771 08/31/92 CITY ATTORNEY /TELEPHONE R GTE CALIFORNIA. --INCORPORATED 00015 TELEPHONE CHARGES/AUG 92 R GTE CALIFORNIA, -INCORPORATED FAX BILLING/AUG 92 -6186 -GTE-CALIFORNIA, -INCORPORATED TELEPHONE CHARGES/AUG 92 08/31/92 001-400-1141-4304- -00566 CITY TREASURER ---00015 ------001-400-1201-4304 00611- 08/19/92 00015. CITY MANAGER 001,-400-1201-4304- 00612 08/31/92 CITY MANAGER $15,25 /TELEPHONE $0.98 /TELEPHONE $13-23 /TELEPHONE 00830-- 41852 $0.00 09/03/92 00830 41852 41 42 43 4,1 46 47 .17 •,;;; 50 51 51 54 55 $0.00 09/03/92 --41852------ 60.00 09/03/92 00830 - 41852 $0.00 09/03/92 74 40 1 .1 ibt ,, FINANCE -SFA340 13: 59:33 ('F PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION •;''' : Px . .R.GTE.CALIFORNIA,_INCORPORATED . , . FAX BILLING/AUG 92 -6186 ..- : CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR.09/03/92 • PAGE 0006 DATE -09/03/92 VND ft ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # • .AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK St DATE-INVC-- PROJ * -ACCOUNT-DESCRiPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP- . 00015 - 08/19/92 • R..L. GTE CAL IFORNIA, -INCORPORATED -------;-- 00015. -- ,-:-TELEPHONE CHARGES/AUG 92 08/31/92 CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED r- 00015 •, , FAX Be.LING/AUG 92 ' 08/19/92 R-1'TE-CALIFORNIA,--INCORPORATED 00015. 08/31/92 ',-TELEPHONE CHARGES/AUG 92 h.5.. •-• • . R GTE-CALIFORNIA,-1NCORPORATED 00015 FAX BILLING/AUG 92 -6186 - 08/19/92 0TE-CALIFORNIA.--INCORPORATED_=L___00015- GTE CALIFORNIAINCORPORATED FAX BILLING/AUG 92 -6186 GTE CALIFORNIA,- INCORPORATED TELEPHONE CHARGES/AUG 92 00015 08/19/92 001-400-1202-4304 -00620 FINANCE ADMIN -001-400-1202-4304-00621- FINANCE ADMIN 001.400-1203-4304. .00630. PERSONNEL 001-400-1203-4304 00631. PERSONNEL -001400-1206-4304 -00539- DATA PROCESSING 00015 001-400-1206-4304- 00540 08/31/92 GTE -CALIFORNIA, -INCORPORATED 00015 TELEPHONE CHARGES/AUG 92 08/31/92 Tr!, - ELEPHONE.CHARGES/AUG 92 08/31/92 R GTE • CALIFORNIA, ---INCORPORATED TELEPHONE CHARGES/AUG 92 , GTE -CALIFORNIA. --INCORPORATED TELEPHONE CHARGES/AUG 92 . GTE -CALIFORNIA, --INCORPORATED TELEPHONE CHARGES/AUG 92 00015- 08/31/92 DATA PROCESSING 001-400-1207-4304 00425 - BUS LICENSE -001-400-1208-4304. 00238 - GEN APPROP 001-400-1208-4304 00239 GEN APPROP 001-400-2101-4304 01097 POLICE 00015 001,-400-2201-4304. 00476 08/31/92 FIRE --00015----.---.00I-400-2401-4304 00481- 08/31/92 ANIMAL CONTROL - GTE -CALIFORNIA, -INCORPORATED 00015 FAX BILLING/AUG 92 -6186 08/19/92 GTE CALIFORNIAv-INCORPORATED- 00015 ....- TELEPHONE CHARGES/AUG 92 08/31/92 GTE -CALIFORNIA, -INCORPORATED ' 00015 FAX- BILLING/AUG 92 -6186 08/19/92 • 001-400-4101-4304- 00625 - PLANNING 001400-4101-4304 00626 - PLANNING 001-400-4201-4304 -00559- BUILDING -$5.94 /TELEPHONE $0.00 09/03/92 -$50. 97- -----00830 ---41852 /TELEPHONE $0.00 09/03/92 372-6186....00832 -41852 • $15.-40 /TELEPHONE $38 74 /TELEPHONE • 372-6186-00832-----41852---- 3 4 10 II 12 372-6186-00832 -----41852 $0.00 09/03/92 00830---L-41852:- $0.00 09/03/92 /TELEPHONE $26.-52 /TELEPHONE $16.-44 /TELEPHONE $0.00 09/03/92 00830 -----.41852 ------ $0.00 09/03/92 00830 $0. 00 • • 41852 09/03/92 $t,21 372-6186 -00832- 41852 $0.00 09/03/92 /TELEPHONE /TELEPHONE -$513,38 /TELEPHONE -$56.84 /TELEPHONE $13.17 /TELEPHONE $4,24 /TELEPHONE $57r83 /TELEPHONE -$0,38 /TELEPHONE 00830- -41852 $0. 00 09/03/92 9 40.00 09/03/92 00830 $0. 00 00830- 41852 09/03/92 -41852 $0.00 09/03/92 372-6186-L00832- 41852- • $0.00 09/03/92 00830 41852- $0.00 09/03/92 372-6186--00832- 30.00 09/03/92 ct 87 88 • 70 fo '3 .14 15 I, 18 13 25 2 1 22 Z3 25 27 29 31 32 3,1 3-1 37 38 39 42 .13 44 .17 44 49 5.7 51 7? FINANCE-SFA340 - 13:59:33 PAY VENDOR NAME - • DESCRIPTION __L..11._...:GTE-CALIFORNIA. -INCORPORATED TELEPHONE CHARGES/AUG 92 • CALIFORNIA. -INCORPORATED FAX BILLING/AUG 92 -6186 R. GTE•CIALIFORNIA,-INCORPORATED : '4- • TELEPHONE CHARGES/AUG 92 GTE. CALIFORNIA, -INCORPORATED TELEPHONE CHARGES/AUG 92 i GTE -CALIFORNIA. --INCORPORATED FAX BILLING/AUG 92 -6186 22 •, ;31: gr. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 09/03/92 PAGE 0007 DATE 09/03/92 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * , AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK * DATE INVC---- PROJ ACCOUNT -DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP • 00015- 001-400-4201-4304- 00560 -$92r09 00830-----.41852 08/31/92 BUILDING /TELEPHONE $0.00 09/03/92 00015 -001-400-4202-4304 00668 $5.44 08/19/92 PUB WKS ADMIN /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-4202-4304 -00669 ------$i78-.43 08/31/92 PUB wp ADMIN /TELEPHONE 00015 ---001-400-4204-4321- .00676- $36,31 00830 ------41852 • • 08/31/92 BLDG MAINT /BUILDING SAFETY/SECURIT $0.00 09/03/92 3 .001 4 -372-6186 00832 $0.00 09/03/92 .4 1 5 ea, 1 6 00830-----41852 $0.00 09/03/92 GTE. CALIFORNIA.--INCORPORAT4D ----00015----001-400-4601-4304 -00725-- -- -$83:60 TELEPHONE CHARGES/AUG 92 . 08/31/92 COMM RESOURCES /TELEPHONE .R.ELL'GTE-CALIFORNIA.-INCORPORATED TELEPHONE CHARGES/AUG 92 00015 001-400-4601-4304- 00724 08/19/92 COMM RESOURCES /TELEPHONE "P•CV , R GTE -CALIFORNIA, -INCORPORATED I" TELEPHONE CHARGES/AUG 92 03;1:1 R-2.f.L.GTE CALIFORNIA.--INCORPORATED--7-L--00015- 1TELEPHONE CHARGES/AUG 92 08/31/92 372-6186-00832 41852 $0.00 09/03/92 00830 41852- $0.00' 09/03/92 $7,71 00830- -41852- $0:00 09/03/92 08/31/92 PARKS /TELEPHONE 00015 ---109-400-3301-4304- 00056 08/31/92 VEH PKG DIST GTE CALIFORNIA,.INCORPORATED • TELEPHONE CHARGES/AUG 92 110-400-3302-4304-00630. PARKING ENF 00015- —445-400-3401-4304- 00120- .08/31/92 DIAL A RIDE .i.-'***_VENDOR_TDT4L_******************** ** * ** **************** ***** ************* ***** ****-___-_*1,456,437 5 ,71 . , • $10.00 /TELEPHONE -$152,62 /TELEPHONE 54.-16 /TELEPHONE • w :•-• • 3,, OTEL- EQUIPMENT RENT/AUG 92 01340 - --001-400-2101-4304 - 01096- - $51,36 08/22/92 POLICE /TELEPHONE •InLL-***_VENDOR.-TOTAL-*************************************************************** ***** 145 R -.'''VELMA*HAZEN ;1, • :HANIMAL TRAP REFUND • 47 .•k,. • %, ' • 48 R •VELMA*HAZEN- iir . . ANIMAL TRAP USE FEES ertT. 00830 41852 $0.00 09/03/92 17 18 19 i0 21. 22 24 00830 --41852 $0.00 4,09/03/92 00830-j-- 411352-- $0.00 ,. 09/03/92 .4) 25 27 .41 an' 19 30 • 31 .40° 32 54 35 .41 371 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 411 $51_ 56 • 00833 41853 $0.00 09/03/92 49 50 52 53 54. 55 56 02057-----.Q01-210-0000-2110 --05032 550,00 • —44979 04783 44979 09/01/92 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 '02057 -001-300-0000-3895-00024 •$6,50CR • 44979 09/01/92 /ANIMAL TRAP FEE 41854- 09/03/92 44979-04783 41854 $0.00 09/03/92 56 50 I 64 50 67 .90 (01 'f 1 72 FINANCE-SFA340 _{ TIME 13:59:33 ' 3 PAY VENDOR NAME VND N ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN N AMOUNT !! _ ___ DESCRIPTION ,1I „• DATE..INVC--..--.- PROJ -8---....__.___ACCOUNT-DESCRIPTION.....-..-. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 09/03/92 PAGE 0008 DATE. -09/03/92 INV/REF PO M CHK * -.--..---- AMOUNT .. UNENC .-- -.DATE. EXP ***_VENDOR-TOTAL_**.**x.*********.*************,Y.**** *****sir********r-r************r*s.*** *43 50 y --LORI*HIGGINS- SUMMER CLASS INSTRUCTOR AH160 _...-.. ***VENDOR__TOT,AL_***********************4***.*****.*******************************.****.* $1.-002 40 2 6 4. • 03404----------.001-400-4601-4221.. - 00027---------$1,002,40----- AH150 /4H1 60-05311-- 41855----- 08/27/92 COMM RESOURCES. /CONTRACT REC CLASS/PRGR *0.00 09/03/92 '.NICOLE*HOWARD 04838 001-210-0000-2110 05033= -$50.00 • DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND '45377 09/01/92 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE *** VENDOR_TOTAL1*****.*********.********************.********************************** -"''INGLEWOOD_WHOLESALE-.ELECTRIC DISCOUNT OFFERED 45542 $50x00 02458. 001-202-0000-2021 00267 ' • $33.16 08/20/92 DISCOUNTS OFFERED INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE -ELECTRIC 02458 - 'DISCOUNT TAKEN 45542 08/20/92; `INGLEWOOD--WHOLESALE--ELECTRIC 02458 DISCOUNT OFFERED 08/31/92 INGLEWOOD-.WHO -- DISCOUNT TAKEN • 001-202-0000-2021-00268 --------$33,. 16CR DISCOUNTS OFFERED 9 0 11 12 13 14 I5 16 45377 --- 04765- 41856 *0.00 4765-----41856*0.00 09/03/92 17 10 19 22 23 24 45542- 04891 ------ 41857 -- *0.00 09/03/92 45542-04891 41857 - *0:00 09/03/92 001-202-0000-2021 •00270 $17.28 DISCOUNTS OFFERED c----.----02458----001-202-0060-2022---00266---- ----417:-28CR 08/31/92: /DISCOUNTS TAKEN '. 02458 001-400-3101-4309--00145 $12.01 08/31/92 MEDIANS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS I NGLEWOOD--WHOLESALE-ELECTR-I C MISC. CHARGES/AUG 92 INGLEWOOD.WHOLESALE-ELEC-TR-IC ' 02458 MISC. CHARGES/AUG 92 INGLEWOOD-WHOLESALE-ELECTRIC MISC. CHARGES/AUG 92 I NGLEWOOD..-WHOLESALE--.ELECTRIC 'STREET LECTRIC'STREET LITE FIXTURES 45542. INGLEWOOD-.WHOLESALE-ELECTRIC. ST LITE FIXTURES '. 45605 INGLEWOOD-WHOLESALE-ELECTRIC ,,ST LITE FIXTURES 44963 - 08/31/92 001-400-4204-4309 --02449 BLDG MAINT 02458- 105-400-2601-4309- 00832 '08/31/92 STREET LIGHTING 02458---105-400-2601-5499---- 00009- 08/20/92: STREET LIGHTING 02458 105-400-8201-5499--.00010- . 05-400-8201-5499--00010-- 08/24/92 . CIP 85-201 102458- --105-400-8201-5499 -- 00011 08/10/92 CIP 85-201 $308.-01' /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *711,-38 • /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00837 -41857-- *0.00 09/03/92 00837--41857 • *0. 00 x09/03/92 42 43 00837---41135745 76 27 26 29 30 31 32 33 ,4 35 30 40 *0. 00 09/03/92 47 46 00837-41857 $0.00 09/03/92 00837------41857 - $0.00 0837-==--41857- $0.00 09/03/92 ----* 1.625.01 .45542 04891 /NON -CAPITALIZED ASSETS. $0.00. *3,143,32 -----45605 /NON -CAPITALIZED ASSETS $3. 41857- 09/03/92 04898 -41857- 143.32 09/03/92 --$3,143,32- -44963-04893 /NON -CAPITALIZED ASSETS $0.00 49 50 51 52 5.1 5.i 55 55 J� -41857----- 09/03/92 s 70 - 72 7.1 0'/ CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0009 TIME 13:59:33 FOR 09/03/92 DATE -09/03/92- 1\ PAY VENDOR NAME VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN N AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK * 3 r✓ DESCRIPTION DATE-INVC----- PROD * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC ---- DATE EXP -----11-. --=INGLEWOOD-WHOLESALE-ELECTRIC02458.--115-400-8152-4309 --00008 $78,51 00837 41857- MISC. CHARGES/AUG 92 08/31/92 CIP 92-152 /MAINTENANCE6MATERIALS $0.00 09/03/92 - I NGLEWOOD WHOLESALE -ELECTRIC 02458 --- ----170-400-8606-4309 - 00001--- ------ - ----- $49.17 00837-- --- 41857 MISC. CHARGES/AUG 92 08/31/92 CIP 92-606 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 09/03/92 ***_.VENDOR--TOTAL-.********************.*.*****.**.********************4a****************** $9,070.-73 1. 10 11 12 4 15 INTERSTATE -ARMS --CORPORATION• '04500 001-202-0000-2020 -01366 -$426.77 03193-------41858-- ARMS EXCHANGE SALES TAX 08/21/92 /ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $0.00 09/03/92 t **`. VENDOR-TOTAL******************************************************************** $426-77' COMMANDER.-MICHAEL*LAVIN 00792 001-400-2101-4316 00929 -$35.33 05058- 41859 REIMB BOOKS/FALL 92 08/27/92 POLICE /TRAINING $0.00 09/03/92 ***_VENDOR-TOTAL_**.**.**.******.****************.******.********************************* $3533 "- 32 ; I.; LIEBERT,_-CASSIDY &-FRIERSON LEGAL SERVICE/JULY 1992 VENDOR_TOTAL-*.*******..>***********.***.********************************************* 52.-843-75 02175 001-400-1203-4201 00951— *2.843.75 04686 41860-- 08/28/92 PERSONNEL /CONTRACT.SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 09/03/92 36 17 B 19 _0 21 22 23 ..✓ 24 25 215 27 25 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 .r+ 37 11 39' 41161 BRENDA*LOCKARD 03300----001-210-0000-2110----05029--------------$50.-00 45858 04782'------4161 ANIMAL TRAP REFUND 45858 09/01/92 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 09/03/92 'R ,BRENDA*LOCKARD 03300 001--300-0000-3895-00021 $6.-5OCR /ANIMAL TRAP FEE .1 !L7.;:* *$ VENDOR-TOTAL--*****************************************************4************** ANIMAL TRAP USE FEE - -45858 09/01/92 $43.-50 45858-04782-41861 $0.00 09/03/92 41 42 43 44 4,.. 47- 47 40 .19 +2 LINDA*LOCKE 02832 001-400-4601-4221- 00030-- $1.666.00- Y710/SP901 05322 -41862 SUMMER CLASS INSTRUCTOR SP901 08/27/92 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT. REC CLASS/PRGR $0.00 09/03/92 ***VENDOR..-TOTAL-.********************************************************************_ 41r666_00 SUMMER CLASS REFUND 42923 08/27/92 /CONTR RECREATION CLASSES $0.00 09/03/92 55 59 61 .7 63 KRISTIN*MAIER '04835_ 001-300-0000-3893-00120 $15 00 --42923-05339- 4186364 57 71 /2 /.1 74 75 f .L'i:'Li�i:Y: LL:t'.�r i�9i': i.L.i•'.; t,�P v >: .1✓ 4.14 .0 J v . • FINANCE-SFA340 ,• I , PAY VENDOR NAME *** „,, • VENDOR_TOTAL-************************************* ** ******* ** *********** ** ***** ** $15 00.* • f CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST TIME 13:59:33 FOR -09/03/92 PAGE 0010 DATE -09/03/92 VND ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN , AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK * DATE-INVC• PROJ fis ACCOUNT -DESCRIPTION- - -.--AMOUNT.UNENC- ..DATE !,4 A *MAJKA ANIMAL TRAP REFUND A4*MAJKA 5 03831 ' 001-210-0000-2110- 05031- $50.00--------------..---44906.--04784 ' 41864 44906 09/01/92 /DEPOSITS/WORK 'GUARANTEE *0.00 09/03/92 ANIMAL TRAP USE FEES 44906 03831 001-300,-0000-3895 - 00023 47,50CR 09/01/92 /ANIMAL TRAP FEE *** VENDOR -TOTAL' **************** . , . i ''''' ' 1 ';,','''i , '' ='• ; ' ' . , . ,. • • , - MERRIMAC-PETROLEUM.--INC. ' • .03080 • 001141-0000-1401 00190.' $3.-719,20 ' UNLEADED GAS/CITY YARD 20537 08/27/92 /GASOLINE INVENTORY . '.,;• *** VENDOR -TOTAL-- , . ; ' 'if ;., • r Y'::,. , ' • '24 - ' ' '" ' ' • FIL-4.LVIVIAN*MESSBARGER - 04837---001-210-000021-10 .05034-- *250,00 ------43323-04767-----41866 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND 43323 09/01/92 - /DEPOSITS/WORK • *** VENDOR -TOTAL-*************************************************** ********** ******* $250,00 .7 '';:'':.',, ;, i i : ' - • - ' ' ', 11/1 G *NILSSON '' T" ' ' 04840 -L -L-001-300-0000-3145 04986 •131.',''.1i6,,..::::BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND :':',':,' - -''' 08/19/92 •,.:-!,7".•!ip,' '. '. '"' *** . 7'7134 . • ' ..n.n 442,50! 44906 04784-----41864 *0.00 09/03/92 9 10 I I '7 '3 14 15 IS 17 920537--05249- $3.-749,20 $0.00 41865 09/03/92 -e) 110 7:3 ,?.4 24 25 27. 261 743 31 32 GUARANTEE. • $0A0 09/03/92. 0LIVER•-BARFt-&-VORV': ' 02892 . . .LEGAL SERV/jULY 92 .- OLIVER.-BARR.-&-VOSEr' LEGAL SERV/JULY 92 543,44 47 4. 46 OLIVER.. BARR-& VOSE LEGAL FEES/UDOVICH 00034 • •• '„OLIVER.-BARR•&.VOSE LEGAL FEES/SMUDANOWSKI 00032 . 08/26/92 08/31/92 . - 02892. 08/31/92 001.'-400-1131-4201 -00737 420001 CITY ATTORNEY 001400-1131-420/- .007311 CITY ATTORNEY 02892 705-400-1209-4201 -00301 08/26/92 LIABILITY INS 02892- 705-400-1209-4201- 00302 • OLIVER,. VOSE .02892 -- .LEGAL FEES/POTLATCH ;.o0033 „: 08/26/92 LIABILITY INS 705-400-1209-4201. .00303. LIABILITY INS • • • 33 34 35 76 $238 00 /BUSINESS LICENSE $238 00 $1.912 50 04318 -41867 $0.00 e09/03/92 - 37 70 39 40 41 42 47 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $14.438,00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 02156 . 41868 $0.00 46 47 411 09/03/92 02156 41868 $0.00 09/03/92 -$37,-50 00034-04685 41868 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT:$0.00 09/03/92; *501 00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $275.00 - /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT • 00032-04685- 41868 *0.00 09/03/92 00033 04685 $0.00 41868 09/03/92 40 5, 52 53 54 55 56 5/ 545 59 60 61 62 03 r.4 • • :457 430 • 0 • ./.?„ 5 77 0, • • FINANCE-SFA340 13:59:33 PAY • VENDOR NAME 3 DESCRIPTION . . " CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 09/03/92 • PAGE 0011 DATE 09/03/92 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * . AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK * DATE-.INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION- AMOUNT-UNENC.--DATE EXP- . ...:_***.VENDOR..T0TAL_******************************************** ********** * ***** * ***** ** $16.-713,00 R---L-PACTEL,CELLULAR - LA 03209-------170-400-2103-4304- 00060 -$1.788.99 MOBILE PHONE CHGS/AUG 92 08/31/92 SPEC INVESTGTNS /TELEPHONE ***. VENDOR_TUAL_*********0***************************************************** ***** • PEP BOYS 4 ' MISC. CHARGES/AUG 92 2 4 1-; 6 7 $1.-788 99 00608 001-400-2101-4311- 01493 $86.59 08/31/92 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE PEP•BOYS : • 00608- 001-400-2201-4311 -00442 MISC. CHARGES/AUG 92 08/31/92 FIRE - -$31..26 /AUTO MAINTENANCE . :21 1,:• l'f. . R- . PEP -BOYS 00608- - 105-400-2601-4311-00272-- - $6.04 jIISC. CHARGES/AUG 92 it,'•, •-'('- ,• ,,,:i. , 1 , -***_usNDOR_TOTAL_#************************************** ***** ************* *********** $123.89 08/31/92 STREET LIGHTING /AUTO MAINTENANCE 00853----741869 $0.00 09/03/92 9 10 11 12 4 15 08526 ----- 41870 $0.00 09/03/92 17 10 19 20 -00856 41870 $0.00 09/03/92 00856-------41870 $0.00 09/03/92 21. 22 23 24 25 2.5 77 74 30 31 32 R.-- POWER -SYSTEMS . ' 02557 001-400-2701-4309 00057 $374.14 135278 -.03459-- ---41871 -- i:•:.;;•A ,. i' -i., .. EMERG GENERATOR REPAIR ;35278 08/18/92 CIVIL DEFENSE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 09/03/92 %;I. •i' ;iti',-::.' • ' " , 130 ***_VENDOR_TOTAL_******************************************************************** $374-1 4 I-,-.----11,'-'-'--...,_:1„RADIO_SHACK- ------:- — --L--.-----• — — ----01429------001-400-1206-4305 -- 00570.----------..$23. 79 • 1 w , ..; ',-I ' . , • • . . MISC. CHARGES/AUG 92 94151 08/25/92 DATA PROCESSING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES ;ibl:i''-'1,711' • If7-/ ***. VENDOR. TOTAL_******************************************************************** 419^,•, 1'' ''', R ' ' RAILSTO-.TRAILS-CONSERVANCy 01767. -001-400-4601-4308-00746-- - TRAIL MARKER/RROW 08/31/92 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS '• '4f :',,,": • , ; ' • *** VENDOR TOTAL_********* ***** ***** *************** ********************************** $25-00 $23.-79 94151 00858- •4i872 $0.00 09/03/92 05368- 41873 $0.00 09/03/92 DIANE*REEVES 03979 ---.001-400-4601-4221 - -00029 $220. 50 '.--A180-05336 41874. SUMMER CLASS INSTRUCTOR A180 08/27/92. COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT REC CLASS/PRGR $0.00 09/03/92 .v *** VEMOR_T0TAL.**************** ***** ******************** ***** ********************** $220 50 i;• ;49: '• C t. !!.2 54 33 14 37 317 41 42 43 44 45 30 51 57 53 55 51 '12? R SYLVIA*ROOT-L- ' -" 04061 001-400-4102-4201. 11 '71 .s7 .461 110 .41 98) 1111 , SERV/8-18-92 • 818 08/24/92 PLANNING COMM /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00. 09/03/92 A: 71 1111 /11 74 611.) $6, FINANCE-SFA340 —..TIME 13:59:33 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR -09/03/92 - VND M ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE-INVC------ PROD * --- ------ACCOUNT-DESCRIPTION PAGE 0012 DATE -09/03/92 INV/REF PO * CHK * AMOUNT UNENC- -DATE EXP ***--.VENDOR_TOTAL-*.************************ ******* *** ►*********a***************a*a** -126125' 1� 2 3 .J 6 8 - - _ ..LAURA*ROZZI 04623-----001-400-4601-4221- -00028 ---------$113. 40----=----------- A200-05346— -- -41876 - SUMMER CLASS INSTRUCTOR A200 08/27/92 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT REC CLASS/PRGR $0.00 09/03/92 ***_VENDOR-_.TOTAL**ii,.**-*******.*********.�**.********************r*.*.*************-***.**.**** $113 40 i `ED*RUZAK _..&.--ASSOCIATES ' 01578- '-- 001-400-3104-4201-00129- --- - *330:00 92372 05247----41877- v TRAFF ENGR SERV/JUL 92 92372 i 08/01/92 TRAFFIC SAFETY -/CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 40.00 09/03/92 ***Y_VENDOR-_TOTAL ***********.***it-**-*.*****+t***.********.****r.******************.********** $.30.-00 SHOOP & LUTHER... -INC 02310 -001,-400-3103-4309-01417 - 01417 -$209.-41 10711./10964. -05233 -41878- ,HYDRAULIC OIL/ST SWEEPER 10964 08/11/92 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 4229.41 - 09/03/92 ***, VENDOR_TOTAL__****-**********.*********.******-****-****-*********** *.********** $209.41 9 IA 11 12 4 Ja 20&. V•� 35 136 3 • `47.0: -S0 CAL--SHARPSHOOTER.—INC, 02250 001-202-0000-2020-01.367 4143.40 00868 41879 POLICE SHOOTS/JUN 92 . 06/30/92 /ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $0.00 09/03/92 R SO CALSHARPSHOOTER.—INC, 02250 001-400-2101-4201-01-104 $703..31- 00868 -41879 POLICE SHOOTS/JUL-AUG 92 08/31/92- POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.0009/03/92 r •*** VENDOR -TOTAL R-4L.SOUTH BAY -HOSPITAL 'PRISONER EMERG SERVICES $846,-7 17 16 111 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 79 30 3, 32 33 34 35 36 37 4, 41 42 •13 00107 001-400-2101-4201.-01-103 -$100.-.50 05059 -41880 08/27/92 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR-TOTAL-*****************.***************************************************.-----$100.-50 SOUTH -BAY -MUNICIPAL -COURT ' 00400 1.10-300-0000-3302--47397 —$288.-00 818-05129 41881 CITATION COURT BAIL. . 818 . 08/27/92 /COURT FINES/PARKING•;;.;;. $0.00 09/03/92 ** VENDOR--TOTAL-_*****r**+****a*************a****************************************- -$288:00 - $0.00 09/03/92 018.1 .r� .6) v 46 �. 47 49 • 50 1l SOUTHERN-CALIFORNIA-EDISON-CO ELECTRIC BILLS/AUG 92 1,00159 001-400-4204-4303----00602 41.018,22 08/31/92 BLDG MAINT /UTILITIES 8 57 53 55 55 57 56 59 60 61 63 64 rp 7r, 77 73 74 /:: /'/ .[j , • FINANCE-SFA340;. ji TXME 13:59:33 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION ? , R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA-EDISON-CO ELECTRIC BILLS/AUG 92 . • • ' CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 09/03/92 PAGE 0013 DATE 09/03/92 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CH K * DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP-; 00159. 001-400-6101-4303 00462 *16.90 08/31/92 PARKS /UTILITIES :_***_VENDOR_TOTAL_************************************************************* ******* . :':11",,.7 • ' $1.035.12 L__. R _ „L._ SOUTHERN .CALIFORNIA GAS CO • ' ' GAS BICLINGS/AUG 92 ,..:::,,:" !., . • -, - c, ' . • 00170- 001-400-4204-4303 00601- $120-15 08/31/92 BLDG MAINT /UTZLITIES -'-'***-VENDOR ft, I R SPORTMART 03479. 001-400-4601-4308 00747 *10.54 MISC. CHARGES/JULY 92 : 7483 07/31/92 . COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS $120.15-: • VENDOR.. *10.-54- 3 ',Ai 5 6 7 001366 8 *0.00 09/03/92 ,o I* 13 14 5 11.• 00867-...—....41883 $0.00 09/03/92 11 25 7483— 00769 -- -41884 - $0. 00 09/03/92 R ...,,1-:.::::: ' • .. ' R' J. E..*TALLERICO 04247- 001-400-1206-4201- -01031 $40,00 149 04027 41885 COMPUTER SERV/AUG 92 ., 149 . 08/31/92 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT .;i••:,,.;..;. i** 11--MEGAN*TATU " ANIMAL TRAP REFUND ..7 44967 MEGAN*TATU . ,. ANIMAL TRAP USE FEES : : 44967 *** VENDOR *** ; • I • • R WINTERBROOK. PUBLISHING -CO.- " WORK COMP PUBLICATIONS *40. 00 $0.00 09/03/92 04839-001-210-0000-2110 05030 $50.00- 44967-04781' -41886 09/01/92 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 09/03/92 04839-----001-300-0000-3895 -00022- *7. 50CR 44967 04781 -41686-- 09/01/92 /ANIMAL TRAP FEE *0.00 09/03/92 *THIEME.--BIBLE- MINISTRIES -- DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND 44336 $42-.-50 04166 ---001-210-0000-211O - - 05035 - *500.00 —44336- 04766 09/01/92 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE *0.00 $500-00 -03568--- -705-400-1217-4305 00052- $57r88. • 08/13/92 WORKERS COMP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES ***_VENDOR,TOTAL_**************************4********************************* .. ...: . , .. R XEROX CORPORATION . ,..: COPIER MAINT/JUL 92 $57-88- 41887-- 09/03/92 04664 41888- $61.52 09/03/92 00135 •001-400-1208-4201 - 00914. *446.81 034248692-- 00007-- ---41889 — • 48692 . 08/13/92 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *0.00 09/03/92 •14' 53 40 41 42 43 44 72 , • • "• / h • FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 13: 59:33 ,'. 7. • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 09/03/92 PAGE 0014 DATE 09/03/92 • -,:'-.1,%" •'• PAY VENDOR NAME ."- ., . VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN it AMOUNT INV/REF PO it CHK * DESCRIPTION_ • DATE INVC_ PROJ St . • . ACCOUNT-DESCRiPTION .AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP - .1:1..!.. • ; • ',' • .' •• -1 I , ••., ' , . • • ! 1 • . ' ' .*** - VENDOR__TOTAL...**********************************.********************************** -$446.-81:* - -t.,41-';.t, 7..7 - - .' . , . , . - '2 l'.*** PAY CODE. TOTAL...****4.******* ***** ****** ********** * ******* ***** ** * ****************** .........---$55.-244.37- .,;-- • -- — *** TOTAL:. WARANTS_.****************************************************************** ,-/ • 253.-87 14 IS• .$55.. , • , - 1. • , , - . • . • . ... ... • 1:: 7 0 ,It,TI: ,,, ., , ., . .. • , • fr I' THE • .,115 , ,, - HAHE7YRWAANRA ENRTT Nips OTROCILAitIMSINCOciVEusRiEvDE.B.:F " LISTEDWARRANTS ATROT: 24 22 24 25 26 2.7 !I 2.9 lo M ,ADGEEMAS 20r '': .4' • . ... , w: TH• E 1 REGISTER .-4.4:1-4.U-..—.L.• -----..-- ARC ACCURATE • „ • , FUND ARE AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENT. AND ARE IN CONFORMANCE • TO T UDBET. . • ) , . . . BY I.I.,?3 1-;„,.'„;'.';:.',', , . I • . • ;24, :f '--,,..:;':".,-!,,•' , • . . FIN NCE DIRECTOR • " , . . DM -C=1915,4/%4 . . • •. . „ • . • 1127 ,. '''.•,,':f; -...: '.,:,-,7 --5:. , ., ' - - .. : . '' - •$ , . ,.... . 93 34 16 , , • , .... . i , . I,.. .. . 2 L'`,'.,',..',”:“.•-;':'''''•'• '.'t:=•': '''• „ • . . . , 130 c. :;',';',..e,':1 • ''%'.1:1,:.' '.-'1'r?' ' . ' • .17 Y3 29 40 •,... . . • . • e 42 ..c.''',;'',-;: •:. • • , !33. ' ';'-...,:_•• ; ... •;;.. • • .. 41 42 4-, 13 ' -: .•. • : , , • - . . • • , , .* .... "---• )'• : ,3,14",.-•J' "' ."1. . '39'14,_'''''''. ;''' . . . „n• , .. . . - • , ::: ,i ,•'r- ' • • , . . ..,•... . . . • • - . • 0 • , - . .. • -4 51 52 .10 , :e1.1 :''; ;•:',1•:' --,' V • , ; •, .• •• . .. . • ,. • .!.3. 54 55 ' .. , , , ..,.„•,, • • ` . • . , • , , , • ';'-''',-''',..,,.:.- . r: .,,;,:..2 ‘,'' .! , i „. , ..;,' ". ' ;,. ' ".' . ., ::..':. ' : . •• • '.' 57 • , ...' '''. . . : . ' • ' a '1 -•-•;"- ' ' ' 63 ' E4 • • • . , . ,.. . . . •,.'•J.;., -, '.T,,.: .. , . . . J . . ,. ... , . ,. . . 65 M .-.4 7 . 4 • , _ • • . , M , . :, vo 71 I ' . --- . M ..- • . • , • . . . . .... • , :- • . . • • •-• • • • t. . , ° ' .'- .. . '," ... -. .. , ,.. ; ,••• . , . ,., . • ' •• :-.-'",.'1,'...-::A3,..„,.`;`,:-...'.. '. ...... „ .. . . . . . r. 74 75 . Y • v.; 71 4.0 ,.4 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Kiz-c/M September 3, 1992 City Council Meeting of September 8, 1992 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS September 22, 1992 Proposed pier restroom closure Approval of Management Resolution renewal Evaluation of Public Information Program Approval of relocation of west end of Gould Terrace Revised street sweeping schedule and coordination of street sweeping with trash pickup days Public Hearing Parking encroachments onto sidewalks October 13, 1992 October 27, 1992 November 10, 1992 Approval of Land Use Element November 24, 1992 South School conceptual design December , 1992 Project Touch lease renewal (Rm. C) City Manager City Mgr./Personnel Dir. Public Safety (Parking Enforcement/Animal Control) Public Works Department Public Works Department Public Safety (Parking enforcement) Planning Department Community Resources Dept. Community Center Dept. ***************************************************************** UPCOMING ITEMS NOT YET CALENDARED Initiated by Party Date Staff Caltrans utility mainten- ance agrmt. Staff Ordinance for new Chapter of HBMC entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic" Council 5/8/90 Re. oil project CUP - define "temporary" as it relates to height of project (needs text amendment) Council 8/14/90 Review of standard CUP conditions Council 6/6/91 Review Bldg/Zoning Code changes to improve liveability Staff 7/25/91 Adjustment of Park Tax Council 9/24/91 Effect of nonconforming ordinance on damaged structures Council 5/26/92 Revision of HBMC pro- visions pertaining to construction of public street improvements (public hearing) Public Works Dept. 19 Public Works Dept. Planning Dept. Planning Dept. Planning Dept. Building Dept. Planning Dept. Public Works Dept. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council September 2, 1992 City Council Meeting of September 8, 1992 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT OF INACTIVE PUBLIC DEPOSITS FOR HERMOSA BEACH Attached is a report of all Inactive Public Deposits for the month of August 1992. Respectfully submitted, Gary L. B t ch City Treasurer NOTED: Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager ld INSTITUTION TOTAL INVESTMENT REPORT - AUGUST 1992 DATE OF DATE OF INVESTMENT MATURITY ASKING PRICE MARKET VALUE INTEREST LAIF BALANCE 8/1/92 Investment Maturity Maturity Investment BALANCE 8/31/92 $8,595,000.00 300,000.00 <200,000.00> <300,000.00> 200,000.00 $8,595,000.00 LACPIF Railroad Right -of -Way Account BALANCE 8/01/92 Maturity BALANCE 8/31/92 MERRILL LYNCH CORPORATE NOTES: Ford Motor Credit Co. Investment U.S. TREASURY BOND: Investment $ 1,355,139.75 290,395.32 1,064,744.43 $ 500,000.00 8/05/92 8/27/92 8/12/92 8/19/92 5.235% 4.88% 5/19/88 5/20/93 $ 500,000.00 $ 517,910 9.10% $ 996,875.00 5/14/90 2/15/93 $ 996,875.00 $1,021,880 8.49% Investment $1,005,937.50 9/14/90 6/30/94 $1,005,937.50 $1,077,810 8.50% INVESTMENT TOTAL $12,162,556.93 SEATTLE 1ST NATL. BANK TRUST BALANCE 7/01/92 $ 525,854.92 BALANCE 7/31/92 525,854.92 8.625% TICOR TITLE INSURANCE CO. BALANCE 07/01/92 BALANCE 07/31/92 TRUSTEE TOTAL GRAND TOTAL $ 11,921.08 11,921.08 $ 537,776.00 $12,700,332.93 Respectfully Submitted, /7Z1'64 --a Gary L. Br sch City Treasurer 7.5% August 25, 1992 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council September 8, 1992 REAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM 1991-92 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council reappropriate amounts list- ed below from the 1991-92 Budget. Background: Budget appropriations for 1991-92 expired June 30, 1992. Equipment and supplies or services must have been received by June 30th in order to be charged to the 91-92 budget. Some departments, however, have items or services that were budgeted and ordered in 91-92 but were not delivered or complete by year end. In these cases, unspent amounts for those items or projects need to be reap- propriated since they were not included in the 92-93 budget. Analysis: Reappropriations GENERAL FUND Department/Account Amount BUILDING DEPARTMENT Contract Services/ Private Contract Services/ Private PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. CIP 92-150 Misc. Traffic Signal Improvements $ 3,568 $ 3,100 $ 1,046 1 Item/Reason/PO# Emcon Associates (Recycling and Source Reduction Consultation). Contract services not completed. Melvyn Green & Assoc. (Seismic Hazard Mitigation Program) Project not completed. PO #4887 (6/11/92) in the amount of $1,045.70 for final materials to complete this CIP were not delivered by June 30. The project is not funded for 92/93. GRANT FUND CIP 90-151 Traffic Engineering Program Concur: ---Zat,./elt-AdL— Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager $10,000.00 2 $40,000 State Grant delayed until April 1992 (Fed monies uncertain) so $10,000 budgeted for prelim engineering during FY 91-92 was unspent. Reap- propriation of $10,000 will bring total budget to $40,000. Viki Cop a!,/a!,/p Finance Director 1 To: From: Subject: Date: City City of Hermosa Beach Memorandum Honorable Mayor and Memb Michael Schubach, PtanrY Proposition A Fund Exchang September 3, 1992 • r of t• 1) 7 /re.,%zi 9- 9_3-5 -1- e City Council r The city of West Hollywood is willing to exchange $84,000 worth of Proposition A funds for $44,520, at a rate of $.53/$1.00. Recommendation: Staff recommends exchanging $84,000 of Prop. A funding for $44,520 of general funds. CONCUR: Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: Unavailable for signature Viki Copeland Finance Director lf 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 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF $84,000 IN PROPOSITION A TRANSIT FUNDS IN EXCHANGE FOR $44,520 IN GENERAL FUNDS FROM THE CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD. WHEREAS, the City has financed all of its current transit programs for the fiscal year 1992- 1993 and made the following findings: A. The surplus funds to be transferred will be lost if not utilized within the allocated time. B. The City of West Hollywood has agreed to exchange $44,520 in General funds for $84,000 in Proposition A Transit funds from the City of Hermosa Beach. C. The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission has granted permission for the exchange of funds; D. The proposed budget for 1992-1993 will not be in balance if this exchange is not consummated; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California:' 1. The City Manager is authorized to execute an agreement with the City of West Hollywood for the exchange of Proposition A transit funds, amounting to exactly $84,000 for $44,520 in General funds from the City of West Hollywood. 2. The City Manager of Hermosa Beach is authorized to execute and file any other document required by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission. 3. The City Manager is authorized to furnish such additional information as the Los Angeles Transportation Commission may require. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 1992. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: etze j City Clerk City Attorney i ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT This Assignment Agreement is made and entered into this day of September 21 , 1992, by and between the City of Hermosa Beach, California and the City of West Hollywood, California with respect to the following facts: A. The City of West Hollywood proposes to provide a community shuttle and taxi -jitney service to serve people with disabilities and the general public. Given the grave traffic congestion and parking problems of the City, West Hollywood is committed to reducing auto dependency by providing alternative modes of transportation. Adequate Proposition A Local Return funding for such a service is not available given the limited amount of West Hollywood's Local Return allocation and the needs of other priority transit projects in the City. B. Hermosa Beach has uncommitted funding authority for its Fiscal Year 1992-93 allocation of Proposition A Local Return funds which could be made available to West Hollywood to assist in providing the services discussed in Paragraph A of this Agreement. In exchange for the assignment by West Hollywood of the amount of its general funds indicated in Section 1 below, Hermosa Beach is willing to assign uncommitted Proposition A Local Return funding to West Hollywood for the purpose identified in Paragraph A. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived by the parties and of the premises herein contained, it is mutually agreed as follows: 1. Exchange Hermosa Beach agrees to assign $84,000 of its Fiscal Year 1992-93 Prop. A Local return funding authority to West Hollywood. In return, West Hollywood agrees to assign $44,520 of its general funds to Hermosa Beach. 2. Consideration Hermosa Beach shall assign the agreed upon Proposition A Local Return funds to West Hollywood in one lump sum payment. West Hollywood shall assign the agreed upon general funds to Hermosa Beach in one lump sum payment. The lump sum payments shall be due and payable within ten (10) days of approval by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission of the project. described in Paragraph A. Before the effective date of this Agreement the Los Angeles county Transportation Commission shall approve West Hollywood's project description covering the services discussed in Paragraph A. 3. Term This Agreement is effective on the date above written and for such time as is necessary for both parties to complete their mutual obligations under this Agreement. 4. Termination Termination of this Agreement may be made by either party before the date of approval of the project description covering the funds in question by the LACTC so long as written notice of intent to terminate is given to the other party at least five (5) days prior to the termination.' 5. Notice Notices shall be given pursuant to this Agreement by personal service on the party to be notified, or by. written notice upon such party deposited in the custody of the United States Postal Service addressed as follows: a. Frederick R. Ferrin, City Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 b. Paul Brotzman, City Manager City of West Hollywood 8611 Santa Monica Boulevard West Hollywood, CA 90069 6. Assurance A. West Hollywood shall use the assigned Prop. A Local Return funds only for the purpose of providing the services discussed in Paragraph A of this Agreement and within the time limits specified in LACTC's Proposition A Local Return Program Guidelines. B. Concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, West Hollywood shall provide LACTC with the Standard Assurances and Understandings Regarding Receipt and Use of Proposition A funds specified in the Guidelines regarding the use of the assigned Prop. A Local Return funds. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Assignment Agreement to be executed by their respective officers, duly authorized, on the day and year above written. CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH. BY BY ATTEST: ATTEST: City Clerk City Clerk p/fundchng August 27, 1992 Honorable Mayor and Members Regular Meeting of of the Hermosa Beach City Council Sept. 8, 1992 LEASE RENEWAL BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS FOR SPACE IN THE COMMUNITY CENTER RECOMMENDATION The Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission and Staff recommend that Council approve the lease between the City and the Association for Retarded Citizens for Rooms 1, 2 and 15 in the Community Center and authorize the Mayor to sign the attached lease. BACKGROUND The Association for Retarded Citizens organization have been tenants in the Community Center since October 1, 1987. They lease Rooms 1, 2 and 15 (two classrooms and office space). The ARC program deals with mentally and physically disabled adults. ANALYSIS The leasespace for Rooms 1, 2 and 15 is 2,360 sq. ft. with a monthly rental of $1,982 ($.84 sq. ft.). The attached lease conforms to the present square footage rental policy approved by Council on March 19, 1990 with all other conditions of the former lease remaining the same. Concur: Mary Com ooney, Director nit Resvces Dept. Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager Respectfully subm' ed, ,e!„..,.. -- Marsha Ernst Administrative Aide Community Resources Dept. Noted for Fiscal Impact: Not Avai lahl P fnr gigratflre Viki Copeland, Direct'br Finance Dept. lg HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER LEASE AGREEMENT This Leasing Agreement is made and entered into on this, the 8th day of September , 19 92 , by and between the City of Hermosa Beach, a Municipal Corporation (City) and The Association for Retarded Citizens - Southwest (ARC) (Lessee). A. RECITALS: 1. The City is the owner of a recreational/civic service facility generally referred to as the Hermosa Beach Com- munity Center (referred to herein as the "facility"). 2. The facility is subject to certain agreements and deed restrictions entered into on the 28th day of February 1978, between the City and the Hermosa Beach City School District and is further subject to certain provisions imposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment as set forth in a document entitled Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Property and dated the 28th day of February 1978. These documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City and are public documents and by reference are incorporated into this. leasing agreement and are referred to herein as the HUD and SCHOOL DISTRICT AGREEMENTS. 3. The Lessee desires to use a portion of the facility on the terms and conditions set out herein. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. TERM. The term of this lease shall be for a period of 1 year commencing on the 1st day of October ,1992 , and ending on the 30th day of September ,19 93 The Lessee shall have a five (5) year option to renew. Lessee shall exercise said option by delivering to the City, at least 90 days prior to expiration of current term, written notice of such exercise. The five year option can be cancelled on each yearly anniversary. 2. DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES. The Lessee is leasing from the City that portion of the facility described as: Room 1 (720 sq. ft.) Room 2 (720 sq. ft.) Room 15 (920 sq. ft.) total square footage is 2,360 3. RENT. Lessee agrees to pay to the City rent ac cording to the following schedule: October 1, 1992 to July 1, 1993: $1,982 July 1, 1993 through Sept. 30, 1997: Lease rate shall be according to the policy in effect at that time. 1 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/building or placed in any windows. 3. All window treatments must receive prior approval of the Lessor. 4. All remodel work shall receive prior approval of the Lessor. 4. USE. The Lessee agrees to use the premises only for the following purpose or purposes: Association for Retarded Citizen programs And for no other purpose without the express written consent of the City. Lessee also agrees the premises shall not be used in violation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or School District Agreements as those agreements are interpreted by either the City or the Hermosa Beach City School District or the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 5. INSURANCE LIABILITY. Lessee shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this agreement Comprehensive General and Automobile Liability insurance protecting Lessee in amounts not less than $1,000,000 for personal injury to any one person, $1,000,000 for injuries arising out of any one occurrence, and $1,000,000 for property damage or a com- bined single limit of $1,000,000. Such insurance shall name City of Hermosa Beach and their officers, employees, elected officials and members of Boards or Commissions as additional insured parties. Coverage shall be in accordance with the sample certificates and endorsements attached hereto and must include the coverage and provisions indicated. Lessee shall file and maintain the required certificate(s) of insurance with the other party to this agreement at all times during the term of this agreement. The certificate(s) is to 2 be filed prior to the commencement of the work or event and should state clearly: (1) The additional insured requested; (2) Thirty day prior notice of change or cancellation to the City of Hermosa Beach; (3) Insurance is primary to that of the Additional Insured; (4) Coverage included; (5) Cross -liability clause. WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE. Lessee shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this agreement Work- er's Compensation and Employers Liability insurance and fur- nish the City (or Agency) with a certificate showing proof of such coverage. Such insurance shall not be canceled 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 orrepair 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 promises to hold the City harmless from any claims, causes of actions or damages of any nature whatever arising from Lessee's use of the premises and will pay the City any monies to which the City may become obli- gated because of Lessee's use of the premises. Lessee shall, if so instructed by the City, cause any occupants of the premises to execute a document in a form prepared by the City wherein that occupant shall expressly waive any right of ac- tion against the City for damages for any injury sustained because of Lessee's use of the premises. 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: Association for Retarded Citizens Southwest (ARC) Administrative Offices 13105 Crenshaw Blvd. Hawthorne, CA 90250 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. 4 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: APPROVED AS TO. FORM: DATE: -9a- CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a Municipal Corporation, Lessor By CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY LESSEE: August 27, 1992 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council Sept. 8, 1992 LEASE RENEWAL BETWEEN THE CITY AND EASTER SEALS SOCIETY FOR SPACE IN THE COMMUNITY CENTER RECOMMENDATION The Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission and staff recommend that Council approve the lease between the City and Easter Seals Society for Rooms 14, 16 and 17 in the Community Center and authorize the Mayor to sign the attached lease. BACKGROUND Easter Seals presently leases Rooms 14, 16 and 17 in the Community Center•. They have been a tenant in the Center for the past 14 years. They teach independent living skills through community access and community resources to disabled young adults so they may learn how to become more self sufficient. ANALYSIS The lease space for Rooms 14, 16 and. 17 is 2,760 sq. ft. with a monthly rental of $2,318 ($.84 sq. ft.). The attached lease conforms to the present square footage rental policy with all other conditions of the former lease remaining the same. Their residency in the Community Center has been of great value in helping individuals in the South Bay area. Concur: Mary Community Resour,es Dept. ney, Director Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager 1 Respectfully submi Mar ha Ernst Administrative Aide Community Resources Dept. Noted for Fiscal Impact: Not available for signature Viki Copeland, Director Finance Department lh HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER LEASE AGREEMENT This Leasing Agreement is made and entered into on this, the 8th day of September 19 92 , by and between the City of Hermosa Beach, a Municipal Corporation (City) and Easter Seals Organization (Lessee). A. RECITALS: 1. The City is the owner of a recreational/civic service facility generally referred to as the Hermosa Beach Com- munity Center (referred to herein as the "facility"). 2. The facility is subject to certain agreements and deed restrictions entered into on the 28th day of February 1978, between the City and the Hermosa Beach City School District and is further subject to certain provisions imposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment as set forth in a document entitled Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Property and dated the 28th day of February 1978. These documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City and are public documents and by reference are incorporated into this leasing agreement and are referred to herein as the HUD and SCHOOL DISTRICT AGREEMENTS. 3. The Lessee desires to use a portion of the facility on the terms and conditions set out herein. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. TERM. The term of this lease shall be for a period of One (1) year commencing on the 1st day of October ,1992 , and ending on the 30th day of September ,19 93 2. DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES. The Lessee is leasing from the City that portion of the facility described as: Rooms 14, 16, and 17 (2,760 sq. ft.) 3. RENT. Lessee agrees to pay to the City rent accord- ing to the following schedule: October 1, 1992 thru June 30, 1993: $.84 per sq. ft. or $2,318 per month. July 1, 1992 thru Sept. 30, 1992: Lease rate shall be according to the policy in effect at that time. 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 teh following month. 1 3A. OTHER CONDITIONS. The following additional condi- tions are agreed to by the Lessee: 1. Lessee shall not mark, drill or deface any walls, ceilings, floors, wood or iron work without Lessor's written consent. 2. No signs or awning shall be erected or maintained upon or attached to the outside of the premises except such signs showing the business of the Lessee. All such signs shall be in accordance with the policy established by the Lessor. 4. USE. The Lessee agrees to use the premises only for the following purpose or purposes: Teach pre -vocational and in- dependent living skills to disabled young adults and for no other purpose without the express written consent of the City. Lessee also agrees the premises shall not be used in violation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or School District Agreements as those agreements are interpreted by either the City or the Hermosa Beach City School District or the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 5. INSURANCE LIABILITY. Lessee shall obtain and maintain. at all times during the term of this agreement Comprehensive General and Automobile Liability insurance protecting Lessee in amounts not less than $1,000,000 for personal injury to any one person, $1,000,000 for injuries arising out of any one occurrence, and $1,000,000 for property damage or a com- bined single limit of $1,000,000. Such insurance shall name City of Hermosa Beach and their officers, employees, elected officials and members of Boards or Commissions as additional insured parties. Coverage shall be in accordance withthe sample certificates and endorsements attached hereto and must include the coverage and provisions indicated. Lessee shall file and maintain the required certificate(s) of insurance with the other party to this agreement at all times during the term of this agreement. The certificate(s) is to be filed prior to the commencement of the work or event and should state clearly: (1) The additional insured requested; (2) Thirty day prior notice of change or cancellation to the City of Hermosa Beach; (3) Insurance is primary to that of the Additional Insured; (4) Coverage included; (5) Cross -liability clause. WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE. Lessee shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this agreement Work- er's Compensation and Employers Liability insurance and fur- nish the City (or Agency) with a certificate showing proof of such coverage. Such insurance shall not be cancelled or materially changed without a thirty (30) day prior written notice to: City Manager, City of Hermosa Beach. INSURANCE COMPANIES. Insurance companies must be rated (B:XIII) or better in Best's Insurance Rating Guide. 6. CONDITION OF THE PREMISES UPON TERMINATION OF THE LEASE. Lessee agrees to keep and maintain the premises in good con- dition and repair and to return to the City the premises upon termination of this lease in the same condition as when Les- see took possession of the premises excepting any repairs or alterations which were approved by the City, reasonable wear and tear excepted, and does promise to pay the City upon de- mand the reasonable sums to repair the premises in the event of a violation of this provision. 7. CONSTRUCTION. Lessee is prohibited from making any al- terations or performing any construction whatsoever on the premises without the expressed written approval of the City. Any such approval shall include provisions to protect the City from potential liens of labor and material persons. 8. DESTRUCTION, PARTIAL DESTRUCTION OR NECESSITY TO REPAIR BECAUSE OF CONDITIONS CAUSED BY OTHER THAN LESSEE. The City has no duty or obligation to reconstruct the premises in the event of destruction or partial destruction of the premises. The City at its option may reconstruct or repair the prem- ises, whereupon this lease shall remain in full force and effect except that no rent will be owing to the City during said period of reconstruction or repair if such reconstruc- tion or repair. interferes with the tenancy created herein to the extent that the premises cannot be used for the purposes intended. In the event the City at its sole discretion determines not to reconstruct or repair the premises then either party at its option may cause this lease to be termi- nated and neither party shall have any liability each to each other. 9. HOLD HARMLESS. Lessee shall hold harmless and indemnify the City, its officers, agents and employees from every claim or demand which may be made by reason of any injury and/or death to persons and/or injury to property caused by any di- rect or indirect act or any omission of the Lessee, its of- ficers, agents and employees arising out of the Lessee's use of said premises. The Lessee, at its own cost, expense and risk shall defend any and all actions, suits or other pro- ceedings that may be brought or instituted against the City on any such claim or demand, and pay or satisfy any judgment that may be rendered against the Lessor on any such action, suit, or legal proceedings as a result hereof. 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. 3 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: Easter Seals 151 Kalmus Drive Suite H-10 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 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. 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Hermosa Beach Community Center Lease Agreement at Hermosa Beach on the day first hereinabove set forth. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a Municipal Corporation, Lessor By ATTEST: MAYOR CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY DATE: LESSEE: 5 C, F. O, August 27, 1992 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council Sept. 8, 1992 LEASE RENEWAL BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SOUTH BAY CENTER FOR COUNSELING FOR SPACE IN THE COMMUNITY CENTER RECOMMENDATION The Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission and staff recommend that Council approve the lease between the City and the South Bay Center for Counseling for Room 9 in the Community Center and authorize the Mayor to sign the attached lease. BACKGROUND The South Bay Center for Counseling presently leases Room 9 in the Community Center. They have been tenants in the Center since October, 1989. They received a grant from the South Bay Hospital District which provides for a referral service for families in the Hermosa, Redondo and Manhattan Beach cities. Their goal is to locate families with very young children up to six years of age and refer them to counseling, day care and medical services. ANALYSIS The lease space for Room 9 is 419 sq. ft. with a monthly rental of $352 ($.84 sq. ft.). The attached lease conforms to the present square footage rental policy with all other conditions of the former lease remaining the same. Their residency in the Community Center has been of great value to families of young children in the Community. Concur: Mary C :Toney, Director Comm n'ty R;esourpes Dept. Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager 1 Respectfully sub ed, Marsha rnst Administrative Aide Community Resources Dept. Noted for Fiscal Impact: Not available for signature Viki Copeland, Director Finance Department i HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER LEASE AGREEMENT This Leasing Agreement is made and entered into on this, the 8th day of September 1992 , by and between the City of Hermosa Beach, a Municipal Corporation (City) and South Bay Center for Counseling(Lessee). A. RECITALS: 1. The City is the owner of a recreational/civic service facility generally referred to as the Hermosa Beach Com- munity Center (referred to herein as the "facility"). 2. The facility is subject to certain agreements and deed restrictions entered into on the 28th day of February 1978, between the City and the Hermosa Beach City School District and is further subject to certain provisions imposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment as set forth in a document entitled Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Property and dated the 28th day of February 1978. These documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City and are public documents and by reference are incorporated into this leasing agreement and are referred to herein as the HUD and SCHOOL DISTRICT AGREEMENTS. 3. The Lessee desires to use a portion of the facility on the terms and conditions set out herein. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. TERM. The term of this lease shall be for a period of One (1) year commencing on the 1st day of Oct. ,1992 , and ending on the 30th day of September ,1993 2. DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES. The Lessee is leasing from the City that portion of the facility described as: Room 9 419 sq. ft. in Community Center 3. RENT. Lessee agrees to pay to the City rent ac- cording to the following schedule: Oct. 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993: $352 per month July 1, 1993 through Sept. 30, 1993: Lease rate shall be according to the policy in effect at that time. Payable on the first day of the month. If this lease commences on a day other than the first day of the month, then the Lessee shall pay upon the commencement of the lease the rental on a pro rata basis for the remainder of that month and commence a full rental pay- ment on the first day of the following month. 1 3A. OTHER CONDITIONS. The following additional condi- tions are agreed to by the Lessee: 1. Lessee shall not mark, drill or deface any walls, ceilings, floors, wood or iron work without Lessor's written consent. 2. No signs or awning shall be erected or maintained upon or attached to the outside of the premises except such signs showing the business of the Lessee. All such signs shall be in accordance with the policy established by the Lessor. 4. USE. The Lessee agrees to use the premises only for the following purpose or purposes: Interviewing and assessment of pre-school children and their parents in order to make referrals to appropriate counseling agencies. And for no.other purpose without the express written consent of the City. Lessee also agrees the premises shall not be used in violation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or School District Agreements as those agreements are interpreted by either the City or the Hermosa Beach City School District or the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 5. INSURANCE LIABILITY. Lessee shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this agreement Comprehensive General and Automobile Liability insurance protecting Lessee in amounts not less than $1,000,000 for personal injury to any one person, $1,000,000 for injuries arising out of any one occurrence, and $1,000,000 for property damage or a com- bined single limit of $1,000,000. Such insurance shall name City of Hermosa Beach and their officers, employees, elected officials and members of Boards or Commissions as additional insured parties. Coverage shall be in accordance with the sample certificates and endorsements attached hereto and must include the coverage and provisions indicated. Lessee shall file and maintain the required certificate(s) of insurance with the other party to this agreement at all times during the term of this agreement. The certificate(s) is to be filed prior to the commencement of the work or event and should state clearly: (1) The additional insured requested; (2) Thirty day prior notice of change or cancellation to the City of Hermosa Beach; (3) Insurance is primary to that of the Additional Insured; (4) Coverage included; (5) Cross -liability clause. 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 with a certificate showing proof of such coverage. Such insurance shall not be canceled 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 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- suantto the provisions of this lease may be either personal- ly served upon the party or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, LESSOR: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY HALL 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 LESSEE: South Bay Center for Counseling 2617 Bell Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Any notices so given pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph will be deemed served twenty-four hours after the deposit thereof in the United States mail. 14. ATTORNEYS FEES. The parties agree that in the event any action is instituted concerning any of the provisions of this lease agreement, the prevailing party may in the discretion of the court be granted as an additional item of damages its attorneys fees. 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. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a Municipal Corporation, Lessor By ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY DATE: LESSEE: ,ete tbelt4.24:(6e:e- DIRECTOR ( a��TTTi 99.) August 27, 1992 City Council Meeting September 8, 1992 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 92-1074 "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT IN REGARDS TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IN THE R-3 AND R -P ZONES, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION." Submitted for adoption is Ordinance No. 92-1074, relating to the above subject. At the meeting of August 25, 1992, this ordinance was presented to Council for consideration, and was introduced by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Concur: Benz, Edgerton, Mayor Essertier Midstokke, Wiemans None None Elaine Doerfling, City Elaine Doerfling, City erk JL„otie Frederick R. Ferrin, City Manager 116 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 92-1074 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL .OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT IN REGARDS TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IN THE R-3 AND R -P ZONES, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on August 25, 1992, to consider amendments to the allowable height in the R-3 and R -P zones and made the following Findings: A. R-3 and R -P zoned areas are still largely developed with structures of only one or two stories and the current 35 -foot height limit allows for construction of new three and four level structures which are not compatible in scale or character with existing development, and in some cases result in view blockage; B. A reduction in allowable height from 35 feet to 30 feet will eliminate the disparity between height limits where R-2 zoned areas border R-3 zoned areas; C. Where R-3 and R -P zoned locations are predominantly developed with structures of over 30 feet in height, exceptions should be allowed for structure to be built up to 35 feet if proven to be necessary to obtain a view, and if found to be compatible with surrounding development; D. An environmental assessment has been conducted by the Staff Environmental Review Committee and it was determined that this text amendment qualifies for a negative declaration; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain the following amendments to the zoning ordinance text: SECTION 4'1; Amend Section 601 of Residential Zone to read as follows: "Sec. 601. Height the R-3 Multiple -Family Intent and Purpose. The intent and purpose of this section is to set a standard height limit for most projects in scale 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 with existing development and to minimize view obstruction. However, to recognize that pre-existing development in some neighborhoods and/or clusters of lots are already predominantly built higher than the height limit, this section also allows some projects to exceed the height limit to enable property owners to enjoy the same rights to view, sunlight, and air enjoyed by those property owners with the higher buildings. This section further sets forth the conditions and design criteria for determining whether a project is allowed to exceed the height limit. (A) No building shall exceed thirty (30) feet in height unless in compliance with section 601 (B) and (C). Refer to Article 7.2 for additional height requirements for condominium projects located adjacent to walk streets. (B) The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and may grant or conditionally grant an exception to allow a multiple or single family building to exceed thirty (30) feet in height up to a maximum of thirty-five (35) feet in height when all of the following conditions are met to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission (subject to appeal to the City Council pursuant to Section 1435): 1) An extension above the height limit is necessary to take advantage of a scenic view over surrounding structures which are already constructed above thirty (30) feet in height. Said structures already in excess of thirty (30) feet would otherwise significantly obstruct the proposed project's view potential; 2 3 4 A substantial number of existing buildings in the vicinity of the proposed project are already constructed to a height greater than thirty (30) feet. The structural extension above 30 feet will not adversely impact the available views, and access to sunlight and air of adjacent and surrounding properties; If all the above conditions are satisfied, the following design features of the portion of the building above thirty (30) feet shall also be considered by the Planning Commission to determine if an exception should be granted: - a. The style and pitch of the roof. b. The mass and bulk of the proposed structure above thirty (30) feet (in order to minimize bulk of the upper floor). c. The architectural appearance, as exhibited by the type, style, and shape of the structure and the proposed exterior materials. (C) Application and public hearing requirements for processing exceptions to the height limit shall be in accordance with procedures established by the City Council." 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 2. Amend Section 701 of the R -P Residential -Professional Zone in the same manner as stated above for Section 601 except that the section numbers shall be "701(A), (B) and (C) " SECTION 3. This ordinance shall not apply to any projects that have a complete building permit application package or a complete application for a land use entitlement on file with the City prior to August 25, 1992. Said application must include completed conceptual plans (plot plan, floor plan, elevation plan, and similar plans) and a lot survey. Projects that have submitted said complete applications must pursue their application in a diligent manner and obtain a building permit within 6 months of the effective date of this ordinance, or within 6 months of the effective date of receipt of final approval of a land use entitlement if received after August 25, 1992. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. SECTION 5. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1992, by following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APP CITY CLERK ED S TO FORM: IC Y -�i CITY ATTORNEY 3 1. Location a. Address: nw.+i r i - - -.......-a- i.....a.... _City wide ,R-3 and R -P zones b. Legal: N/A 2. Description Text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the height limits in R-3 and R -P zones 3. Sponsor a. Name: City of Hermosa RQac'h b. Mailing Address: 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Phone: (310) 318-0242 NEGATIVE DECLARATION In accordance with Resolution 89-5229 of the City of Hermosa beach, which im- plements the California Environmental quality Act of 1970 in Hermosa Beach, the Environmental Review Committee must make an environmental review of all private projects proposed to be undertaken within the City, and the Planning Commission must make an environmental review of all public projects proposed to be undertaken within the City, which are subject to the Environmental.'.. quality Act. This declaration is documentation of the review and, if itsbe- comes final, no comprehensive Enviromnental Impact Report is required for this project. FINDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this pro- posed project in accordance with Resolution 89-5229 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report because, provided the attached mi-tigation mea-s— ures__are-_in.c.luded in. the project, it would not have a significant effect on the environment. Documentation spportir this finding is on file in the Planning Department. Date of9Fiinding J hairman/'nvir•' mental Review Committee FINDING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this pro- ject in accordance with Resolution 89-5229 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environ- mental Impact Report because, • included in the pro- c'', it would not have a significant effect vironment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in ing Department. c74— Date of Finding • _ • - . I. on the en - the Plann- Chairman, Planning Commission FINDING OF THE CITY COUNCIL We have undertaken and completed an environmental Impact Review of this pro- posed project in accordance with Resolution 89-5229 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find this project does not require a comprehensive En- vironmental Impact Report because, provided ---the --_ tyres -are included in the project, it would not have a significant effect on the environment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in the Planning Department. Date of Finding Mayor, Hermosa Beach City Council 124 Neptune Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 September 4, 1992 Hermosa Beach City Council p Ttl ! SEP 037992 w Clev Clerk 27 r$t or '4""”^", BaseN I will be out of town on September 8 when you meet to discuss a new ordinance dropping the legal height limit of properties such as mine. I would like to beg you to leave things alone, as it seems you already have enough discretionary power to limit any severe problems in town. You have approved other monstrous buildings in front of me, have extended power pole wires across my balcony, installed street vents that prevent me from opening my passenger car door if parked appropriately at a meter. I'd so love to have something positive legislated toward me. Please allow me the option to extend my dwelling if I should ever have the capacity to do so. I am not interested in resale, but you do know your legislation affects my property value and ability to refinance to gain remodel funds. I'd like to keep renovating this property as I plan to retire here. I'd just be so grateful if there were some initiative proposed by the city that benefitted me rather than punished. I am not a developer, just a woman alone trying to make a nice life for myself. It takes time and effort from my own work to try as best I can to learn what is happening in my town. I haven't found much of this easy to figure out, and it just seems those developers and realtors who make their livings at this get the upper hand and get what they want and people like myself just have to take it. I'd appreciate any consideration you give to my letter. JH:jh SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ea APN: 4184-025-103 Robert E. Carson 1707 Pacific Coast HWY. No. 501 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3232 .ft_eik/ _%)/i 76- Ples-e eev 3 - ••- " y v( e 6( SUPPLEMENTAL ,;;;7 JFORMATION t a PO Box 881 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 September 8, 1992 City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attn: Lori, Administration Second Floor Dear City Council: My husband and I own four units on R-3 property on Monterey in Hermosa Beach. We worked hard to save our money to purchase our property. Our units show pride of ownership. They are maintained perfectly and Hermosa Beach should be proud of them. Why does the City Council think they have the right to approve an ordinance to lower the legal height limit for R-3 zoned property to 30 feet? Real estate is already depreciating in value. Passage of this ordinance could be disastrous to values in Hermosa Beach. And remember that property taxes are based on selling prices. The purpose of this letter is to urge you to keep the legal height limit to 35 feet. Thank you. Yours truly, k,'LL ) it Mr. & Mrs. Robert L. Kulp SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 2 a X-c--;4‘.74/ August 27, 1992 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council September 8, 1992 SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION OF PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 91-5 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-26 LOCATION: 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY APPLICANT/: JEREMY YEH ARCHITECT 49 SOUTH CATALINA AVENUE PASADENA, CA 91106 OWNER: CHENG WEI CHEN AND TSAI YU-HSIU CHEN 339 WEST DUARTE ROAD ARCADIA, CA 91007 PURPOSE: TO RECONSIDER THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO - ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 70 -ROOM HOTEL WITH RETAIL, A RESTAURANT WITH ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL, AND A PIANO BAR WITH ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL Planning_ Commission and Staff Recommendation Sustain the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the project subject to the conditions as contained in the P.C. Resolution 92-48. Background At their meeting of August 4, 1992, the Planning Commission voted 5:0 to approve the requested hotel/restaurant project subject to conditions. This was the fifth Planning Commission hearing where public testimony was heard and/or the subject project was discussed. The Planning Commission approved the project because they were satisfied that the applicant had finally addressed their concerns and the concerns of staff regarding the design of the project. Please refer to the attached chronology and attached Planning Commission •minutes and staff reports for further background. Additional background information is available on file in the Planning Department. Analysis Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff reports for the analysis of the project, as conducted over several hearings. One issue that the Council may wish to discuss is in regards to the issue of the wall height along the eastern property line. The plans show an 8 -foot high decorative block wall and the Planning Commission, in consideration of testimony from the adjacent property owner who would like to see as much as an 18 -foot high wall equivalent to the height of the current building wall,is requiring a 12 -foot high wall as a compromise. Staff supports the requirement of the Planning Commission, but also believes the proposed 8 -foot wall would be more than adequate, particularly in conjunction with the 24" box trees every 10' which are also required. Ultimately the trees will create a tall buffer. CONCUR: Michael Schubach P1 nning Directr Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager Attachments Ken Robertson Associate Planner 1. Proposed Resolution to sustain the Commission's decision 2. Planning Commission Resolution of approval and Staff Report/Minutes 8/4/92 3. P.C. Staff Report/Minutes 6/16/92, and 5/5/92 4. Chronology 5. Correspondence since 6/16/92 6. Additional background information Additional information such as previous staff reports and previous plans are on file in the Planning Department a/pcsr125 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. 92- 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 AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A SEVENTY UNIT HOTEL WITH RETAIL, A RESTAURANT AND PIANO BAR WITH ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on September 8, 1992 and made the following findings: A. The project is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; B. The site is zoned Specific Plan Area No. 7 and is suitable for the type and density of the proposed development; C. The development, as conditioned by the Planning Commission,. will pose no threat to the public safety and welfare; D. Design of the proposed project is compatible and consistent with applicable elements of the City's General Plan and with the guidelines of Specific Plan Area No. 7; E. An environmental assessment has been conducted, and the proposed project, with the incorporation of mitigating conditions by the Planning Commission, will cause a less than significant environmental impact. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby sustain the Planning Commission decision to approve a PreciseDevelopment Plan, and Conditional Use Permit at 125 Pacific Coast Highway, and adopt an Environmental Negative Declaration. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this .day of 1992. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: p/ccrs125 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. 92-48 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 70 -ROOM HOTEL BUILDING WITH ANCILLARY RETAIL, RESTAURANT AND A PIANO BAR, AND APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ON -SALE ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE RESTAURANT AND AT THE BAR AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 THROUGH 6 INCLUSIVE, LOTS 7 AND 8, TRACT 5019, AND LOT 142, WALTER RANSOM COMPANY'S VENABLE PLACE WHEREAS, the .Planning Commission held public hearings on May 5, June 16, and August 4, 1992, to receive oral and written testimony regarding a Precise Development Plan for a 70 -room Hotel with ancillary uses at 125 Pacific Coast Highway and made the following findings: A. The project is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; B. The site is zoned Specific Plan Area No. 7 and is suitable for the type and density of the proposed development; C. The development, as conditioned below, will pose no threat to the public safety and welfare; D. Design of the proposed project is compatible and consistent with applicable elements of the City's General Plan and with the guidelines of Specific Plan Area No. 7; E. An environmental assessment has been conducted, and the proposed project, with the incorporation of mitigating conditions below, will cause a less than significant environmental impact. NOW,` THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby approve a Precise Development Plan, and Conditional Use Permit at 125 Pacific Coast Highway, and.. adopts an Environmental Negative Declaration, subject to the following conditions: 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 SECTION I - Conditions regarding the Precise Development Plan 1. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with submitted preliminary plans received July 21, 1992, and reviewed by the Planning Commission on August 4, 1992. Any minor modification shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. 2. The subject lots to be developed shall be merged together,. pursuant to Section 29.5-29, prior to the issuance of building permits 3. A twelve -foot high decorative block wall shall be provided along the entire length of the westerly property line, with the finished size and type of material to be approved by the Planning Commission. 4. The landscaping strip along the east property line shall be a minimum of 5 feet wide. 5. Three (3) copies of a revised landscaping plan indicating size, type, and quantity of plant materials (including trunk diameter at planting time) shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. a. An automatic landscape irrigation system shall be provided, and shall be shown on plans. b. Landscaping shall be provided along the length of the east property line in accordance with landscape plan. A minimum of one 24 -inch size specimen tree shall be planted for every 10 feet of length. 6. Architectural treatment shall be as shown on building elevations and any modification shall require approval by the Planning Director. a. Samples of proposed exterior materials as "identified on submitted elevations shall be supplied to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission for _review and approval by_ the Planning Commission prior to use of such materials on the building, and prior to issuance of building permits. 7. A grading plan shall be reviewed at the time of Building Plan Check and shall be consistent with the submitted plans to the satisfaction of the Building Director. 8. Any satellite dish and/or similar equipment shall comply with the requirements of Section 1227 of the Zoning Ordinance. 9. The project shall comply with the following r=yquirements of the Public Works Department: (a) Dedicate a 27 -foot return radius at the corner. of First Street and P.C.H.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. 10- 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c �c (b) Dedicate a 27 -foot return radius at the corner of First Place and P.C.H. (c) Relocate street light poles as required (d) Construct new curb, gutter and sidewalk (d) Reconstruct new 6" A.C. over 12" A.B. out to centerline of First Place and First Street (e) All utilities shall be placed underground (f) On-site drainage not permitted across sidewalk 10. The project shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Department as contained in their letter dated December 24, 1991, and attached herewith. 11. A lighting plan shall be submitted which clearly demonstrates that the glare from all lighting fixtures will be effectively hidden from the view of the residential area to the west. This shall be accomplished by locating the fixtures below the level of the property line wall or by hiding the lights in a manner satisfactory to the Planning Commission. 12. Overall signage shall be consistent with the sign locations depicted on the submitted elevations. a. A separate overall concept sign plan including information as to types, color, and size of lettering shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of Building Permits. b. Final detailed sign plans, consistent with the concept plan approved by the Planning Commission, including structural information shall be approved by the Director of Building and Safety prior to the issuance of sign permits. c. Any minor modification of the sign plan -shall is subject to review and approval by the Planning Director, while significant changes require approval by the.. Planning Commission. 13. The project shall comply with the requirement of the California Department of Transportation pursuant to their letter to Mr. Hui Lai, dated February 24, 1992. 14. Pursuant to the recommendations contained in the submitted Acoustical Analysis of Thru-the-Wall Air Conditioning Units, the air conditioning units shall be installed inside the room venting out through sheet metal louvers. Further, pursuant to the recommendation on page 6 of said report the units shall be installed inside enclosures lined with 1-1/2 inch thickness of Johns Manville LinAcoustic-R, on Mason HD Vibration Isolators, or comparable materials. 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 15. Plans depicting landscaping, lighting, wall materials, and signing, and examples of exterior materials, pursuant to condtions 3, 5, 6, 11a, and 12 shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval prior to approval of building permits. 16. Within six (6) months of the date of approval of the precise development plan, permittee and/or owner(s) of the property shall apply for a building permit and shall submit complete construction drawings therefore, to the City. 17. Final building plans/construction drawings elevation, floor plan, sections, details, irrigation, and a sign plan submitted for issuance shall be reviewed for consistency plans approved by the Planning Commission, the Planning Director prior to the issuance Permit. including site, landscaping and building permit with the final and approved by of any Building SECTION II Conditions regarding the operation of the on -sale alcohol establishments: 1. The establishment shall not adversely effect the welfare of the residents, and/or commercial establishments nearby. 2. The business shall provide adequate staffing, management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of the patrons outside the business in the parking areas. 3. Noise emanating from the property shall be within the limitations prescribed by the city's noise ordinance and shall not create a nuisance to surrounding residential neighborhoods, and/or commercial establishments. 4. A sign shall be posted conspicuously and prominently at all exits 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 and permanently maintained. 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. 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. 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 7. The exterior of the premises including the parking area shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner at all times. SECTION III This grant shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee and the owners of the property involved have filed at the office of the Department of Planning their affidavits stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant. The Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan shall be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 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. Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul this permit approval, which action is brought within the applicable time period of Government Code Section 65907. The City shall promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. The permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this grant. Although the permittee is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the permittee of any obligation under this condition. The subject property shall be developed, maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any development or activity on the subject property. Failure of the permittee to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions. The Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan shall automatically expire within one (1) year of the date of approval of -said entitlements unless permittee and/or owner(s) have commences' construction of the project, unless an extension to said time period has been granted by the Planning Cmmission. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10- 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C iC SECTION IV The Planning Commission may review this Precise Development Plan and 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. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Di Monda,Marks,Oakes,Suard,Chmn.Merl NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 92-48 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the. City of Hermosa Beach, California at their' regular meeting of august 4, 1992. Rod Merl, Chairman Micffael`Schubach, Secretary d'`-. PZ -Date 7 a/pers125 City o f21ermosa 1r3. eaclt. December 24, 1991 Cheng Wel Chen (OWNER) 339 W. Duarte Road _ Arcadia, Ca. 91006 Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 JR Design Group Inc. (Architec) 49 South Catalina Ave. Pasadena, Ca. 91106 (818) 568-2862 RE:KING HARBOR HOTEL 125 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach,CR. Gentleman, In regard to the fire safety requirements for the (70 -unit) hotel with restaurant to be located at 125 Pacafic Coast Highway (Hermosa Beach Hotel) in Hermosa Beach we are listing the following requirements. It is the request of this Department that a representative of your firm meet with Inspector Paul Osekowsky of the Fire Prevention Bureau at a mutually acceptable date to list the items on the plans submitted for Fire Department approval. It shall be the responsibility of the owner of this project to receive bids on, and choose the installer of any fire protection system required by this Department. PLEASE TELEPHOHE FOR RH APPOIHTf1EHT, 7:00 Rh to 12:t') R11 or 01:00 Ph to 06:00 P11 Honday through Thursday. (213) 376-2479 ITEMS: 1) ADDRESS: Provide an address on front of the building to be legible from Pacific Coast Highway using IIUI1ERALS ,minimum 4 inches in hight. Numerials shall be a contrasting color to the background. Per U.F.C. Sec. 1010.208. 2) Provide Smoke detectors in each sleeping room Per 1988 Uniform Building Code, 1988 Sec.1210 (a) 5. 3) FIRE ALARA: Provide an automatic fire detection and alarm system to be installed in compliance with Hermosa Beach City requirements. Mitigating measure to decrease response time do to the increased density. Hermosa Beach City Ordinance Sec. 12-7, Sec. 14.104 (c) UFC Sec.14.104 (c) _Each detector shall not exceed a maximum coverage of 625 square feet and be spaced on 25 foot centers, and no more than 12 1/2 feet off a wa11, and 17 1/2 feet off any corner. Rooms or areas with beam ceilings and/or obstructions of any kind must be noted and additional detection may be required. Detectors are required on both sides of any beam or obstruction that is 18 inches or more in depth. For exception see N.F.P.R. 72-E, 3-5.4 - Sloped Ceilings. . Beam Construction : It shall be treated as a smooth ceiling. If the beams project more than 4 inches below the ceiling, detectors shall be located at no more than two-thirds the spacing schedule in the direction at right angles to the direction of beam travel. If the beams project more than 18 inches below the ceiling, each bay formed by the beams shall be treated as a separate area. Detailed plans of this system must be submitted to this Department for approval prior to installation commencing. This fire alarm system shall include an annunciation panel, fixed temperature detectors in all areas including garages (UNLESS SPRIUKLED), 3,A) A SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS REQUIRED PER UFC SEC.10.306(h) A separate fire alarm system need not be installed in buildings which are protected throughout by an approved SUPERVISED fire sprinkler system conforming to the Building Code and U.B.C. Standard No .38-1 and having a local alarm to notify all occupants. 1988 U.F.C. Sec. 14.104 (c) 4)FIRE ALARM PANEL: ALL panels will have locks keyed to accept key type C346A keys. We are suggesting that the alarm panel be located in the hotel lobby 5) "C" SERO I CE : All fire alarm connections shall be wired as a "C" service, interrupted by only one fused throw switch housed in a box whose switch shall be capable of being locked and sealed in the .'0N' position 6) FIRE EXTINGUISHERS: Prou de 2A -108C portable dry chemical fire extinguishers in security break glass type cabinets to deter possible vandalism. See print for location; Per Title 19-596.1. Light Hazard occupancies it will be unnecessary for a person to travel nore than 75 feet to reach the nearest extinguisher on each floor. Extinguisher type 211-108C 7) MET STANDPIPE -CLASS III: A class three wet standpipe system is . required. 2 1/2" outlets are required on each floor level. Standpipes' shall be located in ALL required stairways. A Fire Department connection is required (see print for location of Fire Department connection ), •Hermosa Beach Ord. 440, Section 13.307 UFC Sec. 10.309 & Table 10.309 8) ELEUATORS : (stretcher Requirements) In all structures four or more stories in height, at least one elevator shall be provided with a minimum clear distance between walls or between walls and excluding return panels, not less than 80 inches by 54 inches, and a minimum distance from wall to return panel not less than 51 inches with a 42 -inch side slide door, unless otherwise designed to accommodate an ambulance - type stretcher 76 inches by 24 inches in the horizontal position. 1988 Uniform Building Code Sec. 5103-15 (e) 9) HOOD & DUCT EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM: REQUIRED FOR THE PROTECTION OF COMMERCIAL -TYPE FOOD HEAT -PROCESSING EQUIPMENT. 1988 UFC SEC. 10.312 10) STAGGER DOORS We are strongly suggesting that guest room doors leading into the hallways should be staggered. A fire in a hotel room will vent directly across a hallway and directly into an opposing room if the guest room doors are not stagered. 11) FIRE HYDRENT We are requesting that you install a new fire hydrant at first Place and Pacific Coast Highway on the south west corner. We are requiring that this hydrant be installed prior to framing. 12) Hotels Motels and Lodging houses two or more stories in height shall employ one of the following methods of providing emergency procedures and information to building occupants. 1) Emergency procedures in the form of leaflets to be made available to all persons entering the building. 2) A floor plan providing emergency procedures information shall be posted at every stairway landing, elevator landings and at the main enterance. Sincerel Paul J. Osekowsky Fire Captain Hermosa Beach Fire Department .125 PCH, TAPE 1 _�3— WILLIAM B. BARR CHARLES S. VOSE CONNIE COOKE SANDIFER JAMES DUFF MURPHY ROGER W. SPRINGER EDWARD W. LEE HERIBERTO F. DIAZ JANICE R. MIVAHIRA BETH S. BERGMAN TO: FROM: DATE: RE: LAW OFFICES OLIVER, BARR &-VOSE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1000 SUNSET BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 (213) 250-3043 MEMORANDUM Michael Schubach, Director of Planning City of Hermosa Beach Edward W. Lee, Assistant City Attorne August 11, 1992 125 Pacific Coast Highway TELECOPIER " (213) 482-5336 At the request of the Planning Commission and at your direction, I am forwarding suggested language to be added to Resolution P.C. 92-48, the approval of the Precise Development Plan and the Conditional Use Permit granted to the applicant at the subject property. As already stated to the Planning Commission, it is the opinion of this office that the maximum height limits established under Ordinance No. 91-1063 do not apply to the project under consideration. However, as also noted, it would be entirely appropriate for the Commission to apply a time frame for the exercise of the grant of approvals. CONCLUSION Given current case law and the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, I would suggest the following provisions. The basis for the suggested language is discussed in detail below. 1) Add to Section I a new paragraph 16 to read as follows: "16. Within six (6) months of the date of approval of the precise development plan, permittee and/or owner(s) of the property shall apply for a building permit and shall submit complete construction drawings therefor, to the City." OLIVER, BARR & VOSE Memo re 125 Pacific Coast Highway August 11, 1992 Page 2. 2 Add to Section III as a new third paragraph a provision to read as follows: "The Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan shall automatically expire within one (1) year of the date of approval of said entitlements unless permittee and/or owner(s) have commenced construction of the project, unless an extension to said time period has been granted." DISCUSSION As already noted, Ordinance No. 91-1063 (the "Ordinance") does not apply to the subject project as a result of the application of legal equitable principles. However, in order to meet the intent of the Ordinance, it has been suggested that the Commission apply some time frame for this applicant/owner to diligently proceed with the development and construction of the project. The Ordinance provided in its "grandfather" section that "projects that have submitted a complete building permit package must pursue their application in a diligent manner and must be issued a building permit within six months of the effective date of this ordinance." A condition on land use entitlements -which impose a time for commencement of the use will generally be upheld if the time is reasonable, on the theory that the purpose is to prevent one from reserving land for future purposes when that person has no good faith intent to presently commence upon the proposed use. Upton v. Gray (1969) 269 Cal. App.2d 352, 357. "Good faith intent" is not necessarily defined by actual construction but may be established in several ways which bear "definitive relationship to the purpose" of the City's ordinances. Community Development Comm. v. City of Fort Bragg (1988) 204 Ca. App.3d 1124, 1131. In Fort Bragg, the developer had obtained financing commitments, hired an architect and engineer and had submitted drawings for plan check. The court in the Fort Bragg noted the observation in another case that "the extent of construction alone does not invariably show whether a permittee is ready to proceed.... (M)uch work must be done on the drawing board, in governmental and banking offices before the pick and shovel may be wielded and mortar poured." (Morgan v. County of San Diego (1971) 19 Cal. App.3d 636.) OLIVER, BARR & VOSE Memo re 125 Pacific Coast Highway August 11, 1992 Page 3. The Hermosa Beach Municipal Code imposes under Sec. 1402.5(c) a twelve month period for the exercise of a variance use and under Sec. 1436(A) applies a one (1) year period for development to commence from the date of approval of a precise development plan unless an extension is granted. The Municipal Code further provides in Sec. 1800 for the revocation of a variance or conditional use permit where "that use for which approval was granted has ceased to exist or has been suspended for one (1) year or more." The Municipal Code is silent as to a specific time period to apply to a conditional use permit for automatic expiration of such permits. Under the line of cases cited above, it appears that the Municipal Code provisions which limit the time period to one year for the respective land use entitlements will withstand attack. The question is whether a shorter time period than one year can be applied to the subject project in order to meet the intent of Ordinance No. 91-1063 that such projects obtain building permits within six months? A threshold question to first answer is the meaning of "commencement of development" under Sec. 1436(A) of the Municipal Code. "Commencement of development" under Sec. 1436(A) could reasonably be interpreted to mean the start of construction of the project. The SPA 7 zone requires a certain level of detail in the submission of plans for such approval pursuant to Sec. 9.67-7(g) e.g., "detailed and fully dimensioned site plans, building plans, floor plans, architectural drawings and elevations." Given the level of detail of the plans required for submission, a one year period from date of approval of a precise development plan to obtain a building permit and start construction appears to be a reasonable time period as required by Upton. Assuming that Sec. 1436(A) requires the start of construction within one year of approval, it would be reasonable to require evidence of "good faith" in order to prevent reservation of land when there was no intent to presently 'move forward with the project. A condition of approval which provides for a six month period to apply for a building permit and submit construction drawings would be, in my opinion, reasonable evidence of such good faith. Failure to meet such condition would be the basis for revocation of the Precise DQvelopment Plan approval. This procedure would require a noticed hearing to insure that the permittee/owner receive "due process" before terminating a land use OLIVER, BARR & VOSE Memo re 125 Pacific Coast Highway August 11, 1992 Page 4. entitlement. Again assuming that Sec. 1436(A) requires the start of construction within one year of approval, a general provision to Section III of the Resolution appears warranted to place the permittee/owner and any successor in interest on notice of this provision in the Municipal Code. As a corollary, an automatic expiration of the Conditional Use Permit within the one year period, as suggested within this proposed provision, would be consistent with the other time periods already provided under the Municipal Code as cited above. Additionally, under the unique facts of this case, the CUP could not be exercised in the event that the precise development plan approval was terminated and therefore, is reasonably tied to said approval. RECOMMENDATIONS In order to prevent any future misunderstanding of the provisions of the Municipal Code, I would recommend that the Planning Commission consider initiating a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would specifically amend Sec. 1436(A) to clarify the City intent to see "commencement of construction" within one year of the approval of a precise development plan. I would also recommend that revocation and expiration provisions be consolidated into and clearly stated in Sec. 1800 which then requires Sec. 1402.5 be deleted. EWL:ilf 11327 PDP 91-5/CUP 91-26 -- PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOTEL WITH A PIANO BAR AND A RESTAURANT WITH ON -SALE ALCOHOL, AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, KING HARBOR HOTEL (continued from 2/18, 4/7, 5/5 and 6/16/92 meetings). Recommended Action: To approve said Precise Development. Plan and Conditional Use Permit, and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declara- tion. Mr. Schubach gave the Staff Report, recommending an additional condition that with six months after approval, the applicant must obtain the building permits or the approval will be null and void. Mr. Schubach explained the actions taken by the applicant and Commission to this date, noted the City Attorney's opinion regarding closure of residential streets, referenced the many changes to the plans made by the applicant in response to the Commission's requests, and stated the plan is consistent with the - zoning code and Precise Development Plan provisions, noted the project should not be delayed any further if ,the Commission wase', satisfied. Mr. Schubach stated Staff suggested adding the condition that materials and the sign program be approved by the Commission prior to the issuance of Building Permits. He stated any further details or modification deemed necessary or desirable could be added as conditions of approval. Comm. Oakes discussed with Mr. Schubach the size and location of the required on-site tree and the type of air conditioning that would be used. Comm. Di Monda discussed the trees that were required at other projects, noting he felt this location needed larger trees than 24 inches. Comm. Oakes suggested that a "nine -feet brown trunk height" be the requirement. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 9:08 p.m. Mr. Jeromy Yeh, 49 So. Catalina Avenue, Pasadena, applicant's representative, discussed the efforts to decrease the noise impact upon the neighboring. properties through the project design. He noted the reduction in the restaurant size, the many,:changes made to the plans at the request of the City. He stated the restaurant would be serviced periodically throughout the week by delivery trucks to the open parking area. Comm. Marks suggested,a second means of servicing and for clientele entry and exit be considered. Comm. Di Monda suggested a condition be added which required delivery through the basement garage area, to which Mr. Yeh agreed. Comm. Oakes discussed the means of trash removal, open railing at the pool area (including the height and width between walls, as well as the surrounding landscaping), plans for lighting and the treatment of the concrete area with Mr. Yeh. Mr. Yeh agreed to change the railing to the required six feet, provide proper landscaping and to change the concrete area. Comm. Oakes wished conditions, added that would require the applicant to obtain approval by Staff of the type of vegetation that should be planted and the Planning Commission approve the decorative treatment of the concrete area. P.C.Minutes 8/4/92 Janet McHugh, 601 1st Street, discussed the levels of approval that are required for this project with the Commission and Staff. She objected that Staff had not supplied a "complete package, down to every detail" to the Commission. Ms. McHugh stated she was not well prepared for this meeting, presented photographs of parked cars and discussed the current parking problems. She•felt the project should be required to have more parking spaces. Chmn. Merl stated the packages had been furnished by Staff at previous meetings. Mr. Schubach read results of a survey of street closure, as well as the City Attorney's open relating to this issue. Ms. McHugh requested the 18 -feet wall dividing the commercial from residential properties remain. She reiterated her feelings that many things were wrong with the project, requesting many changes be made prior to approval. Bob Hessman601 1st Street, read and submitted a petition with approximately 42 signatures, from area residents requesting the situation be made more "livable" for the residents that live adjacent to the hotel, in order to maintain the residents' quality of live. He suggested if the street were closed, the City could donate available space to give the builder more traffic access, which was discussed with him by Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach. - Phil Wagner, 601 1st Street, stated residents were not opposed to the project, but were more concerned regarding the traffic impact and project implementation. He requested the heavy trucks be kept away from the residents during the early morning and evenings. Steve Kreesey, 2nd Street, opposed the project name of "King Harbor Hotel," suggesting the name, itself, promote Hermosa Beach. He also recommended low monument type of sign, with quality channel letters. Mark Freeman, 1900 block Palm Drive, expressed concerns relating to property access, the need for additional parking space and the single access and exit, feeling this would be a safety factor and have an impact upon traffic. He expressed pleasure the Commission was involved in this type of project. He supported approval of this project, which he felt would benefit the community. George Worth, 540 1st Street, homeowners 10 -unit -condominium association president and representative, stated they supported the hotel, noted the concerns related to traffic and congestion, and requested that 1st Street be closed off, as it is narrow and is functioning as a one-way street. He suggested a barricade be constructed to restrict traffic into the residential area while still providing access to other areas. He supported the changes being made to the property by the builder and opposed designation to R-3 of the R-2 area. John McHugh, 718 1st Place, stated traffic accidents are occurring almost daily at 1st Place and Pacific Coast Highway, requesting the Commission obtain information from the Police Department prior to P.C.Minutes 8/4/92 approving this project. He felt this project should be presented in November 1992 to obtain a vote of the people. He stated the project could be good, but there were too many bad thingsto allow approval. Jeromy Yeh, applicant's representative, stated the hotel would be the best business to help mitigate the traffic problems at the site. He noted it was a commercial lot and a hotel would result in less traffic problems than other, allowable businesses. He asked for fairness, and that the job opportunities and taxes provided by this hotel be considered by the City. He stated the design displayed an eight -feet wall on the west property line which would not block the ocean view and which the City had requested that it be a decorative wall. He explained the applicant's professional business experience and the surveys conducted relating to placement of a hotel at this location. Mr. Yeh stated the name should serve the business to draw customers, but he was open to any suggestions. Comm. Suard and Mr. Yeh discussed access and exit, with Mr. Yeh stating they preferred two exits, but those plans had been changed, per requests by the City and residents. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Merl at 10:07 p.m. Comm. Di, Monda stated the project had been before the Commission since November 1991, the project had been redesigned at least three times, the applicant appeared to be very sincere in addressing the issues that had been raised and had many plan changes to accommodate all of those concerns. This area is a commercial zone, the Commission had exercised a great amount of discretionary power and addressed a multitude of issues. There are still outstanding questions which can be handled by Staff after project approval. A final landscaping plan, light plan and signage plan needs to be submitted and reviewed. Comm. Di Monda recommended, based upon testimony, the closure of both streets on the west property line, noting the Commission could recommend this street closure to the City Council. He requested time limitations be placed upon the project as a condition of approval and that a time schedule be developed, to which the builder must adhere. Comm. Suard agreed with Comm. Di Monda's- comments. Comm. Oakes stated she wished the following requirements be included as conditions of approval: (1) lighting, landscape and signage be.resubmitted to the Commission at a public hearing, (2) material boards are to be provided, (3) stamped concrete or hardscape material is to be used in the driveway area, (4) a ten feet, rather than an eight feet, wall be constructed in the rear area, and (5) the everyone agrees, the subject streets could be closed and decided upon at this point. She supported the construction of a quality hotel upon this site and recommended the name be changed. She stipulated these should be reviewed by the Commission prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Upon request, Mr. Yeh explained he was trying to obtain samples from selected P.C.Minutes 8/4/92 suppliers. Chmn. Merl concurred with these additional suggestions for conditions, while recommended the fence be a minimum of a 12 feet height. Mr. Schubach confirmed the Commission wished to change the wording "Planning Director" to "Planning Commission" relating to approvals. Comm. Di Monda requested involvement by the City Attorney in determining the wording of the condition relating to building time limitations, to which Mr. Schubach agreed. Comm. Di Monda stressed the importance that the applicant not be allowed to wait six months to obtain a permit, and then be able to slowly start and complete construction over -an extended period of time by the renewal permit process. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE CUP 91-5, Precise Development Plan and C.U.P. for a hotel with piano bar and restaurant with on -sale alcohol, and adoption of a,. Mitigated Negative Declaration at 125 Pacific Coast Highway, with;'; inclusion of the additional conditions stipulated by the;.. Commission, which included the subjects of landscaping, lighting,- signs, material boards, 12 -feet wall, concrete surface treatment, a limitation of six months in which to obtain building permits and establishment of time limitations for work in earnest and that the permit cannot be extended withoutsubstantial work having been completed, wording to be completed by the City Attorney, and that a second means of vehicle access be granted if 1st Place is closed. AYES: Comms. Di Monda, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl NOES: Comm. Marks ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None After discussion, the Commission decided to revote the motion, adding that a second means of vehicle access be granted if 1st Place is closed by a barrier, resulting in the following motion and vote: MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE CUP 91-5, Precise Development Plan and C.U.P. for a hotelwith piano bar and restaurant with on -sale alcohol, and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration at 125 Pacific Coast Highway, with inclusion of the additional conditions stipulated by the Commission, which included the subjects of landscaping, lighting, signs, material boards, 12 -feet wall, concrete surface treatment, a limitation of six months in which to obtain building permits and establishment of time limitations for work in earnest and that the permit cannot be extended without substantial work having been completed, wording to be completed by the City Attorney, and that a second means of vehicle access be granted if 1st Place and 1st Street aresclosed. AYES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None P.C.Minutes 8/4/92 Chmn. Merl stated this item could be appealed to the City Council within 10 days of this meeting. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Oakes, to RECOMMEND to the City Council that 1st Street and 1st Place be closed at the westerly edge of the 125 Pacific Coast Highway property line. AYES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn..Meri NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None TE 92-2 -- TEXT AMENDMENT TO LOWER THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IN 3 AND RrP ZONES AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION (continued from July 21, 1992 meeting). Recommend d Action: To recommend approval of said text-mendment . and adoptiooof the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach s'�tated Staff recommended adoption of is Resolution was based upon Planning Commission and City Counc'. direction. He discussed the badtground, including the results •f a "windshield" survey conducted in,1991, noting Staff recommen•-d the threshold of 25 Staff emphasized the ordinance was wr' ten and modified to balance the conflicting objectives of creating clear and understandable standard's, with that of lowing flexibility to judge each project on its^ erits. The C Attorney suggested more flexibility in languagewhich ha been submitted to the Commission. He presented the\compar' on between the ordinance and current proposed language, i clud' g the change of the term, "majority" to "25%", and changes, or clarification purposes. Mr. Schubach explained these change, in detail for the Commission, expressing his hope that all nceMns have now been addressed and the Text Amendment may be adop ed. Public Hearing opened by C,,tfmn. Merl at 10.5 p.m. No one wished to spea3S/upon this issue, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 10: "5 p.m. Comm. Suard prefe ed the Attorney's wording of\Page 2.A, in that flexibility wou be added. He felt that in terms of Item #4.A, the Commissioshould be more specific in termsK of what the Commission i - action seeking, suggesting, "...roofs (prefer varied styles/ le -ls and peaked roofs)." be added. He wished to add to No. 4.B, "...looking to. minimize top bulk." Comm.\Di Monda accepte• these change to No. 4.B. on the basis of clarification, but d'sagimed with the change to No. 4.A. in that the building design might include a flat roof. Comm. Suard wished to assure th the 30 feet height would not be "straight up,"--looking=,_'to assure a variety in the design to decrease the appearance of mass. P.C.Minutes' 8/4/92 2-z July 30, 1992 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission August 4, 1992 (CONTINUED FROM 6/16/92 AND PREVIOUS MEETINGS) SUBJECT: PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 91-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-26 LOCATION: 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY APPLICANT/: JEREMY YEH ARCHITECT 49 SOUTH CATALINA AVENUE PASADENA, CA 91106 OWNER: CHENG WEI CHEN AND TSAI YU-HSIU CHEN 339 WEST DUARTE ROAD ARCADIA, CA 91007 REQUEST: TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 70 -ROOM HOTEL WITH RETAIL, A RESTAURANT WITH ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL, AND A PIANO BAR WITH ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the conditions as contained in the attached resolution. Background At the meeting of June 16, 1992, the Planning Commission continued the request because the applicant had not made minor revisions as requested at the May 5, 1992 meeting. Additionally the Commission received requested information from staff in regards to whether or not a traffic signal should be provided; residential street closures; building height; height of wall on east property line; pedestrian safety; and site cleanup. The Commission was apparently satisfied with the information provided and only requested further information from the City Attorney in regards to the street closure issue and, requested the applicant to cleanup and secure the property. For further background please refer to the attached 6/16/92 staff report, minutes and attachments, and also the attached chronology. Additional background information is available on file in the Planning Department. Analysis Staff received revised plans on July 21, 1992, which provides for a new single location for all the trash dumpsters in the garage -23 - level, and changes in the location and accessibility of handicapped parking stalls. As a result the size of the restaurant has been reduced by about 120 square feet, thereby reducing the parking requirement to 112 spaces, meaning the project has one parking space to spare. The plan continues to use 8 parking spaces provided in tandem, which, as discussed previously areacceptable if for employee or valet parking. In addition the landscape plan has been revised as requested to provide a buffering type tree along the east property line rather than more palm trees, although a condition must still be included that the minimum size be 24" box. Also, the site has been cleaned up and secured (see the attached photographs). Additionally the City Attorney has provided an opinion in regards to residential street closures (copy attached), in which he cites case law to indicate that street closure could be accomplished without unanimous consent of affected landowners if the appropriate procedures were followed in regards to amending the - General Plan and if such closures would not inhibit emergency vehicle access. Staff believes this is a peripheral issue that should be taken up at a later date if initiated by residents/landowners in the area. Otherwise, the plans before you are essentially the same as what was reviewed on May 5, 1992. If the Commission is satisfied that with staff responses to their concerns, and are generally satisfied with the plans, this project should not be delayed any further. Any details or modifications deemed necessary or desirable can be added as conditions of approval. The applicant has indicated his intention to provide material samples and a sign program at the August 4, 1992 meeting. If so, these can be adopted as part of the plan. Otherwise. staff has included conditions that materials and the sign program be approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of building permits, which could be done at a later date. For further analysis, staff has provided the previous two staff reports.. Given the long history of this application it would be cost prohibitive to provide each Commissioner with all the background • material, which includes a traffic study, an acoustical study, correspondence from CalTrans, the Building Department, Public Works Department, etc. These items are available for review in the Planning Department. Although it, has not always been timely, the applicant has been responsive to the concerns of staff and the Commission in the final design of this project which has resulted in many changes. As such, based on previous analysis which found consistency with the Precise Development Plan provisions and further its compliance with the requirements of the zoning code, staff supports approval of this project. CONOUR : is ael Schubach Planning Director Attachments /4 Ken Robertson Associate Planner 1. Proposed Resolution of approval 2. P.C. Staff Report/Minutes 6/16/92, and 5/5/92 3. Chronology 4. Correspondence since 6/16/92 5. 7/30/92 photographs of subject site Additional information such as previous staff reports and plans are on file in the Planning Department a/pcsr125 84CKGR avND MATER/AL Comm. Suard stated the applicant would be required to adhere to t}e Code equirements. He felt a reading of the ambient noise levet on a Sun morning was just as important as a 5:00 p.m. reading, noting redents should have their "quiet time". MOTION by Commm., Di Monda, seconded byComm. Suard, to APPROVE C.U.P. 91-18 , deleting Paragraph 3, Senence (b,.) -and allowing the drive way to remain oR�en, with a chain and aleft -turn only sign, Page 5, Paragraph 11 toe changed to allo-i he operation of vacuum cleaners as long as the City noise ordinance requirements are met, Page 5, Paragraph 13, delete 'tem (a,. -and replace with a statement requiring a six-month review and- - DIRECT Staff to obtain more Dba information relating to the,noi levels at this location at 5:00-5:30 p.m. week days and on Sbnday mornings, in order to resolve this problem. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms�bi Monda, Ketz, Suard, Cii .. Merl Comm. Marks None None Churn. -Merl stated this item was approved, subject to appea ithin 10ays to the City Council. PDP 91-5/CUP 91-26 -- PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE. PERMIT FOR A HOTEL WITH A PIANO BAR (ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL) AND A RESTAURANT WITH ON -SALE BEER AND WINE, AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, KING HARBOR HOTEL (continued from 2/18, 4/7 and 5/5/92 meetings). Recommended Action: To continue to a specific date. Mr. Schubach stated the applicant still needed to provide additional information which had been delayed, in part, by an illness in the developer's family, necessitating his being out of the country. He stated addition or relocation of a traffic signal has been opposed by the Traffic Engineer and would' probably be opposed by CalTrans, which has approved the proposed plan and submitted traffic study as adequate. Mr. Schubach discussed the responses received from a survey regarding a street closure, of which the majority supported (36/20). He noted the City Traffic Engineer and CalTrans had indicated no opposition to the street closure, but a public hearing and general agreement by residents and businesses, as well as a General Plan Amendment would be necessary. Mr. Schubach noted records of incidence from other adult restaurants is highly variable; similar restaurants have had few incidents. Staff had attempted to float balloons to measure height but the test was affected by turbulence. Staff did find little difference between 35 and 40 feet, in that the view would be obstructed with either height or expansion of an existing building on First Street to the west of this location. Mr. Schubach stated Staff did not believe a wall higher than 6 feet is necessary; the applicant would be advised if the Commission felt a higher wall was needed. Staff also did not believe the hotel would create any P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 changes in pedestrian circulation within the area, with area cross -walks currently existing. The property owner has been notified of the necessity to clean the site and has indicated it would be taken care of by the end of June, 1992. Mr. Lee noted a concern that under the permit streamlining act, a set period of time is established in which to approve/deny a project, explaining the amount of time as it related to this project. He explained the difficulties relating to this project, stating the maximum date in which to approve/deny this project would be mid-August 1992 (unless the applicant asked for another time extension). Comm. Di Monda asked what constituted "general agreement" among residents. Mr. Lee responded residents would have the opportunity to protest either vacation or closure, and the City Council has the right to make the decision. Comm. Di Monda felt this statement in the Staff Report was misleading, to which Mr. Lee offered to further research and present the particulars to the Commission. Comm. Di Monda noted the notice was advertised as "recommended for continuance". Chmn. Merl felt the project had been continued many times and now should be addressed. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 10:10 p.m. Jeremy Yeh, 49 So. Catalina Avenue, Pasadena, applicant's representative, explained the delay was due to the applicant's father's death, which necessitated the applicant leaving the Country prior to leaving instructions. Mr. Yeh requested an extension of time until probably July 1992 in order to discuss the Commission's concerns with the property owner, who is scheduled to return at that time. He felt the property could be best served by the placement of a hotel on it, rather than a shopping center or other purposes. Phil Wagner, 601 5th Street, stated his surprise that a project of this magnitude was being considered so close to his property. He felt other residents were not aware of the proposed project. He then discussed the type of clientele a hotel would generate, the projected increase in traffic which he felt would have a negative impact and explained traffic would have to pass in front of his property if the hotel is built. He requested that heavy trucks be prohibited if construction of the hotel is approved. Mr. Schubach stated a copy of the survey would be given to Mr. Wagner. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, stated a "vote" had been taken November 1991, which set the height limit at 35 feet. He discussed the requirements of a "grandfather clause" and stated he felt 35 should be the height limit on this building. No special rights had been granted to this project during a public meeting. He noted the building is "wide open". Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Merl at 10:21 p.m. --2'1^ P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 The Commission discussed with Mr. Lee the 35 -feet height limit, which did not apply to this particular project due to the City's continued direction given to the developer, and the project should be "grandfathered". Comm. Di Monda discussed his concern regarding the continuances, noting that the "streamlining act" is not being violated if the applicant requested another continuance, which Mr. Lee confirmed. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to CONTINUE PDP 91-5/CUP 91-26 to the Planning Commission August 4, 1992 meeting. AYES: Comms. Di Monda, Ketz, Marks, Suard, Chmn. Merl NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Churn. Merl suggested Staff convey. to the applicant the Commission probably will not allow further continuances. Comm. Suard noted the applicant was waiting for determinations from the Commission relating to trash enclosure placement and wall height. Mr. Lee stated the applicant had committed to clean up the site. The Commission wished to monitor clean-up progress and completion. HEARINGS CON 90-8~N-- A REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND' '.VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22100 FOR TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT•.626 7TH STREET. Recommended Action'', To grant six month extension. Mr. Schubach referenced difficulty in construction due to the economy. He discussede'previous action taken by the Commission, described the project andNproperty locat%n, stating the proposed project was in the R-2 zone "and is consistent with the open space policy statement. Staff rec'mmended approval of the .requested six-month extension. Mr. Schubadhstated State law would limit the amount of further extensions. riie`1wished the applicant to under- stand this limitation on any f}ature extensions. MOTION by Comm. Di Mondor, seconded by` -,Comm. Suard, to accept Staff's recommendation and APPROVE a six-month extension of CON 90-8. AYES: Comms. Di Monda, Ketz, Suard, Chmn. Merl NOES: C mm. Marks ABSTAIN: one ABSENT: None CON 9.8-20 -- A REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF A CONDITI NAL USE/PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22409 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 619 10TH STREET. —2g P.C.Minutes 6/16/92 c June 11, 1992 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission June 16, 1992 (CONTINUED FROM 5/5/92 AND PREVIOUS MEETINGS) SUBJECT: PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 91-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-26 LOCATION: 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY APPLICANT/: JEREMY YEH ARCHITECT 49 SOUTH CATALINA AVENUE PASADENA, CA 91106 OWNER: CHENG WEI CHEN AND TSAI YU-HSIU CHEN 339 WEST DUARTE ROAD ARCADIA, CA 91007 REQUEST: TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 70 -ROOM HOTEL WITH RETAIL, A RESTAURANT WITH ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL, AND A PIANO BAR WITH ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL Recommendation Staff recommends that the Commission again continue this request as the applicant has not provided the additional information requested at the previous meeting. Background At the meeting of May 5, 1992, the Planning Commission continued this request and requested staff to provide additional information on several items. Also the Commission requested the applicant to provide more detailed landscape plans and plans for a relocated trash area. Please refer to the attached 5/5/minutes. Analysis The delay on the part of the applicant to submit revised plans and/or additional information in a timely manner is partially due to an illnes in the developer's family which has kept him out of the country for several weeks. In regards to the Planning Commission requests to staff, staff has the following responses: 12 TRAFFIC SIGNAL Staff has contacted the City's Traffic Engineer in regards to either adding a traffic signal or relocating a traffic signal to service this project. He is strongly opposed to the addition of a signal at .this location under either scenario. However, CalTrans would be the final approving agency, but the Traffic Engineer is of a strong opinion that CalTrans would not approve of either option because it would disrupt the traffic flow on P.C.H. for what is only a minor infusion of traffic and, further, a signal at this location would not fit into the progression of traffic along P.C.H. because it is too close to the major traffic signal at P.C.H. and Herondo. In contrast, the signal at Second Street serves what is classified as a Collector street which goes all the way to Hermosa Avenue and carries an average daily traffic of 3000 trips between Valley Drive and P.C.H. (from 1987-88 traffic counts in the Circulation Element), and this Street is located an adequate distance from the Herondo intersection. The Traffic Engineer. also notes that to provide a signal at a new location would require a public hearing to amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and probably an Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission is reminded that CalTrans has approved the proposed plan and submitted traffic study as adequate, and has not found the need for any additional traffic improvements. STREET CLOSURES Staff sent out a second survey to occupants and owners of property along First Place and First Street between Ardmore and P.C.H. A total of 127 surveys were sent, a blank copy is attached. Staff received 56 responses to the survey, 36 respondents supported some sort of street closure and 20 were opposed to any street closure. The most common reason cited for supporting closure was to reduce traffic and congestion and to improve safety. The most common reason cited for opposing street closure was convenient access to P.C.H. The responses to the survey are on file in the Planning Department. Staff has also discussed these street closures with the Traffic Engineer, who indicates he is not opposed to closures, as it would eliminate interruptions in the P.C.H. traffic flow, and eliminate the safety hazards caused at these corners. Previously, CalTrans also indicated they would not be opposed to closures. "however, the City Traffic Engineer and CalTrans both cautioned that closing these streets would require a public hearing and general agreement among_ nearby residents and businesses. Further a general plan amendment would be - necessary. As far as the redirection of traffic, please refer to the attached conceptual diagram. Northbound vehicles will be re -directed to either Valley/Ardmore, or to Second Street, and southbound to Second Street and eventually either P.C.H or Herondo via Monterey. POLICE RECORDS OF ADULT RESTAURANTS Records of incidence from other adult restaurants is highly variable. Restaurants similar to the proposed restaurant (sit-down restaurants oriented to adults with the primary emphasis as food) even though they serve alcohol have had very few incidences that required police service calls. Establishments that tend to have chronic police problems are generally located on Pier Avenue and, although they serve food, their primary activity is as a bar. HEIGHT Staff attempted to float balloons as requested by the Commission, but was unable to find balloons that would remain stable even in calm conditions. The traffic moving along P.C.H. apparently causes wind currents or a vacuum effect which causes the balloons to float towards the highway into traffic. In regards to the issued brought up by the resident at 834 First Street staff has visited that location and found that the difference between 35 and 40 feet should not make a difference from that location, as even the lower height will obstruct the view. Additionally, the existing building on First Street to the west if remodeled or expanded may also obstruct the view. WALL HEIGHT ALONG WESTERLY PROPERTY LINE Staff does not believe a wall higher than 6 -feet is necessary since landscaping will be required and at this location will be the building not a parking lot. The current height of the wall of the existing building along this property line is about 18 feet. Installing a wall of the same height would seem unnecessary and unsightly. However, if the Commission desired a greater height please advise staff so we can properly advise the applicant. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Staff has provided a map showing the various cross -walk locations. Staff does not believe that the hotel will cause any changes to the pedestrian circulation in the area. Cross -walks with traffic signals are located at both 2nd Street and Herondo Street. Access for children to Our Lady of Guadalupe School/Church can be either from 2nd Street or Herondo Avenue. SITE CLEANUP The property owner has been notified by the Building Department of the the need to clean up the property and to secure the building. The owner has indicated that it would be taken care of by the end of June. Please advise staff if the above information is adequate to respond to your questions and indicate what further information, if any, is needed to help the Commission reach a decision. CONCUR : Michaelchubach _Planning Director Kin Robe son Associate Planner Attachments 1. P.C. Minutes 5/5/92 2. Copy of survey 3. Diagram of traffic flow should 1st St. and 1st Pl. closed Additional information such as previous staff reports and plans are on file in the Planning Department a/pcsrl25 c A living room (12'), dining room (16'), master bedroom (8'1"), U it B master bedroom (9'1"), downstairs bedroom (8'1"), dining oom (16'), kitchen (7'10") and the mezzanine (7'4" of which a open beam cei ing can be added to the plan). Public Hea ing closed by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 7:51 p.m. Comm. Suard scussed with Mr. Schubach Staff's ability to verify the view block age analysis submitted by Mr. Compton,/expressing his concerns regarding the potential view blockage of adjacent neighbors. Comm:., Di Monda stated his only prdblem.was having received the drawi •s late, which did not allow adequate time to review them, nor did e have the original draw),rigs for comparison. MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Vice-Chmn. Marks, to CONTINUE CON 92-3 to the Commissi• meeting of May /19, 1992, to allow Staff to conduct an analysis in terms of the ,view blockage and perform verification of the section .rawing. AYES: Comms. Suard and ice-CIimn. Marks NOES: Comms. Di Honda an, drl ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Chmn. Ketz The Motion failed due to a lak of ma .rity. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to APPROVE CON 92-3 with the conditions recommended by Staff and with verification as to the accuracy of the section drawing. AYES: Comms./Di Monda and Merl NOES: Comms/ Suard and Vice-Chmn. Marks ABSTAIN: None' ABSENT: Chinn. Ketz The Motion f,Yled due to a lack of majority. MOTION by .Cromm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPRO CON 92-3 with the/conditions recommended by Staff and with verifi•ation by Staff a to the accuracy of the section drawing and the acc acy of thev ew blockage as submitted by Mr. Compton. AYES Comms. Di Monda, Merl, Suard, Vice-Chmn. Marks NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Churn. Ketz PDP 91-5/CUP 91-26 -- PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.FOR A HOTEL WITH A PIANO BAR (ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL) AND A RESTAURANT WITH ON -SALE BEER AND WINE, AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, KING HARBOR HOTEL (continued from February 18 and April 7, 1992 meetings). P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 • ( Recommended Action: To approve said Precise Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit, and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended approval of the 70 -room hotel, restaurant with on -sale alcohol and piano bar. He stated the grandfather clause which allows a 40 -feet height will soon terminate and an eight -foot high west side wall would require noticing since the original plans displayed a six -feet wall. Mr. Schubach described the proposed hotel, parking spaces and accommodations, including structure position, square footage and height measurements as noted in the revised plans. Mr. Schubach stated this project is subject to the Precise Development Plan requirements. He stated a determination has not been received by Staff as to whether the project had been "grandfathered" or not, but the City Attorney would discuss this subject. Staff recommended tandem parking stalls be identified'.. for employee parking. Mr. Schubach observed that the revised plans; were reviewed for consistency with the guidelines, noting the - project was designed to scale, the pool area was relocated, a sauna/work out room is still located on the westerly side of the property which Staff suggested should be relocated by the pool, the project extends to 35 feet only at the P.C.H. frontage, ranging from 32 to 40 feet elsewhere. He discussed the efforts to decrease the -appearance of bulk, landscaping plans and buffering of noise by both walls and plants. CalTrans' requirements and comments have been incorporated in the plans with the exception of wheelchair ramps, which is a condition of approval. He also discussed CalTrans' response to the City's traffic engineer's inquiries. Mr. Schubach stated the plans do not include all the details to enable a final approval of Precise Development Plan, the Resolution of approval includes conditions requiring submittal of required details to the Commission for approval. He noted a reduction in height may alter the plan, but Staff felt enough information had.. been provided to the Commission to enable a decision -at this time. He then stated the Commission's alternatives. Mr. Lee explained his position regarding the grandfather clause by stating a review of Ordinance 91-063 (providing a grandfather clause and lowered structure height to a maximum of 30 feet), resulted in the determination that a complete package has been submitted to the City by the applicant prior to November 5, 1991. Additionally, by use of the discretionary permit process, changes and revisions were suggested and requested by the City and made by the applicant. Mr. Lee stated the application of this Ordinance is a discretionary call by the Commission and addresses whether or not the most recently submitted plans are a logical extension of the original pans submitted prior to November 5, 1991. Mr. Lee stated the next issue for the Commission's decision was whether or not the deadline provided in the grandfather clause P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 applied to this project. He recommended that the deadline provision of the Ordinance should not be applied due to the multitude of changes and revisions required by the City and the long delay in waiting for a response from CalTrans. He recommended two conditions be added: (1) the project must be consistent with the plans approved by the Commission at this time, and (2) a 6 -month time limit from the date of approval is established in which to obtain a building permit. These two conditions would meet the Ordinance intent. He noted the Commission could limit the height to 35 feet or under if it wished to exercise discretion regarding project esthetics. Comm. Di Monda determined the required landscaping trees were smaller than others previously required on other projects. He stated he wished to discuss more trees in the landscaping plans. Mr. Schubach stated trees are not only decorative, but would serve as noise buffers. Vice-Chmn. Marks noted the number of units had increased and a gift shop, beauty salon and piano bar had been added in the revised plans. Mr. Schubach stated adequate parking was available. Public Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 8:19 p.m. Jeremy Yeh, 49 South Catalina Avenue, Pasadena, acknowledged the plan changes, noted the major concern regarding 1st Place egress, discussed the creation of more "ocean view" units and bay windows. He explained the revisions to the buildings and room locations using an artist's rendering of the front and back views of the structures. He stated the piano bar would provide a nice place for local adults to go; the lobby, stairway and piano bar locations were planned to avoid noise carrying to the residential zone. Vice -Chinn. Marks confirmed the specific plan revisions made with Mr. Yeh. Mr. Yeh stated that when the project was originally begun, the maximum height limit was 40 feet. He discussed the design of the roof, the subterranean parking and the grade level as they affected the structure height. Mr Yeh also noted the. restaurant business would financially help the hotel and visa versa. He said if the roof level was reduced to 35 feet, the project would need to be redesigned. He felt such a ,reduction would be unfair, based upon the input received by the applicant during his efforts to obtain the necessary approvals. Mr. Yeh and Comm. Di Monda discussed the exterior finish of the building, with Mr. Yeh noting that stainless steel would be used for the railings and that one piece clay tile will be used. Richard Laraba, owner/builder/developer 705 1st Street, felt the proposed structure height would intrude upon the privacy of his building and the residential zone. He asked if the CalTrans report required a‘deceleration zone or lane from 1st Street to the hotel entrance, noting the speed of drivers on P.C.H. and the projected increase in traffic on the surrounding streets and expressed concern regarding the safety of residents due to the increase in traffic. He also asked where vehicles were going to park during P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 5 the- construction period and thereafter, noting possible resultant inconvenience to residents. Mr. Laraba noted that many residents were not aware a hotel project is planned; no mention was made at the time of the street -closure survey. Comm. Di Monda stated the referenced rear deck was part of the fire exiting and irrelevant with respect to a "view" location, due to its height and location from the property line. He stated the building does not break the 35 -feet height limit until approximately 30 feet back' from the property line, and, if the hotel had a flat roof, it would meet height limitations. Mr. Laraba requested a silhouette test be conducted to ascertain the impact on his property's 360 degree view. John McQue, 718 1st Place, read the notification of survey he had previously received, noting hotel construction was not mentioned. He stated he owns three lots and should, therefore, have three votes. Mr. McQue objected to the projected increase in traffic, the vagueness of the survey terminology and requested a redistri- bution of the survey with a more intense description of the plans. He distributed to the Commission photographs for review, requested that the existing wall remain. Sonia Nichols, 703 1st Street, stated she received no survey. She discussed the effect the change in traffic would have on 1st Street. She asked if City residents had been notified about the hotel plans. June Williams, 2065 Hermosa Blvd.) stated she opposed the building --th—e hot -e -l. S'fie - fert the" adjoining properties had only single -story buildings. She wished to block the construction of u„a ` 5Y she hadle since abilityce it will do eliminate her ocean view and asked her if p,�;� \ this. Mr. Lee explained the allowable construction under existing regulations and stated Ms. Williams could not prevent construction. Mr. Schubach responded building directly across the street are three stories and the plans are consistent with the general area. She invited the Commission to her home to assess the view blockage. Vice-Chmn. Marks suggested she use the lamp posts as guidelines of view blockage. Ms. Williams stated she had already done that. She stated the City does not need an additional place for adults to go dancing. Harold Anchell, 624 3rd Street, stated a right turn onto on P.C.H. during rush hour from 3rd Street is a nightmare and felt a deceler- ation lane at the hotel entrance was required. He also suggested a time limit be established for the project. He stated the contrac- tor was aware the height limit was going to be lowered, and felt the project should be treated in the same manner as the residential projects are; both should be limited to 30 feet. Paul Olson 705 First Street, felt the City Council and Commission members should drive on P.C.H. to find out what is going on. He questioned how people coming from the direction of Redondo Beach t going to get to the hotel. He stated he has uplifted his property P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 _36 - r r and the City is trying to downgrade it, not taking into consider- ation the impact upon the City. He then discussed traffic problems he personally had experienced on Pacific Coast Highway. Ed Mora, 846 1st Street, stated the backlash is already here; a hotel will only magnify the problems. Johnny Bruce, 846 1st Street, stated she and a few other neighbors received the survey, but many other neighbors on the same street side were not. She felt all the neighbors should be notified, when the impact the entire area. She then discussed the increased travel time going to and from work, stating this increase should be considered and protested any additional air pollution that would result. Public Hearing closed by Vice -Churn. Marks at 9:25 p.m. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach discussed the additional of a' traffic light, determining that if one were added, another would. need to be removed. Mr. Schubach stated both CalTrans and Staff - had conducted traffic studies. He referenced the previous car dealership that had been at the location, noted the resultant traffic and discussed the traffic pattern than would be generated by a hotel, which would be spread over time, therefore, not requiring a deceleration lane. Vice -Churn. Marks expressed his concerns regarding the height limit, the single means of egress and the possible increase of traffic on 1st Street. Comm. Merl commented keeping traffic from 1st Street was addressed previously as an objective. Mr. Schubach responded to Comm. Di Monda's proposed motion by stating the survey would take additional time, if the survey suggested a connection with the hotel, it must be made clear that the hotel and survey are not connected. Comm. Di Monda suggested surveying 1st Place and 1st Street residents' feelings and adding the following verbiage: "There is a potential for commercial' development on the corner which might lead to increased traffic. The City is considering a street cul-de-sac to alleviate the possibility of that problem." Survey denial does not mean the hotel is also denied. If information isn't immediately available regarding the traffic signals, an indeterminable amount of time would be required for CalTrans response. Mr. Schubach stated view blockage between three -feet differences are difficult to determine, but Staff would try to make that determination. Comm. Suard discussed with Mr. Schubach the responsibility for site clean-up and maintenance to prevent it site becoming an "eye -sore". Mr. Schubach agreed to contact the Building Department and sug- gested that the public also contact the responsible agent(s) to assure proper "boarding up" was accomplished and maintained. The Planning Commission suggested to the applicant that he also make sure the site and facilities are well secured prior to the Building Department's inspection. P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 31- MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to CONTINUE PDP 91-5/CUP 91-26 to the Planning Commission meeting of June 16, 1992. (1) ASK the applicant to provide more information based upon the concerns the neighbors have expressed in order to review them with the possibility of mitigation; specifically the traffic concerns and school crossing safety; can the traffic lights be relocated to improve safety, (2) REDO the survey regarding putting a cul-de-sac on 1st Place, inform the local residents the specificsas to reasons -the survey is being conducted, (3) REVIEW the necessity of a higher buffer wall, (4) REVIEW the possibility of the trash area relocation, (5) DIRECT Staff to obtain police records of some of the adult restaurants within the City for Commission review and obtain the Police Chief's opinion as to how he feels adult restaurants impact police services, (6) DIRECT Staff to obtain more landscape plan clarification, particularly along 1st Street and Pacific Coast Highway with respect to the planting size and incorporation of a continuous planting edge along the higher buffer wall, (7) ASK the Public Works Department to provide a diagram or map of traffic flow if 1st Place is made a cul-de-sac, (8) DIRECT Staff to silhouette the building, using the balloon method, to determine the view blockage difference between a 35 -feet and 38 -feet building and provide the results to the Commission, (9) DIRECT Staff to contact the Building Department, request- ing that proper "boarding up" of the facilities in completed and that such action be addressed immediately. (10) DIRECT Staff to obtain from the Building Department the status of complaints and violations pertinent to this property. AYES: Comms. Di Monda, Merl, Suard, Vice-Chmn. Marks NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Chmn. Ketz A break was taken from 9:48 until 9:56 p.m. HEARI ZON 91-3 -- ZO RANGE FROM OPEN SPAC TO TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) TO BRIT G NTP CONSIS E1 WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DE pie :0 APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 598 FIRSTT STREET(referre• om April 14, 1992 City Council). e Recomme Action: To recommend approval of a zone chane- om O space to two Family Residential (R-2) to subject property. P.C.Minutes 5/5/92 April 28, 1992 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission May 5, 1992 SUBJECT: PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 91-5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-26 LOCATION: 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY APPLICANT/: JEREMY YEH ARCHITECT 49 SOUTH CATALINA AVENUE PASADENA, CA 91106 OWNER: REQUEST: CHENG WEI CHEN AND TSAI YU-HSIU CHEN 339 WEST DUARTE ROAD ARCADIA, CA 91007 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 70 -ROOM HOTEL WITH RETAIL, A RESTAURANT WITH ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL, AND A PIANO BAR WITH ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL Recommendation Staff recommends that the Commission grant approval of the requests subject to conditions, including that maximum building height be lowered to 35 feet, and submittal and review of more detailed plans in regards to such details as exterior materials and signs Background UPDATED PROJECT INFORMATION: Zoning: General Plan: Lot Size: Total Floor Area: S.P.A. 7 Commercial Corridor 38,543 square feet 38,282 square feet Hotel (rooms & lobby) 33,152 sq. ft. Restaurant 2,858 sq. ft. Retail shops 995 sq. ft. Piano Bar 1,278 sq. ft. Floor Area/Lot Area ratio: Required Parking: Parking Provided: 0.99 113 spaces 113 spaces 6 in tandem Proposed Building Height: Landscaping coverage: Current use: 35 - 40 feet 8.7% Abandoned Auto sales lot At the meeting of January 7, 1992, the Planning Commission considered this request, at that time a 64 -room hotel with a restaurant, and continued this request noting several concerns about the proposed design. Since that time the applicant has met with staff a few times, including two meetings that included Commissioner DiMonda, and Councilmember Essertier. The meetings, requested by the applicant, were to discuss proposed conceptual designs. Also, at the January 7 meeting the Commission directed staff to poll First Place residents regarding closure of the street from P.C.H. The results of the poll of First Place residents is _attached (18 voted "no", while 14 voted "yes"). The Commission also requested the City Attorney's opinion on whether the project is grandfathered to the 40 -foot height limit in effect at the time of original submittal. The most recently submitted plan (received April 7, 1992) is a modification from the last proposal and includes 70 rooms, a restaurant, piano bar, and two small retail shops. Many of the changes made were as a result of the Planning Commission's comments noted at their previous discussion of this issue. For further background refer to the attached chronology of plan submittals, and previous staff reports. Analysis The applicant is proposing to construct a 70 -room hotel structure with a restaurant and retail shops all above a subterranean garage. The proposal includes a third floor piano bar_located on the P.C.H. side of the building. The proposed project would be three stories with parking provided in the subterranean garage and at ground level in an open parking area in front •of the restaurant. The finished height of the hotel will be approximately 35 feet from the grade of Pacific Coast Highway. Since the property slopes towards the west the project measures higher from grade at the lower point of the lot to the rear, approaching the maximum of 40 feet. This part of the plan does not significantly differ from the original submittal which was filed in July of 1991, prior to the public vote which lowered the height limit in the commercial ones. At this time staff has not received a written opinion from the City Attorney on whether or not the project is grandfathered to the previously allowed 40 -foot height. However, it should be noted that the "grandfather" provision of the ordinance to lower height to 35 -feet in S.P.A. 7, states that the applicants "must pursue their application in a diligent manner and must be issued a building permit within six months of the effective date of this ordinance". Given that the ordinance became effective on December 6, 1991, the applicant would have to receive building permits by June 6, 1992. Since it would not be feasible to obtain permits by that time, staff believes the building height should be reduced. A total of 113 parking spaces are proposed to satisfy the sum of the minimum requirements for each proposed use. Staff believes the parking, in addition to meeting minimum code requirements, is more than adequate because of the mix of proposes uses. For example, patrons of the hotel will often be the customers of the restaurant or piano bar. It should be noted that six tandem parking stalls are included. Although tandem parking is not typically approved in commercial projects, staff believes that only six stalls would not be a problem, and is including a _recommended condition that the tandem stalls be identified and used for employee parking. The applicant is also requesting as part of this request a conditional use permit to serve alcohol in conjunction with the proposed restaurant and to serve alcoholat the "piano bar." Given the location of this restaurant outside of the "impacted" downtown area, and given that adequate parking is available, staff does not anticipate any problems with this portion of the request as long as standard conditions are applied as recommended in the resolution. PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - DESIGN GUIDELINES - UPDATE The project's total square footage of 38,000 square feet continues to exceed the first tier limits established by the zoning requirements of S.P.A. 7. Therefore, the project is subject to the requirements for a Precise Development Plan, and to the design guidelines of the ordinance. Planning staff has reviewed the latest revision for consistency with the guidelines and made the following observations: GENERAL The project is designed in scale with surrounding commercial buildings. The overall size of the project is not excessive for a lot of this size as its floor area to lot area ratio is less than 1.0. Further, the intensity of the proposed use would be compatible with surroundings, and in many ways is a less intensive use than a fully operating car dealersiaip/repair lot. The latest modification in the layout has resulted in a beneficial relocation of the swimming pool to the southeast corner from behind the building. Thus it is now in a corner with southern sun exposure and separated from residential property by the building. HEIGHT AND BULK Although the project exceeds the first tier height limit of 30 feet, it only extends to 35 feet at the P.C.H. frontage. Elsewhere it ranges from 32 to almost 40 feet depending on the existing grade that its measured from. Further, sloping roof accents are used to provide relief from the impact of the bulk and height. As noted above the maximum height must be reduced to 35 feet and this may impact the ability to provided sloping roofs in all areas. Further, the building incorporates the use of balconies, bay windows, and other features to provide visual relief. Relief from bulk is also provided by the fact that the buildings do not cover the entire lot, and the restaurant portion of the building is only one story high, and the western end of the Hotel building is stepped downward. LANDSCAPING/BUFFERING The proposed landscaping in front of the building meets the requirements for a 3 -foot landscape strip, by providing a 3 to 17 foot wide strip with trees and shrubs to enhance the streetscape. The overall landscape coverage, excluding the required landscaping between commercial and residential zones calculates to be 5% which satisfies minimum "First Tier" standards of S.P.A. 7. A landscape strip is provided along the rear property line adjacent to the residential properties containing trees and shrubs. This needs to be increased to 5 feet for portions along the entire rear property line. A wall is also indicated along this property line. The zoning ordinance requires a 6 -foot wall along this property line. The plans do not clearly indicate the type of material for the wall, therefore, staff would like further details to include details of said wall which should be a decorative material , e.g. split face block. Further landscaping materials need to be more clearly identified in terms of planting size (i.e. how tall will they be at the initial planting time) and the choice of landscaping along the east property line should include' plants appropriate for buffering the adjacent residential use --not palm trees. The Commission may also wish to consider requiring a higher wall along this property line, such as 8 feet. A C.U.P. and furtherer noticing would be required, however, given the type of use proposed, and the extensive landscaping, staff does not believe an extra high wall is necessary. TRAFFIC SAFETY/CIRCULATION The main change in the project in regards to circulation is the elimination of driveway access to First Place, and thus all access is from the driveway to P.C.H. Comments have been received from the State Department of Transportation (CalTrans) on February 24, 1992, copy attached. CalTrans is not requiring any major changes to the project in terms of setback, or a deceleration lane. The few comments of CalTrans have already been incorporated into the plans, except regarding wheelchair ramps on the corners which have been included as conditions in the draft resolution. CalTrans comments follows: 1. also responded to questions related to some previous made by the City's traffic engineer, summarized as Caltrans does not support the use of raised dikes or berms, and states that signs and pavement markings are adequate to regulate egress to right turns only onto P.C.H. 2. Caltrans does not support a raised divider in the middle of the driveway on P.C.H. as it would conflict with off -tracking by trucks and/or emergency vehicles. 3. Caltrans would not object to closure of First Place at P.C.H., but cautions that P.C.H. businesses might object. 4. CalTrans has no objection to there being only one project access at P.C.H. as long as egress is limited to right turns only. Please refer to the attached previous staff reports, minutes, and other attachments including the traffic study and acoustical report for further information. The applicant has also provided full-size plans as requested by the Commission. Given that the submitted plans are not inclusive of all the details staff believes are necessary for final approval of Precise Development Plan (such as a sign plan, exterior materials, finished floor elevations, elevations for each roof segment, and other details noted by the building department related to handicap access, and ventilation equipment for the parking garage) the attached resolution of approval includes a conditions that these items be submitted returned to the Commission for review and approval. Further, the reduction in height to 35ifeet may result in significant alterations to the plan. However, staff believes that adequate information has been provided fo the Commission to make a decision and end the public hearing process. ALTERNATIVE An alternative to staff's recommendation would be to "conceptually" indicate whether or not the Commission supports the overall design concept of the project, but even if it supports the project, continue the hearing to review the revised plan with a 35 -foot height and with the additional information and any other additional information deemed necessary by the Commission. � / Ke iRob'ertson CONCUR• % Associate Planner Michael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Chronology re: 125 P.C.H. Hotel 2. Results of 1st Place closure survey 3. CalTrans comments 2/24/92 4. Building Department Comments 5. Fire Department Comments 6. P.C. Minutes 1/7/92 7. P.C. Staff Report 1/7/92 8. Site Map 9. Public Works Comments 10. Traffic Study 11. Acoustical Study 12. Public Notice Affidavit a/pcsr125 7/2/91 7/18/91 8/1/91 CHRONOLOGY RE. 125 P.C.H. HOTEL - Original submittal, "Holiday Inn Express" 71 -room , no restaurant -near 40' high in rear. - Staff Env. Review Committee - continued for applicant to submit traffic study. - Traffic study received - circulated for review. 10/3/91 - Staff Env. Review Committee - 71 -unit - no restaurant - 40' high. Staff recommends Negative Declaration with mitigation. 10/7/91 - Revised plans submitted then circulated, still 71-unit/no restaurant. 11/5/91 - Proposition I passes to lower height in C-3 and Specific Plan Area (SPA) zones to 35 feet. 11/19/91 - 1st scheduled Planning Commission hearing on 71 -unit proposal & continued to 12/3/91 at request of applicant (outstanding Caltrans & Public Works issues). 12/3/91 - Planning Commission hearing - continued at request of applicant to 1/7/92 (still no Caltrans comments; considering re -design). 12/18/91 - Received revised plan, 64 -unit with attached restaurant (still designed to 40' high in rear); also revised traffic study received - plans circulated for review. 1/7/92 - P.C. hearing - plans discussed at hearing - P. C. continues to 2/18/92 - also P.C. requests determination on height issue & survey of residents on First Place. 2/18/92 - Continue to April 7, 1992 at request of applicant for more time to revise in light of Planning Commission comments. 2/24/92 - Comments received from CalTrans, no objections to project, and notes acceptance of one access from P.C.H. 4/7/92 - Revised plans received, 70 -room hotel with piano bar at third floor and attached restaurant (still 40' high in rear) and P.C.H. only access 5/5/92 - P.C. hearing - Staff recommends conditional approval, Attorney states 40' height OK, P.C. continues project to 6/16/92 and requests information on several items, including revisions regarding landscaping, trash 6/16/92 - P.C. hearing - P.C. continues to 8/4/92, because no revised plaQs submitted. P.C. hears staff's response to previously noted concerns 7/21/92 - Revised Plans received - p/king STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, 120 SO. SPRING ST. LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 TDD (213) 620-3550 (213) 897-0344 February 24, 1992 Mr. C. Hui Lai Traffic Engineer Traffic Safety Engineers 3100 Marywood Drive Orange, CA 92667 Dear Mr. Lai: 7 -LA -1 20.661/20.701 PCH between 1st St. - Lt. and 1st Place King Harbor Hotel (previously Holiday Inn Express) YOUR AUGUST 2, 1991 TRANSMITTAL OF TRAFFIC STUDY AND PLANS FOR HOTEL PROJECT IN HERMOSA BEACH We have completed our review of the proposed hotel plans and traffic impact analysis report as you have requested. Our comments regarding the plans are indicated in red on the site plan. Our comments concerning the site plan are summarized as follows: 1. The curb radii at the southwest corner of PCH -and First Place, and at the northwest corner of PCH and First Street are to be increased to 25 feet. This will also require right-of-way dedication to accommodate the corner cuts, as shown on the site plan in red. This right-of-way should.be dedicated to the City of Hermosa Beach. 2. The driveway on PCH shall be configured as shown in red on the site plan. This curbed driveway will require wheelchair ramp depressions. 3. Egress from the driveway on PCH shall be limited to right turns by signs and pavement markings as shown on the site plap in red. 4. Wheelchair ramps per Caltrans Standard Plan N8 -B, case E will be provided on the southwest corner of PCH and First Place, and on the northwest corner of PCH and First Street. 1.. Mr. C. Hui Lai February 24, 1992 Page Two You have raised four questions by telephone and in your February 14 visit to our office. These are as follows: 1. Should left -turn egress from the driveway on PCH be limited by use of raised dikes or berms on PCH? 2. Should the driveway on PCH have a raised divider to render the left -turn egress move unlikely? 3. Would Caltrans concur with the closing of First Place on the west side of PCH? 4. Would Caltrans object to there being one project access, namely the one on PCH, with no access on First Place as shown on the plan? We have considered these questions and the following are our responses: 1. Signs and pavement markings are considered adequate to regulate egress to right turns onto PCH at this location. The use of raised dikes and berms on the State highway is selective, and, where possible, avoided because of the potential they create for fixed object accidents. 2. A raised divider or channelizing island in the middle of the driveway on PCH is not advisable due to the restricted width of the driveway. It would conflict with off -tracking by trucks and/or emergency vehicles (fire engines), and create a trip -and -fall hazard for pedestrians. Recently, such an island had been proposed for the Redondo Shores development PCH access in Redondo Beach. However, Caltrans did not permit it. Again, it is our feeling •that signs and pavement markings will be adequate to limit egress to right turns onto PCH for the Holiday Inn project. 3. Caltrans has no objection to the closure of First Place at PCH. However, we must caution that businesses and residents affected may have major objections due to the limiting of access. We suggest that if left -turning vehicles from eastbound First Place result in any problems on PCH, egress from eastbound First Place at PCH be limited to right turns by signs and pavement markings. Mr. C. Hui Lai February 24, 1992 Page Three 4. Caltrans has no objection to there being one project access, that access being the one on PCH. However, egress at the driveway would have to be limited to right turns by means of signs and pavement markings, as we are requiring, and as shown on the site plan in red. If you have any questions about our comments, please contact Mr. Karl F. Berger of my staff at (213) 897-0312. R. D. GILSTRAP Senior Transportation Engineer Traffic Operations Branch Attachment cc: 1. Mr. Ed Ruzak City Traffic Engineer City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 2. P. Prez, Transp. Planning & Analysis Branch 3. J. Knox, Permits Branch Submitted to: Prepared by: Mr. Sing Long Chen 339 W. Duarte Road Arcadia, CA 91006 Traffic Safety Engineers 3100 Marywood Drive Orange, CA 92667 (714) 974-7863 Fax: (714) 974-1043 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR KING HARBOR HOTEL 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH December, 1991 dirmimh mor December 23, 1991 Mr. Sing Long Chen - 339 W. Duarte Road Arcadia, CA 91006 Dear Mr. Chen: TRAFFIC SAFETY ENGINEERS This report summarizes our traffic impact analysis of the proposed King Harbor Hotel project to be located on the west side of Pacific Coast Highway between First Street and First Place, in Hermosa Beach. We trust that this analysis will be of immediate value to you, Caltrans and City of Hermosa Beach. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at any time. Respectfully Submitted, TRAFFIC SAFETY ENGINEERS C. Hui Lai, P.E. Traffic Engineer C.C. Mr. Jeremy Yeh Projtct Architect 0ISS;p;!'9 �. -ck- NU! L4Ar, cc .?I L., No. 1149 '3! \J ? t/?AFF\C., ��a\/ OF CAS \E 3100 MARYWOOD DR. ORANGE, CA °'2667 [714) 974-7863 FAX(714)974-1043 _5-p_ The City of Hermosa Beach is in the process of reviewing and evaluating the impacts of a proposed hotel/restaurant project to be located at 125 Pacific Coast Highway. Figure 1 shows the project location. As part of the review process, the firm of Traffic Safety Engineers was retained to conduct a traffic study to identify the potential traffic impacts of the proposed project. 1. STUDY SCOPE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The scope of the analysis conducted for this study includes an assessment of the existing traffic and roadway conditions, forecasts of project traffic, distribution of the project traffic to roadways outside the project site, an analysis of the extent to which the project traffic will alter the existing traffic patterns in the vicinity of the project site and recommendations of mitigating measures, if any, to improve traffic flow and circulation. The anticipated site uses for the proposed project are summarized on the following page. 1 NOT TO SCALE .ctx 0 PIER AVE. AVIATION 2ND ST. FIRST PLACE BLVD FIRST ST. PROJECT! ISITE L_ _ J HERONDO ANITA ST. TORRANCE t BLVD FIGURE 1 PROJECT VICINITY MAP ST. DESCRIPTION Hotel Restaurant SIZE 64 rooms 3,337 sq. ft. A copy of the project site plan is shown in Figure 2. Main entrance to the project site will be provided at Pacific Coast Highway. A secondary access driveway will be available on First Place. 2. SURROUNDING STREET CONDITIONS The roadways that will be utilized by the project development are Pacific Coast Highway and First Place. In the vicinity of the project site, the following roadway conditions exist. Pacific Coast Highway: This major north -south arterial highway provides two lanes of travel for both northbound and southbound traffic, with separate left -turn pockets at crossing intersections. During the morning peak traffic hours(6:30 to 9:00 A.M.), a third travel lane is available for northbound traffic through the prohibition of curbside parking. e - 3 - 1 1 ool 51 ctiel -..mss, '_r\ .�%� 't"' `,t 4 9 -.7:\\••'''• M r �•A.yYJi �{ .'1 i h ,�yl..`o... � •.'X11 1 ,...- '- , 1 � ,, ,1 y • a g Y .� •'. �`� tY 3• ,1 4.•il ��^ww��►► •• i' 9 1,6 t Y� Figure 2 Project Site Plan II ' 64—UNIT K NG HARBOR HOTEL • 120 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY it= -2177,==.7:71 HERMOSA BEACH, OA M,MWYI,I• M,'.M•Y en Similarly, a third travel lane is available for southbound traffic during the afternoon peak traffic hours (3:00 to 7:00 P.M.). Pacific Coast Highway consists primarily of commercial use. First Place: This two-lane, east -west collector street serves primarily a residential area. First Place forms a "T" intersection with Pacific Coast Highway. Approaching eastbound traffic on First Place is controlled by a stop sign at Pacific Coast Highway. 3. PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT A. Trip Generation In order to analyze the traffic impacts associated with the project, it is necessary to estimate the volume of traffic that would be generated. Significant research efforts have been made by Caltrans, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and the Federal Highway Administration to establish the correlation between trips and land use. From this body of information, trip generation rates can be estimated with reasonable accuracy for various land uses. Trip generation rates for all land uses are expressed in terms of either vehicle trip ends per person, vehicle trip ends per acre of land, or vehicle trip ends per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Vehicle trip ends are one-way vehicular movements either entering or exiting the development at the project driveways. The traffic generated by the project is determined by multiplying an appropriate trip generation rate with the quantity of land usage. For example, if a particular land use generates sixty inbound trip ends per 1,000 acres in the morning peak traffic hour, then sixty vehicles are expected to arrive in the morning peak traffic hour for each 1,000 acres of development. Table A, below, summarizes traffic generation forecasts on an A.M. peak traffic hour, P.M. peak traffic hour, and basis for the proposed hotel/restaurant development. TABLE A PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECASTS a daily Land Use Generation rates Hotel (Trips/Room) Restaurant (Trips/TSF) Traffic Generated Hotel (64 Rooms) Restaurant (3.337 TSF) Total Project Trips "Less 40% Internal Trips Net Project Trips Daily Traffic 7.97 96.51 510 322 832 -129 703 AM Peak Traffic Hour Inboundi_Outbound;Total 0.36 5.19 23 17 40 - 7 33 0.30 1.14 20 4 24 2 22 0.66 6.33 43 21 64 - 9 55 PM Peak Traffic Hour Inboundl0utboud;Tota1 0.45 6.32 29 21 0.33 3.40 21 12 50 - 9 41 TSF denotes 1,000 square feet of floor area. Source of Generation Rates: Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Land Use Code 310 (Hotel), and 831 (Quality Restaurant). Internal trips consist of non -auto trips made by the hotel guests to the restaurant. 33 - 5 28 • 0.78 9.72 50 33 83 -14 69 B. Traffic Distribution and Assignment The orientation of the additional traffic that would be generated by the proposed development was estimated based on: 1. Land use characteristics in this highly commercialized portion of City of Hermosa Beach. 2. Existing traffic turning movement characteristics in the immediate vicinity of the project site. 3. Configuration of the nearby street network and traffic circulation patterns. From these combined data sources, it was estimated that the percent split of trips, by direction are shown in Figure 3. In order to quantify the resultant impact on the surrounding street systems, project traffic volumes are distributed and assigned as turning movements at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and First Place Figure 4). The configuration of the street network and the existing traffic circulation patterns indicate that any project traffic impacts will be most directly A NOT TO SCALE FIRST PLACE FIRST ST. 70% PROJECT 70 SITE j 30% PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY FIGURE 3 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION N NOT TO 'SCALE FIRST 10/12 PLACE f �• jV PO 10/1E X, 0 1- ' 16/20 FIRST ST. PROJECT e'/e9 SITE J `Y7/9 LEGENDS XX/XX • I P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC A.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY FIGURE 4 PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC TURNING MOVEMENTS - 10 - { C. Traffic Impact Analysis The preceding sections have estimated the vehicle trips from the proposed hotel development and assigned them to the surrounding street systems. This section will investigate the extent to which the project traffic will impact the critically affected intersection mentioned in the previous section. In order to analyze the ability of these intersections to accommodate the project traffic, the intersection capacity analysis technique was utilized. The analysis of intersection capacity is a sound traffic engineering tool to ascertain how many traffic lanes should be provided to adequately handle traffic demand. Another term "Level of Service" is used in conjunction with street capacity analysis studies. Since the traffic flow on a street is of a dynamic nature and changes from minute to minute, the "Level of Service" becomes a good tool to interpret many traffic phenomenas which may have lacked an adequate explanation before. Level of Service is a relative measure of driver satifaction which ranges ,from A (free flow; volume -to -capacity ratio less than 0.60) to F (traffic jam; volume -to -capacity ratio value in excess of 1.0). Level of Service D (volume -to -capacity ratio of 0.81 to 0.90) is traditionally considered the acceptable level for urban peak traffic hour conditions. Level of 11 - Service E (volume -to -capacity ratio of 0.91 to 1.00) is the maximum traffic volume a facility can accommodate and will be characterized by a long queue of waiting vehicles and requiring two or more signal cycles to clear. Exhibits 1 and 2 show the detailed volume -capacity ratio and level of service calculations for existing and existing plus project traffic during morning and afternoon peak traffic hours for the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and First Place. These calculated volume -capacity ratios and level of services are outlined below for comparison: Peak Traffic Hour A.M. P.M. Existing Traffic Level of Service C C Volume Capacity Ratio 0.71 0.78 Existing Plus Project Traffic Level of Service C D Volume Capacity Ratio 0.72 0.82 4. TRAFFIC IMPACT OFEXISTING CAR DEALERSHIP A comparison of generated traffic for the proposed hotel project and the existing car dealership/service center on the project site is presented in the table below. Site Use Proposed Hotel Project Existing Car Dealer and Service Center Daily Traffic 703 1,200 AM Peak Traffic Hour Inbound.,0utbound;Total 33 35 22 15 55 50 PM Peak Traffic Hour InboundlOutbound Total 41 28 69 27 39 66 Difference in forcasted vehicle trips are very similar during the peak hours between the proposed hotel project and existing car dealership development. However, the car dealership generates almost twice as many vehicle trips on a daily basis. 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. A total of 69 vehicle trips during the worst peak traffic hour (P.M. commuter traffic period) will be generated by the project. This trafic generation assumes that the proposed hotel is fully occupied. However, surveys indicate that independently operated hotels experience a 70% average occupancy rate. The,relatively small added project traffic of 69 trips will not produce any significant impacts on existing traffic conditions on Pacific Coast Highway. B. Existing double -double -yellow painted median island on Pacific Coast Highway at First Street do not permit left - turning movements into or out of the proposed project driveway on Pacific Coast Highway. Therefore, it is recommended that a "RIGHT TURN ONLY" sign be posted at this driveway. Crossing of this painted median island by left - turn traffic movements into or out of the project driveway is in strict violation of the California Vehicle Code. For this reason, the City of Hermosa Beach cannot be held liable for any violation resulting from these illegal left - turn, movements. C. The proposed hotel project would generate approximately one-half of the total 1,200 daily trips anticipated from a car dealership. — 14 — D. The P.M. northbound left turn traffic (existing plus project) totals to 43 vehicles. This translates to one turning vehicle every 1 1/2 minute (43 divided by 60). Since the existing left -turn pocket can accommodate up to two vehicles, the storage problem should not exist. Traffic signal at the intersection of 2nd Street and Pacific Coast Highway was observed to provide ample gaps for the existing 31 left turning vehicles. There were no left turning vehicles overflowing from the pocket. Therefore, the addition of 12 project vehicles should not adversely alter the existing traffic conditions. E. First Place at Pacific Coast Highway carries a very light traffic volume, 54 vehicles during the A.M. peak hour and 71 during the P.M. peak hour, approximately one vehicle per minute. Therefore, First Place should easily accommodate the additional 32 trips from the proposed project. Furthermore, adjacent streets along Pacific Coast Highway have same street width as First Place and carry a much higher traffic volume than First Place. Therefore, widening of First Place is not necessary. - 15 - EXHIBITS Movement EXHIBIT 1 A.M. PEAK TRAFFIC HOUR (WORST CONDITION) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) FOR PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND FIRST PLACE TRAFFIC LANE CAPACITY No. Total of Lane Lanes Capacity TRAFFIC VOLUMES Project Plus Existing Existing Traffic Traffic NT 3 4,800 3346 3346 NL 1 500 23 33 ST+SR 2 3,200 1013 1013 EL+ER 1 1,600 20 36 VOLUME -TO -CAPACITY RATIO Project Plus Existing Existing Traffic Traffic 0.70* 0.05 0.32 0.01* 0.70' 0.07 0.32 0.02* Intersection ICU 0.71 0.72 Level of Service C C Denotes critical volume to capacity ratio utilized to determine intersection ICU. Movement EXHIBIT 2 P.M. PEAK TRAFFIC HOUR (WORST CONDITION) INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) FOR PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND FIRST PLACE TRAFFIC LANE CAPACITY No. Total of Lane Lanes Capacity TRAFFIC VOLUMES Project Plus Existing Existing Traffic Traffic NT 2 3,200 2145 2145 NL 1 500 31 43 ST+SR 3 4,800 3339 3339 EL+ER 1 1,600 31 51 VOLUME -TO -CAPACITY RATIO Project Plus Existing Existing Traffic Traffic 0.67 0.06* 0.70` 0.02• 0.67 0.09* 0.70* 0.03* Intersection ICU 0.78 0.82 Level of Service C D Denotes critical volume to capacity ratio utilized to determine intersection ICU. . c c TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA > NORTH 1st 2nd 3rd 4th TOTAL DATE: 7-31-91 TIME: 7:00 AM - 8:00.. AM NORTH -SOUTH LEGS: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY EAST -WEST LEGS: 1ST PLACE 1ST PLACE 3 ; 0 3 7 19 0 0 1 <- -> PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 1st 2nd 3rd 4th TOTAL ^ 6 816 4 781 3 954 10 23 795 ;3346 1 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 1st 2nd 3rd 4th TOTAL 5 3 212 0 3 ; 11 320 297 ;1002 > NORTH 1st 2nd 3rd 4th TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC TURNING COUNT DATE: 7-25-91 TIME: 4:30 PM - 5:30 PM NORTH -SOUTH LEGS: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY EAST -WEST LEGS: 1ST PLACE IST .PLACE 3 2 7 15 27 3 0 0 1 4 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 11 550 12 514 3 546 5 545. TOTAL ^ 31 2145 -> PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ^ 1st 2nd 3rd 4th TOTAL <- 0 ; 3 822 780 4 ; 2 860 868 9 3330 Davy Associates, Inc. Consultants in Acoustics 865 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Suite 202 • Manhattan Beach, California 90266-4900 • 213/546-3387 JN 91096 ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS OF THRU-THE-WALL AIR CONDITIONING UNITS 71 -Unit Holiday Inn 125 Pacific Coast Highway Hermosa Beach, California for JR Design Group, Inc. 49 South Catalina Avenue Pasadena, California 91106 September, 1991 C C 1.0 Introduction At the direction of JR Design Croup, Inc., Davy & Associates, Inc. has completed an acoustical analysis to determine necessary mitigation measures for the proposed 71 -unit Holiday Inn at Hermosa Beach to bring exterior noise levels from the thru-the-wall air-conditioning units into compliance with the City of Hermosa Beach Noise Ordinance requirements. Ambient noise levels at the site were monitored over a 24-hour period at the west property line. These ambient noise levels are discussed in this report. The results of the analysis indicate that the project will be in compliance with the requirements of City of Hermosa Beach Noise Ordinance. 2.0 Ambient Noise Levels The site is located on the west side of Pacific Coast Highway as shown in Figure 1. Ambient noise levels at the site are dominated by traffic on Pacific Coast Highway. No other significant sources of noise were noted during the site visit. Noise measurements were made with a Larson -Davis Model 700 Noise Analyzer calibrated with a B&K 4230 Acoustical Calibrator immediately prior to use. The analyzer monitors noise levels automatically over selectable time periods such as 30 minutes. The analyzer is a microprocessor -based unit with its own internal clock and sound level meter that samples the acoustic environment. All of the noise samples thus collected are stored in the analyzer, and the noise levels exceeded for various percentages of time are automatically computed. The Larson Davis Model 700 Sound Level Meter was located in a security enclosure secured to a utility pole. The sensing microphone was approximately 15` above grade. The measurements were conducted over a 24-hour period from 2 p.m. to 2 p.m. on August 29 - 30. The results of the 24-hour noise measurements indicate that the minimum L50 ambient level is 45.5 dBA. This occurs between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m. 2 1RLNA I 65v G‘r LADDCARD fr Au pifv5 101 FRAN I •-) , • •;'• • ',t .r.r• '• • %! .= • . • Site Location FIGURE 1. 3.0 Criteria The criterion for this project is that noise from the thru-the-wall air-conditioning units should not exceed the limits contained in the Hermosa Beach Noise Ordinance (Chapter 19.5 - Noise Regulation). The Hermosa Beach Noise Ordinance sets allowable levels that may not be exceeded for more than so many minutes per hour. In a one and two family residential area between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m., the allowable standard that is not to be exceeded for more than 15 minutes in any 1 half hour is 45 dBA. The equivalent sound level LEO is 50 dBA. The standard also allows higher noise levels for shorter period of time. For example, 50 dBA is allowable for 7.5 minutes in any half hour (L25), 55 dBA is allowable for 2.5 minutes (L8.3), 60 dBA is allowable for no more than 30 seconds (L1.7), and the maximum noise level allowed for any period of time is 65 dBA. The equivalent sound level (LEQ) may also be used as an allowable level over a period of 15 minutes. If the ambient levels in any of the permissible catagories are higher than this, these become the allowable noise levels. If the measurement location is on the boundary between two different zones, the noise level limit applicable to the lower noise zone plus 5 dB shall apply. Since air-conditioning units would be utilized for more than 15 minutes in a given half hour, the standard that should apply is the L50 or the LEQ. A credit could be allowed since the project will be located in what is assumed to be a commercial zone and it abutts a residential zone. This would allow higher noise levels by 5 dB. However, the minimum ambient noise levels are in the 46 dBA range (L50). Therefore, on a conservative basis, a standard of 45 dBA (L50) should be utilized. 4 4.0 Property Line Noise Calculations The noise impacts of using typical thru-the-wall air-conditioning units was analyzed. Calculations were made for units rated at 12,000 Btuh. Measured laboratory sound power values outside a package air-conditioning unit of this size were measured at the Koderas Acoustical Laboratory with the unit operating at high speed. These values were utilized to calculate property line noise levels for two conditions. Calculations made for the northwest corner units at a distance of 31 feet to the property line indicate an A -weighted noise level of 44 dBA with the units operating at high speed. The units facing the west property line in the north wing of the building are at a distance of 67''• from the property line. These units will produce a level of 40 dBA at the property line. These levels are within ambient noise levels and also are below the allowable levels in the Hermosa Beach Noise Ordinance. Typically, high speed operation would not be used for these units during nighttime hours. With the proximity of the beach, the units would normally be utilized only during the day or if they were used at night, they would be used on low speed operation and the noise impact would be less. The calculations were based on the assumption that the units would be totally inside the room venting out through sheet metal louvers. This lined enclosure will attenuate the noise to an extent. A sketch of the enclosure assumed for the calculations is attached to this report along with catalog information on the fiberglas lining material and the recommended vibration mounts for the units. 5 5.0 Summary of Result and Mitigation The results of this analysis indicate that noise levels at the west property line will not exceed minimum ambient noise levels nor will they exceed allowable noise levels in the Hermosa Beach Noise Ordinance. As a noise mitigation measure, it is recommended that the units be installed inside enclosures lined with a 1-1/2" thickness of Johns Manville LinAcoustic-R. It is also recommended that the units be installed on Mason HD Vibration Isolators. Finally, it is recommended that when the units are selected, the manufacturer of the units should be required to supply a test report done in accordance with ARI Standard 270 in an independent, accredited testing laboratory. The outdoor generated sound power levels should be reported with the unit operating at high speed during cooling cycle. Third octave band sound power values should be reported between 100 Hz and 1000 Hz. The maximum allowable octave sound power values are as follows: 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 PWL.dB12 79 74 73 73 66 64 67 re 10 Watts 6 •gy N A r.o,va� ` JOB1.J 5'/ ° F 6 PROJECT HCS / -- `/ /'V N SHEET NO _ - / OF :42-383 Associates, Inc. CALCULATED BY p G / DATE / / 4 /67/ Consulting k Acoustical Engineers (213) 546-3387 I i FREQ. HZ 63 125 250 500 10092000 40D0_1_80.0( j / 0 c,--,---(_)- ,/` t c,f 4-'Z T f,n..4.i- %) C Com. r4 c LC r t.c..- I {� .-c?i.-ZCYom- - I 7 '�' 3 7 3 6! 7 ---.1 i ,N: ^7 7 H `>✓ ES 7 Co ( 0 ._ _' '.. ` r L. \? -- c ----/,:-- 7 f -7 _ G - -' � I L /E,,..c-c -c.ce__. -5- j - .5 S- - 6 - S - S - S d,CLG4? (�1> - 'G -mac 's + 7 -:.:�-mac -7 j_ J H 7 c G � -r`` i I i I I I CO �_ I II �{a Ifo 33 3l i 34 1-f y' I 10 VW&S? 1,V /T (. 6-7 1 P, 4.... 1 i I '•N L 7 % i /- y 3 7 G t; C Ll r - I ac LGc-i cG'7 ') J/ 1 i-.:/ >/ -37 ..� 1 1 i I I I — P C P.4- , 3 7 3 F .-9 a 7 ! 3 0 �{ c FILL. HULDHINN . . .,.. . ' :., • HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS - . ' AMBIENT NO-I-SE-MEASUREM- START TIME: 2:00 P.M. T-1116',11------00 P.14, ---8TOP DATE: • . AUGUST 29-30.1991 LOCATION: WEST PROPERTY LINE INTERVAL REPORT ' LARSON-DAVIS LABORATORIES.; .'.- .- MODEL 700 SN 80428 DATA FROM: HOLDAINN 08/30/91 18:18:34 Date 2? AUG --1.,,e-r.illed-e4.0-4-1-1:01-- Time LVL SEL Lmin Lmax Lpk Ex Pk Ov L02 L08 74.0 L25 L50 71-,0---67.0- 695-102,0 51-. (J---.80.0-96.0 14-.00-.01 0 0 0 76.5 14:30:01 71.5 104.0 54.0 81.0 95.5 0 0 0 78.0 76.0 73.0 69.0 15:00:01 70.0 102.5. 52.5 81.0 96.0 0 0 0 76.5 74.5 71.5 67.5 0 .77.0 75.0 72.0 68.5-- 1-5.:5-0.01 70,-5-1.--52.5--80,5 70.5 0 0 16:00:01 70.5 103.0 52.5 80.5 95.5 .0 0 0 77.5 75.0 71.5 67.5 16::30:01 69.5 102.5 .52.5 80.0 96..5 0 0 0 77.0 74.5 71.0 67.0 91.5 : 0 0 73.5 '71.5 68.5 64.0 1-1:i----6-7-0 99.5 52.5-96;5 17:30:01 66.0 98.5 50.5 76.5 92.0 0 0 0 73.5 71.0 67.0 62.5 18:00:01 67.0 99.5 51.5 79.0 93.5 0 0 0 74.5 71.5 68.0 64.0 0 0 74.0 71.5 60.0 1.5 1-8:-50:01----6-7,-0 97.5 52-;-0----70.0 92.5 . ( 19:00:01 64.5 97.0 49.5 76.5 91.00 :0 0- 72.0 69.0 65.0 61.0 19:30:01 64.5 97.0 49.5 78.0,.111.5.0 010- . 71.5 69.0 65.5 61.5 65;-0---97-5-48..5-.77.0 92.-5-0- -20:'001-01:-- : 0 3.0 70.0-65v5--61.5 20:30:01 60.0 90.5 48.5 75.5 93.0 0 0 0 73.5 71.0 67.5 63.0 21:00:01 66.0 90.5 50.0 78.0 91.5 0 0 0 74.0 71.0 66.5 62.0 2-1:-......1-70-1- 63.5 96.0 48.-0---7--.-5 90.5 0 0 0 71.5 60.0 63.5---59---€1- 22:00:01 64.0 96.5 48.5 76.5 90.5 .'-.0 0 0 72.5 '68.5 64.0 60.0 22:30:01 65.0 97.5 48.5 78.0 92.5 :A) 0 0 73.5 70.0 65.0 60.0 -- 000.t.......0: -4y--92-;5--45--75; 67.5 -6+70 60.5 57.0 23:30:01 59.0 91.5 47.0 72.0 86.0 0 0 0 68.0 63.5 59.0 54.5 0:00:01 57.0 39.5 46.5 72.0 84.5 0 0 0 65.5 62.0 56.5 53.0 0.30.01 5475--07.0--45.--5-667: 92.0 _ 0 0 0 63.0 5'7.0 54.o al -7-c 1:00:01 50.5 03.5 45.0 61.5 80.0:- ::-0 0 0 56.5 54.0 51.5 49.0 1:30:01 50.5 83.0 44.5 61.5 76.5 0 0 0 57.0 54.0 51.0 48.0 2.00-:0-1 52v5-85.0 44.5 65.5 02.0 0 0 0-61.5 5-7--0-52-.-5-49.5 2:30:01 53.5 06.0 44.0 80.5 92.5 0 0 0 55.5 52.0 49.0 47.0 300:01 48.5 81.0 44.5 61.0 8:3.5 0 0 0 55.5 52.5 40.5 45.5 1-1 0 0 0 53.0 49-7.5-46.5 -3.-3i- 4:00:01 47,e-79.5 44.5-62,5-q7.0 48.0 80.5 44.5 62.0 .79.50 0 0 53.5 45-.75 ---- 51.0 48.0 .46.0 4:30:01 50.0 82.5 45.0 65.5. 0 56.5 53.0 50.0. 48.0 .81.00- 5075--03.0 45.-e--62.5 76.5 0 0 0 7.6.0 53.:: 51-0--49-.5- 5:30:01 53.0 85.5 46.0 69.0 83.5 0 0 0 58.5 56.0 57.5 51.5 6:00:01 54.0 86.5 47.0 64.5 81.0 0 0 0 59.5 57.0 55.5 57,0 6- 70-0-1=-56.7-5-890--48.5 06.0 0 e 0 62-.0 59.0 . 68-7.-0 7:00:01 57.5 90.0 49.0 71.0 . 93.0 -0 0 0 64.0 60.5 57.0 55.5-.- 57.0 55.5 7:30:01 57.5 90.5 49.5 76.5 96.0 -.0 0 0 64.5 60.5 57.5 56.0 ..,,__,___ mm._m__=. .....____:•,,.......--4,-6-----elt ' ::.7.0 89.5 50.5 68.0 09.0 9:00:01 58.5 91.5 52.0 75.0 97.0 9:30:01 59.5 92.0 52.0 75.5 92.5 10:00:01 60.0 92.5 49.0 74.5 88.5 1.0:30:01 62.0 94.5 50.5 72.5 88.5 11:00:01 64.5 97.0 51.0 78.5 98.0 11:30:01 68.5 101.0 50.5 80.0 95.5 12:00:01 70.0 102.5 51.0 81.5 90.5 101.5 5-0 82.5. 96.9 13:00:01 /1.0 103.5 54.0 82.0 99.0 13:30:01 69.5 102.0 53.0 81.0 96.5 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 9 0 . _ • 63.5 60.5 57.0 55.0 64.5 62.0 59.0 57.0 65.5 62.)) 60.5 57.5 66.5 63.5 60.5 58.0 69.5 67.0 63.0 58.5 71.0 69.0 65.5 61.5 76.0 73.0 69.5 66.0 77.5 75.0 71.0 66.5 76.5 71Z.s 70.0 65-.-5 79.0 76.0 71.5 67.5 78.0 74.5 70.0 65.5 OVERALL 1E0: 65.4 DAVY & ASSOCIATES, INC. 865 Manhattan Beach Boulevard Ste. 202 MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90266 (213) 546-3387 FAX (213) 546-3009 JOB `Ito H 0L/Dr-lv I H. SHEET NO 1 OF /CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE ... ..•. ....... . 6S: 51"JUL ... • 1 ( . . . , \ . : C:,)1\-) 7- i (71i,::•, : \, • ] . . — . . . , • t.sc 73.• (1\ C •.-% . •• • . • .... ,...... ..... • . ; '• (71 c V It -L t C .. . f 7- C E c. L' E Nocurr 24.1 :snr. srxesi Paariedl . in.. Groton Mass. 01471 To Order PHONE TOLL FREE 1-80D-225-6)80 — S I — Specification Data Linacoustic® R Installation Recommendations All portions of duct designated to receive duct liner shall be completely covered with Linacoustic Re. The smooth, black coated mat surfaces of the Linacoustic Re shall face the air stream. All Linacoustic Re shall be cut to assure tight, overlapped corner joints. The top pieces shall be supported by the side pieces. Linacoustic Re shall be adhered to the sheet metal with full coverage of an approved adhesive, and all exposed leading edges and transfer joints shall be coated with an approved adhesive. The Linacoustic Re shall be additionally secured with mechanical fasteners spaced per the schedule shown in diagram. The pin length should be such as to hold the material firmly in place with minimum compression of the material. The physical and chemical properties of Lina- coustic R rigid fiber glass liner board repre- sent typical average values obtained in accordance with accepted test methods and are subject to normal manufacturing varia- tions. They are supplied as a technical service and are subject to change without notice. Numerical flame spread rating is not intended to reflect hazards presented by this or any other materials under actual fire conditions. Check with the Manville regional office to assure current information. For more information on other Manville thermal insulations and systems, write Manville, Product Information Center, P.O. Box 5108, Denver, Colorado 80217-5108, or call 1-800-654-3103 (outside Colo- rado); (303) 978-4900 (inside Colorado). MvL. Manville Together We're Better P.O. Box 5108 Denver, CO 80217-5108 Aue Fiber Glass Duct Liner i, THE VELOCITY RATED SIDE OF LINER MUST FACE THE AIR FLOW LAPPED AND BUTTED CORNER \x2'( .r►ca/ . DUCT SECTION (TYPICALLY 4 FT. OR 5 FT.) MAXIMUM SPACING FOR FASTENERS. ACTUAL INTERVALS ARE APPROXIMATE. ALTERNATE FOLDED CORNER ALL TRANSVERSE EDGES TO BE COATED WITH ADHESIVE LINER ADHERED TO THE DUCT WITH 90% MIN. AREA COVERAGE OF ADHESIVE Dimensions Velocity A la IC E 0-4000 FPM 3- f 15.. I 4" 18,. 4000-6000 FPM 3" I 12" I 4.. 16.. AIR FLOW DETAIL -A WHEN VELOCITY EXCEEDS 4000 FPM USE METAL NOSING ON EVERY LEADING EDGE. NOSING MAY BE FORMED ON DUCT OR BE CHANNEL OR ZEE ATTACHED BY SCREWS. RIVETS OR WELDS. Regional Offices Northern P.O. Box 158 Defiance, OH 43512 (419) 784-7000 (800) 334-2399 (Outside Ohio) (800) 334-7451 (Inside Ohio) Southern 200 W. Industrial Blvd. Cleburne, TX 76031 (817) 645-9101 (800) 221-9018 (Outside Texas) (800) 722-8027 (Inside Texas) Western P.O. Box 1209 Corona, CA 91718 (714) 737-3070 (800) 367-6955 Manville Canada Inc. 295 The West Mall Etobicoke, Ontario M9C 4Z7 (416) 626-5200 Telex: 06-984559 For worldwide export P.O. Box 5108 Denver, CO 80217-5108, USA (303) 978-2000 Telex: 454404 JOHNMANVL DVR Pnntea in USA r Manville c Air Handling Systems Type: Rigid Liner Board Temp. Limit: 250°F (121°C) Description Linacoustic R is a rigid liner board made from strong, flame -attenuated glass fibers bonded with a thermosetting resin. The air stream surface is covered with a tough, smooth, black coated mat. Available Forms Linacoustic R liner is available in board form, and in thicknesses of 1" and 1 /2" to meet service requirements. In addition to the standard 48" x 96" and 48" x 120" sheets, special sizes are available on request. Uses Linacoustic R liner is specifically designed as a liner for plenums. It offers outstanding durability in exposure to air velocity and superior acoustical and ther- mal performance in systems operating at velocities up to 5,000 fpm and tempera- tures up to 250°F. Advantages Resists Damage. The specially - designed strong, smooth mat, integrally laminated to the insulation, provides extraordinary resistance to possible damage. Absorbs Disturbing Sound Linacoustic R liner has excellent sound - absorbing properties. Noise, from air movement and mechanical equipment is noticeably reduced. Fire Resistance Meets the requirements of NFPA 90A and 90B Standards. Easy to Fabricate Linacoustic R liner is Tight in weight and easy to handle. Clean, even edges can be accurately cut with regular shop tools. Resiliency and high tensile strength resist undue abuse. Presents a soft. friendly, nonabrasive feel to the hands. High Insulating Value The glass fibers in Linacoustic R liner are made by the flame -attenuation method, producing a high strength insulation having excep- tional thermal properties. Linacoustic® R Rigid Fiber Glass Liner Board Thermal Performance Thickness (inches) 1 Conductance R -Value BTU!(hr•ft2•°F) 4.4 .23 11/2 6.5 .15 R -Value and Conductance are calculated from the material thermal conductivity tested in accordance with ASTM C 518 at 75°F mean temperature. Sound Absorption Coefficients "A" Mounting Sound Absorption Coefficient at Thickness Frequency (Cycles per Second) of (inches) 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 NRC 1 .05 .27 .69 .92 1.02 1.00 .75 11; i .07 .52 .94 1.02 1.02 1.04 .90 Sound Absorption Coefficients "F-25" Mounting Sound Absorption Coefficient at Thickness Frequency (Cycles per Second) of (inches) 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 NRC 1 .22 .45 .66 .93 .99 .99 .75 11/2 .51 .93 .96 .97 .96 .99 .95 Coefficients were tested in accordance with test method ASTM C 423-81 and ASTM E 795. Surface Burning Characteristics* Flame Spread - Smoke Developed not over 25 not over 50 *Tested per ASTM E 84 & UL 723. Linacoustic R is a UL Class 1 product. If UL labels are required, they may be requested at time of order. Compliance With Govemment Specs And Other Standards ASTM C 1071, Type II (Replaces HH -I -545B) SMACNA Application Standards for Duct Liners NFPA 90A and 90B ANS -'5 3-99 (Cancels 1-88) • MASON INDUSTRIES; Inc: Manufactiurers of Vibration. Control:Products 350RabroDnver , 708N,ValleySt,SwteK Hauppauge NY11780- Anaheim,CA92801,g. 516/348-0282 . ; ,:. ' 714/535-2727 FAX.516/348-0279e•4 FAX.714/535 5738Y TELE149648464 . OCTOBER 1984 l c -.4`,,:,%t J ,C ri , D R AleCML," 1Vl��4' OU 1 ourts ..Supell , �} - 1�t C A r BBP °Pads, . z. ,$.e, 1fas eus Ings Pads ► _ '' . ss` b es anc PadAdhe iVe ` :� -�-, r a---,-...,-7.: P� x` PRICit1MfHP4�" THIS IS A PRICE LIST ONLY - For Engineering Recommendations and Product Information, please refer to Engineering Specifications VCS -100 and the Product Bulletins. Example NB -Red Please Order by Complete Part Number to Avoid Confusion Neoprene Mounts with Cadmium Plated Cap Screws & Washers N `' 4- LIST PRICE er�aq. Stan- N.0e.,•,o•.�,,9 dard • Ship Wt. (lbs) Type & Size Duro Duro- Colormeter Code Capacity Range (lbs) Max. Static Defl. (�^) Max. Static Defl. Black 30 15-35 (lbs) (in) dard NA- Green 40 25-55. 0.11 $10 $12 0.2 NDA- Red 50 40-90 0.35 $11 $14 0.3 Red Black 30 " 50-100 Black NB- Green 40 75-150 0.20 16 20 0.4 75-150 Red 50 110-235 NDB- Red 50 110-235 0.40 White 60 180-380 White 60 180-380 Green 40 140-260 70 300-600 NC- Red 50 200-400 0.25 24 32 1.0 NDC- White 60 310-600 0.50 28 40 1.5 Yellow Yellow 70 520-1000 NDD- Yellow Please Order by Complete Part Number to Avoid Confusion Example NDB -Red TO CONVERT - example: lbs to kilograms- divide by 2.2- 22 lbs/2.2 = 10 kgs inches to mm- multiply by 25.4- 1.2 in x 25.4 = 30.5 mm lbs/in to kg/mm- multiply by 0.0179- 28Ibs/in x 0.0179 = 0.50 kg/mm Prices are surface freight allowed in the continental U.S.A. There is a $10.00 flat freight and handling charge on all UPS and Parcel Post shipments. Air shipments are billed at exact cost with a 510.00 minimum. Deliveries below $2000 net requiring 24 hour or prior notice to consignee before delivery will carry a 520 delivery notification charge. Prices are subject to change without notice. Terms: 1%/10 net 30 Service Charge: 2% per month after 30 days. ND Double Deflection Neoprene Mounts with Cadmium Plated Cap Screws & Washers ND '& Type & Duro Color Duro- meter Capacity Range a g Max. Static Defl. LIST PRICE Ship e,,ao. Wt. Stan- Size Code (lbs) (in) dard EIZZ �. (lbs) N &. r.9 Black 30 15-45 NDA- Green 40 30-75 0.35 $11 $14 0.3 Red 50 60-125 Black 30 50-100 Green 40 75-150 NDB- Red 50 110-235 0.40 19 24 0.6 White 60 180-380 Yellow 70 300-600 Green 40 140-260 NDC- Red White 50 60 200-400 310-600 0.50 28 40 1.5 Yellow 70 520-1000 NDD- Yellow 70 1060-2100 0.50 55 76 3.0 NDE- Yellow 70 2200-4300 0.50 80 108 4.0 Please Order by Complete Part Number to Avoid Confusion RBA and RCA Restrained Neoprene ilounts with Cadmium Plated Cap Screws and Washers Example RBA -White RCA -White Type Size Duro Color Duro- Code meter Com- Shear on pression Tension Range Range (lbs) (lbs) RBA - LIST PRICE Ship Stan- er+aq. Wt. dard :;::g. (lbs) RBA - Black 30 100- 250 80- 200 Green 45 200- 525 160- 420 White 60 400-1000 320- 800 Not $42 Avail- 1.3 able Green 40 750-1400 500-1000 RCA- Red 50 1100-2100 800-1500 White 60 1700-3500 1200-2500 Not 50 Avail- 1.5 ab le Please Order by Complete Part Number to Avoid Confusion ML Neoprene Machine Leveling Mounts Example ML -8 Type Size Capacity Range (lbs) ML List Ship Boxed Ship Price Wt. Set Wt. Each (lbs) of 4 (lbs) ML - 3 4 5 6 7 8 375 1050 2200 4000 8000 14500 $40 60 90 105 170 225 1''/. 2 3 4'/: 7 10 $160 240 360 420 680 900 5 8 12 18 28 40 Please Order by Complete Part Example Number to Avoid Confusion BM -RED BM Neoprene Business Machine, Piano, etc. Mounts Type Duro Color Code Duro- meter Capacity Range (lbs) BM 174 Standard Neoprene Only Ship Wt. (lbs) Green BM- Red White 40 100-225 50 175-400 60 300-625 $20 1.0 Please Order by Complete Part Number to Avoid Confusion R Rubber Mounts (non -oil resistant) Example R -B-50 Type Max. Size Load (lbs) R R -A R -N List Prices for Quantities of 1-99 100-499 500-999 Ship Wt. per 100 (lbs) -8q-, R- A-50 N-50 0-50 B-50 D-50 X-50 Z-50 90 75 175 65 60 35 10 $20 21 31 16 16 14 13 $18.15 19.70 29.00 15.00 15.00 13.15 12.20 $17.50 16 18.40 15 27.10 40 14.00 12 14.00 10 12.25 7 11.40 1 Dear Honorable City Official: July 20, 1992 Timothy J. Wallender 135 Ardmore Ave Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 We are very concerned at the prospect of a 75 room hotel going in between 1st street and 1st place. Our concern stems primarily from the increased traffic flow it will create on residential streets in front of our house. We are over 6 year residents of Hermosa Beach and home owners of a $500,000+ piece of property. We had high hopes of raising a family that could enjoy safety around our house. This hotel will create heavier traffic due to taxis, delivery trucks, employees, guests and other associated enterprise related to the hotel. To alleviate this problem we strongly support the closing of both 1st Street and 1st Place to prevent Northbound traffic from increasing around this new hotel. If this is accomplished, we would support the addition of this new hotel. Otherwise we will strongly support a lawsuit against the new construction of this hotel. Please close both 1st Street and 1st Place during both construction and forever thereafter so we can plan on staying in Hermosa Beach to raise a family in safety. Lisa F. Wallender iAJ Timothy J. allender 4 PETITION AiJ 4 1992 We, the following property owners donot oppose to the 70 room hotel and piano bar being built between First Street and First Place on Pacific Coast Highway assuming the following conditions are met: That both First Street and First Place be closed at the Western most edge of the hotel property. This will prevent access from the hotel property for the passage of vehicles westbound on First Street or First Place. Our reasons are that we wish to maintain quality of life in our Hermosa Beach neighborhood. With the hotel will come increased vehicular traffic and accompanying noise on First street, First Place and Ardmore Avenue due to cars, taxis ,vans, of hotel guests, employees, friends and family of guests and employees; visitors, other patrons of the hotel and delivery trucks, using said streets to gain access to north bound Pacific Coast Highway. Name Address Phone ,hE,,--r- f//Mew.4lai 54'O /- r 31- .# r 3-7Z103s a- y 7 oLS/. * 7 31 -5074 I TC// 4 l 2r/1 ",'> C -Lk T y ./ A/ Z_ 9./ (/ (' Vau,s :31v4 -r $4e 4=,.257 S -r ..A fa 31g - GA( 2— a644 14,ss .:c----- 3i ._ q �f4 7wJ M oafs (of'L5keY 0/ ,mss r ki 54D 7s- fir- 17) 3'74- 5480 52)01 q 7ij'3,/q. schaekr 5210 9 1Y-7 79 s`+o gGi-ST- . 31. - 333 t PETITION 1C19.? We, the following property owners do not oppose to the 70 room hotel and piano bar being built between First Street and First Place on Pacific Coast Highway assuming the following conditions are met: That both First Street and First Place be closed at the Western most edge of the hotel property. This will prevent access from the hotel property for the passage of vehicles westbound on First Street or First Place. Our reasons are that we wish to maintain quality of life in our Hermosa Beach neighborhood. With the hotel will come increased vehicular traffic and accompanying noise on First street, First Place and Ardmore Avenue due to cars, taxis ,vans, of hotel guests, employees, friends and family of guests and employees, visitors, other patrons of the hotel and delivery trucks, using said streets to gain access to north bound Pacific Coast Highway. Name Address S. . C/ 1=y- # 5-- 60/ 6C/ ST/(5 4/ 1 fig iLkkr - 414— d' o ;=2/2.54— s Sy Phone 37y / 2- ? -79 ?7-/ <20O 3 7 ' (rho 7?-7Sb5— .37y-.32 3 a %/ 3 - 33:5 I 11,r- oCL lob 9S --;-6(19 g�_ 992 PETITION We, the following property owners do not oppose to the 70 room hotel and piano bar being built between First Street and First Place on Pacific Coast Highway assuming the following conditions are met: That both First Street and First Place be closed at the Western most edge of the hotel property. This will prevent access from the hotel property for the passage of vehicles westbound on First Street or First Place. Our reasons are that we wish to maintain quality of life in our Hermosa Beach neighborhood. With thehotel will come increased vehicular traffic and accompanying noise on First street, First Place and Ardmore Avenue due to cars, taxis ,vans, of hotel guests, employees, friends and family of guests and employees, visitors, other patrons of the hotel and delivery trucks, using said streets to gain access to north bound Pacific Coast Highway. Name Address Phone ,'1 E N Et I4 i\CA/ %t 63( 34 3 I �•�� 1 I 1 f1y''4le' t31 / ie. 7co / 5 37 t 3 a /S-1 _ s '' .376 -c,26 2 ilL to /s s 7,P- sz 7 &Q -Q -J 7 / 5- l © I/ 601 ri S; . 7 E7L a- Cr; g02,11? ,"willL 3 S i'1.. 2. -Y (..I� � . C 69 902s 37 - 935 t H B c-4 to -n-14 :37z 133-8 462- 3 2.-(02.3 6 i(/5/- 5 3 O1 ro y 3 2%-- 6 ys 274 PETITION We, the following property owners do not oppose to the 70 room hotel and piano bar being built between First Street and First Place on Pacific Coast Highway assuming the following conditions are met: That both First Street and First Place be closed at the Western most edge of the hotel property. This will prevent access from the hotel property for the passage of vehicles westbound on First Street or First Place. Our reasons are that we wish to maintain quality of life in our Hermosa Beach neighborhood. With the hotel will come increased vehicular traffic and accompanying noise on First street, First Place and Ardmore Avenue due to cars, taxis ,vans, of hotel guests, employees, friends and family of guests and employees, visitors, other patrons of the hotel and delivery trucks, using said streets to gain access to north bound Pacific Coast Highway. Name Address Phone o��ed-epi �- Q �a�tiP,d 1992 oand Fred Nichols 7031st , URI rj Hermosa Beach, Ca 90254 ` June 24, 1992 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, Ca 90254 Re: 125 Pacific Coast Hwy Dear City Manager: There is a danger lurking in our city that requires correction. I have brought this to the attention of the planning office in writing, to the planning commission in personand to the police department. However, no permanent solution has been provided and I request your attention to this matter. Property located on the corner of Pacific Coast Hwy_and 1st street appears to have been abandoned. This is the proposed sight for the King Harbor hotel- During this proposal phasethe owners seem to have overlooked the jeopardy the current property condition provides. Access to the property is open. Fencing and gates are in disarray or no longer functioning. Broken glass, filled oil drums and garbage are strewn throughout the property. Yesterday, youngsters encountered a derelict man. Apparently, this person has made his residence on the property for the last three months. A syringe was also found by these children. I, my family or myneighbors have observed the appearances of drug transactions, men urinating, and other wanderers attracted by this abandoned site. We are fortunate that no casualties or injuries have resulted from this current conditions. I would expect the city to pursue the owner to clean up the unsightly condition and safety hazards of the location. Please advise me as to the future plans to clean up this location. Si �e � l , Frederick & Sonia Nich s cc Planning Commissioners City Council • LEGALI DESCRIPTION':' ARCEI. 1 PARCEL 2 IOA.43. 1 •l • 1. 7. AIO o'er ALAR M0. Nil. LOT Nl or SALMI LOOM COS RACC. : '• '• .. •, 11,1111 em ar SMO A PUCK moue or LOB 3110613. M 11:1b/OSS ax or 1olA SOCK =um e► SOS ALINES` STJT= K C. Ni1 CAL101SS P 1130 O[OOOOm M MAX O CAVN,L I6 • OAAl 1 AAI =CROW LOOK PACE I CI IIAPS. 1it M OIFICII 0/1000 I. PACS 170 d M In N AIC OiM[ O► '• K olwx sLmsaa o< len sawn. x ee,srx A[07np1 ar !oolrnL' SUMMARY `..:, .,.• 1vT SIZE: IB 543 K. Z.t1I1 •� cc-►) . rMJrcT: 7D- win- H.TIL wi FJ$TAuF.'NT sro1Yl J•sioleT w. A L4liNT. ILS �4AI'+ IST Nit Io171 P t1711.15t11.04170,0ra.) • two KS 111141P a oMc I o864,513f Is77.5¢ ' 4TAL, 331614015611.25*.Tj8141,7�11 I Ner ItIdD, H*4ts&t14. 112 STNl3 ... rAncJI'4 'IvenrIDEO: 5rAsD ID• •: 7(e STA'+ll .COr' P. : 33' STALLS Ilewac.riPS .t emus T►pl —113 amus. 4?w+TIWcTI40 I TYrs 1 — DA+eAENT • TYr& 4 -1 or TOW- our oinLDtNq His : *o' AW. ' . . 40' 0E314N6D < Nwfur a ten i) '.. lIY4n/ls' len W fit, O a> mI. 0 a • <w z U co a Z.� o o cc LAI/ T h -4 tt,'L PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ,SITE.PL'AN •AND. FIRST FLObR PLAN L. 1992 Oa* e.. 1 IN • Poen • JRDIMON ORDUP ' wa iw nuhNa+0/24ME +ctaweesVcs 010U24CJS4INAAOLERMAD lO YRMN100 D 70 -UNIT KING HARBOR HOTEL 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY'• HERMOSA BEACH,' CA.. N. m n 0 Z .11 .r s, O 0 r Z I a s i : t JOLT: 1M. 0. 70—UNIT; KING HARBOR HOTEL 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY' HERMOSA REACH. CA.. a Ile ill/Sill sea � � ��°`"""'°1 2 I 4 F DI MON J�r• MO. � .' kik IMAM *ma sex swam am 70=UNIT; KING HARBOR HOTEL' 125 .PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY HERMOSA BEACH,.CA.. i JRDII/IDM ONDY► INC.• MOurcu lMNPV31@OacRl' 00011. semis • MIO IVIbNII/.MI�BI.EINSACe1�C.UONUVMOI .'KR MVLdIIW.. PVC sums am • 70 -UNIT; KING HARBOR HOTEL_ 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY• HERMOSA REACH,.CA.. .y d f "sr t 0 }i Mui ung:„r_:rr_l;; uut,°lilli ■■ i_ -■■ '00.0.Q,41.044 ITTmm L. EAST ELEVATION P1 fl 11 1411 Min NINON . J -4 c SOUTH ELEVATION PrT WEST ELEVATION EXT.ERIOR, FINISH. SCHEDULE y(.NGoL MATSILIAL ILF.MANC.S. 0 clAT pal” Tda RIiQ W/Moaeo Co(..n 0 OTIJ a w4 anal' WHIT' 0 sT�c<o - errip4. WHITE. 0 /Tlkco .Pop -oaf 'MN, cFTsT*. WHITE ... 0 0• 0. 0 0 O 0 sTetl FALINcT Iii e. F.00," 9K re ry<LINq. La1velL. WNooi4 it . 5441%014 LINK METAL Pox SloN.. LI4MT FlwrvikE. CWck WALL PLANTER. qtrs./xi. Wtl1Te ro.NTKD. cfTaTA- I.IHITf P'aNTeo. `frsi4L `i9. FwNieO Lit Fe° WMpKo cdof• KsvIKIDKK BY A a 0 6w err 6 0.4 OEMS Oft 10, lam Muli • DIVISIONS DY J ▪ • O < LC 0 0 0.S`2 Q .Q w = O c V U < 0 coO 0 cc a S Z'� 0 r 8. a Don 1(* Orawo w SwN 7 01 1110011 PIANO BAR FLR PLAN SUITE TYPE "C" J 0 EMI N 0 .., r IUL :SUITE TYPE "B" (l SUITE TYPE "D" O T MVamoNs O < • • C U U Q aw =om U Q �o he U :t 'O N • r . 0 e.. ices 8 Wes p. Ilk • - , PC.0,111.11.1. CCOMPA C ; .. ••C PLANTING INSTALLATION 4-1t4W-114..U1,kc ebfrativ/ V&rg. ft.d/Krielf-, t6r.r.t.L.AS, PLANTING NOTFS WEED CONTROL VD. attiet.IVILb wIttwo • Mal T.-Mkt:NTS. MM. 1/7th C. MaIrk•Sicti. orec.ncee-y pyr t41rjr.ov *I•t•TIA P.m:1.405,-mo errewr1/4 pv r- -� R-A•47.ht or.es• t Ad- 0,4+7=46 tots FF. "Nt.#91r 1 mi,,c• eAlt.v1Sema port,...t.t•id• Moo Gatc+. 11.e.MAC,* fru- WttsPe. Pktet•c Frio"-mt-V6-o7•eriercr-V too7 ku• mew"- *rem r -,- o'. kfet-or, •I w•limr..eNtr kotias.....2is 15.1D e0 arn7,...-ak. Fcc 445(-1-111-lek r°611.Kniivoift4Df. c:f frt.e..ccaa MIK•Al.ez .Tme$41.-0-14 '41.c 44.c. 044 SOIL TEST /rm.. Ace-•8.eht. pees ser ti Ftee.....411-**.2'cottf Det-P•tsrefec.,i1� co-tri.ctok KM-kki "art roc...ny....4 cep -our; WiNts•OLThe Cot- Ttas--5. /Ye It, AM .O.INTtIot, i•lik,koaer Ihts CAJrtk.4" Le•AT.Tik,f5. SOIL PREPARATIONS 1,40 P441.,15. res v.rvile. frt.e.6 85 ft' 11-10 rt”. raz.N5N7L•7-:6. Tim loc,c43 kre,14., f.'"'NOk L: 44 :14 .‘ K•K gv..1051\ ,TztfclioLspis dfteu.14-1.,te.. sce.L. ••I . .„ \--15 ebto1.&E./. cia.t.h covri< t 1210A4C44". r..145 ...0.61-/r I f5.r.4-fUE) 144gpegyillm es.eralmile-06411 pub..% roc(' .11 tett cce.o..114icgsYsl- 1.6^1eauxifftM vmor.46Atjatocmc.,.1-1-111aels1SetlArli • • ps .cF bikce.le.4 1.44-41.44 64.4(.6.ra. gewmtirt-4-1 • ,61,046,60.,/frzpeAtzeic..mr .ImPlal%_ • 28 6 • .57 rra6. 14 r1mr.54. 1f1 1izt!t4K K. c=1co,/c_mi . mt..4zrom..../Ar.„6. fjoitIOA pv..ay. Fug, N„cap_f_.e.v. po2Ft./... , z.•cI&J rot,/ Fukts. fr.C67../56.6. L'11 -..1z RIVISKSIS IV t- ▪ 5- O < • • CC 0 0 0 go 1— 5 cc u) 4 a w z 0 co ni < 0 0 Z 0 LL hg F, 11 ,c2 0 ot. 4 - 0 tri 4d,.., ;' , Can le 474- e' f 4• e 4 -re. etiz D d fe $V f/e c;01,c 7�7'`�/'e ' f ' k•-1/1./ (t��►.�d L�Y�i/ yyc �v, �vd f -e 46_S r d •''� rAl ►nrf / zfei war ealy G'Gd'�_.►z_v�ley y kde (..u") le. D71'e P6 4.7) b7L Q/l:C'. .` Cor -4-e7 . % fete .re 1 foe tree . 74 \.7,7( fr",64.r. 'CCe cra-4) ` ' # r 7 J'd f+ a :,I.-- a(dl( A, _ .., " trp re I/e dtl da!'1,` it/4 para h, , int, & e� Q44P-44 . d Ai Q� 1 /If A— /2u-,EeoJ Geer' h-ayse. T(e- JFv/d> k•-1/1./ (t��►.�d L�Y�i/ yyc �v, �vd f -e 46_S r d •''� rAl ►nrf / zfei war ealy G'Gd'�_.►z_v�ley y OWNER CHENO WEI CNEN : LEGAL( DESCRIPTION ARCEi. 1• I.TS.L•�. 3 L 4 7 MM O W LuCT 110. IML LOT i. or ou&Tq SHUN f10Y ►LACE, : ' • MT0fairy W UNUOS/arnWMO MTA11W CYAoVf A ►DOO►WooCfCOY W LOU ANO►. ` 1100K K PAR • Of YA►/ N M or= W ' soot 9, ►TISO MAIN. M TTM %0► • M Wm KOOU aNWM1YSOLOIST SWIM W UN COMM' • r£' • ..gC.tNLT1G . 1-'1 • SUMMARY 'j • . LoT HUE: 11131.11 X.1111441 st tC. 11 ii"" 1.11.111q1 70- VATIM1St W/ FUT own'. ST.Sr 1 B • S f1 W / MILMpiT.. rune. Af0A8 IST rLiI 10171 P t27: SO t(41T.s3IAs) 2ND121144 _ .. .. ►fo fL1[ 1.844.50f 11.77.51 VIAL 1 31151.s02 t5011-2543. 38145.7 pyLWN* FWD • (ri+4ta8114. 112 STALLS r4114+144 P1to',IDED: 7TAMay1D 171A STALLS c.wT.cT : 33 STALLS IVNOI. LCAroD: "I STALLS ..: VIAL •113 5TALLS. C.NSTIqucTw14 1 Din E — SAO&.ENT TrrI II ni T1111u-nnf W IL oiNCT His I 101 .AAA. . 4d CEs1414oD C Nicolas( ('NfI.14) S.YN1011$ PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SEP 2 1992 ,SITEj.PL'A..AND. FIRST FLObR PLAN ... 800 111.00 1 01 1.... } 1» DttltN Yrctu. lNR morecupt iv/mom:mom mai ounces N=CUSACM3 NNtME. N.CNWIMNt110! Mt six 'WM XX PA 70 -UNIT KING HARBOR HOTEL 125 •PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. HERMOSA BEACH,' CA.. 1 co) DI$I N GROUP .NO. nMa�wa �,.M. W.r+MMesq oesa, Hence w ions co.a.wwLMVO.A,c.scamAnad. 'Mie MONS LMl MX MONS 21171 • . 70—UNIT, KING HARBOR HOTEL 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY': HERMOSA BEACH, CA.. a 21 1 JR211142111 1021 toOUP ioorecluvi. iumanodiameino cam mines ' 4910.115C.5551.24kA5NJERATICONACALIOANIA51102 112,551 2552 KC $11/556 2273 70=UNIT.j KING HARBOR HOTEL' 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY:: • • HERMOSA BEACH:CA.. • 1 1 JR DI1 DIUIOM00► INC.• Moneuvaiumeamovaileansariformis AIKUNCAINA NNULPMAI-wAww atom we swan n Ln73 70 -UNIT; KING HARBOR HOTEL 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. HERMOSA BEACH..CA.. s 4 • uR!lil7i:MIN; EAST ELEVATION HTa -A.nq k SOUTH ELEVATION EXTERIOR, FINISH: SCHEDULE MATEfl.l Femvrycs. 0 cl 'Y ' I Tole FEo u/rweo c0L . 0 5TH mat! 1' & Te 4 4TJcco cPrTTAL WHITE. 4 7Tluco .1a? -o' T •1gM. '15T-. WwTE ... 4 STEEL R..IINrq I!i efreTAL: wore f 4erg.m. 4 folw. SHAfe p.ILINq. '1'r rn- WHITE moire°. 0 LoJvei.-g wNpa:,l rE. 417Y0141. hebis PNKTso O se-aIING LINT . 641 O METAL pox SION. 0 1-14111. FIxTNIet 0 cwc.K WALL rL...rrEF. Fe wrn$woF_ WEST ELEVATION d urNllolla w g' C g s sl ow 1.r 6 01 01.006 PIVISIOIII Ie. Dew. 7 a ofters IV IMO 'Toque 6. EMI I 0 0444C.NerSCA. SITTINtr ipEA. spode 1 ,u- o PIANO BAR FLR PLAN 0 N LJ I1 J. 'SUITE TYPE ."A" n u.L :SUITE TYPE "B" _Et . SUITE TYPE "C" SUITE TYPE "D" 0 .r W•... F- Doe ae. Job 8 p w.e• •oonuu PLANTING INSTALLATION PLANTING NOTES WEED CONTROL 1-e. at rY�0x bra WU-�.J t to, to.',esla kRcoS n'o.• T�4 F� Pr.ga 4�/C{{ fill fziriy� o -t. Mri •'W i1'1 r*repo. 1. K x NVGW, T-li Y.LWriG �.ft• Q. FRs;ts r-nNWiT Rxr nrW Fa 2Lecc tc. . M4}YSTt r.^JiJ MOP Goo:). t FCARY- Frio +T.ayb ri.c.a-Voo07IW.•-4 ra.vvi r--eo-ok i rovsi •sv Gtzv�eti. Rc-M'LVfb-r Fvo..xs K 10 •r M. - i -s Frfs.O PAC1 Ni 1Eft•-.•sa.e iLl aLtF'^..0.!'Y' c! FG'S✓KY.-+il'7.Y.'lii'O :Tim.• SOIL TEST • /r iM" . 401_ WA, Seen ..mor El r rc• ww rt.401l1 "ii . em-r:!c77r��toe+ ?E , 1F/ tafh cta e44•u M1t'ue'i/'O,'f lt: TBA . a ,Wc .t'NL- Po•CR.Rr'(ww4 .rV•D4.4?-, tt oc'RorN•.: ►fA l ' Tte'cr TL Goo; r• fT LY 7•m fJV.^-ICV: /CfiG 6 SO 500. PREPARATIONS RE ARA - �yrr ter5. titAri ov,, G� Y� -1 nW c 'gj'6 Rc sl l . NY s�Yf.�eCs fVI TO. R.,Ufe,.rs. TK rc c� c::..s.�Zs6^ e;-s!,2ee R'.r.6M2YSs 11:4.1.. G'i!tii'•r, :iK - F1 +IrtLJ.Vrc C r+z / f JM i& L ISrfLL.4 94ro..Awsur",/for,r- fw.cclEA.- �: . -o �E - ru-vAR41f2a-MI M. .r k $t' ptdllt�,= F¢a+t:4'pors S.=_p.Aft4IOLEpiS ILI4-fue_ - L. 1 quo.' r COvti:K'v1s-:FEIiA �,t:{�1�I2e:-FCLi�pl?5 4' I rrn.lo . m 1 A csfF1a/IAIare. 5 Inx 5 ION' W'wJWc.11f• =5 -131Mh -!c c rulm.rwa.. 9rr rrr_LNK _. _FAL LAE COF0.1111Q4'y1-- Mo2Ar* II2POIGFP/6f1 J 4.l 106 • LL.F1-$. IK pzr (,drf3.Ir .K . 6EGF1ULIM. Fos OSA/f►�I1 GF MAOFJ26 LA4-104.1A amerce. I Min/ 412E-, 44AL. I4r-L•. 14.L, 7S:LIMo-111.1M P1`C 2.4/ill. LAv<Jh 2, IryaL. CLAXE4I ML42.41NJ'//oEp. FiAK , Io'ac. FIS. FT -144 �.kP-F -II Far -E. , I t' QC., Fads. F'- -1 • 14 REVISIONS SC mfte 7•n-orri_r 1V^ 5- 0 < =`= ..goI-o hra Q a w x O OD U Q co ZOO a. U ix I—a w Z ir' `• ;‘-.1 O S. D. 4-1-11- Ito-o' M a •wen Honorable Mayor and Members of tht Hermosa Beach City Council �G-uttj - t -.4)/o- L i o --ys September 1, 1992 Regular Meeting of September 8, 1992 VEHICLE PARKING ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG BEACH DRIVE Recommendation: The recommendation is presented in two parts. The Planning Commission recommendation is presented first and the items with which the Public Works staff disagrees is presented second. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: 1. Establish that for the purposes of this ordinance, all right-of-ways east of Beach Drive and terminating at Hermosa Avenue, will be treated as front yards and all parking will be prohibited in these areas. 2. Allow the private use of all walk street right-of-ways throughethe usL of a :zevocable Pncrr,achment permit. 3. Continue to allow parking west of Beach Drive under the following conditions: A. All adjacent property owners wishing to park on the City right-of-way west of Beach Drive must apply for a revocable encroachment permit within 60 days of the passage of this ordinance and must fulfill the terms of the permit within 120 days of the issuance of the permit. B. The terms of the permit are: 1) Establishment of a maximum distance of 30 feet from Beach Drive where parking shall be allowed. This will be a maximum of two cars and parking tags will be issued to adjacent property owners as part of the permit. 2) Establish that 1/3 of the right of way, starting at the Strand wall and moving east must be landscaped. This landscaping must be in place prior to the issuance of the parking permits. 3) Require that a permanent barrier be installed between the parking area and the remainder of the right-of-way area. 4) Require that all access to the right-of-way be from Beach Drive only. 5) Establish that parking is for automobiles only; boats, trailers, motor homes and campers are - 1 - prohibited. Parking of automobiles is not to exceed 72 continuous hours. 6) Require -fence heights within the right-of-way to be a maximum of 36" high. 7) Establish that the privilege to park will expire under one of the following conditions`: a) Fifteen years after the issuance of the permit. b) Upon application to renovate the property. c) Upon sale or transfer of title of the property. d) Upon violation of the terms of the encroachment permit. 8) All improvement plans within the walk street right-of-ways shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to work start up. C. Require that fees for the parking be set by the City Council. D. Determine that the commercial properties along the Strand be part of a different study. E. The properties that have existing garages fronting a walk street as the only access will be part of a separate study. Staff Recommendation: Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation except as follows: Item #3.B.7 Eliminate expiration of the privelege to park upon application to renovate the property or upon sale or transfer of title of the property. Item #3.B.8 Eliminate review of improvement plans by the Planning Commission. The attached ordinance incorporates the Planning Commission recommendation and would need to be amended if the staff recommendation is followed. Background: The Planning Commission originally heard the Public Works Department report related to parking on pedestrian walk streets at their meeting of April 16, 1991 (copy of report attached). The Planning Commission's recommendations were submitted to the City Council in a report dated on July 23, 1991 (copy of report attached). 2 The Public Works Department was directed by the City Council on July 23, 1991 to review the parking situation citywide. On February 25, 1992, the City Council changed the direction of the study to only focus on vehicle parking along Beach Drive. The Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to both return with possible alternative solutions. The recommendations as proposed by the Public Works Department initially went to the Planning Commission for their review in a report dated for the meeting of May 19, 1992 (copy of report attached). The conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission at their meeting on May 19, 1992 are provided in the minutes of the May 19, 1992 meeting (copy of minutes attached). The item was continued to June 2, 1992 for additional review. The item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 16, 1992. The Planning Commission at their meeting of June 16, 1992 continued this item for further discussion to their meeting of July 21, 1992. On July 21, 1992, the Planning Commission continued this item to their meeting of August 18, 1992. The recommendations above were approved at the August 18, 1992 meeting (copy of minutes attached). Analysis: The Public Works Department is of the opinion that the Planning Commission has done an excellent evaluation of the information presented at the public hearings. 1. Regarding recommendation Number 2 above, a date -should be set so that the concern of City liability can be addressed. At this time, there are very few properties that have encroachment permits and therefore have insurance that protects the City. If someone was hurt within the public right of way, that is encroached upon, the City could be sued as the owner of the property. For those properties that have a valid encroachment permit, the City is covered. One of the required conditions in - an encroachment permit is that the adjacent property owner is to protect the City by having $500,000 of insurance that lists the City as additionally insured. A valid and up to date insurance certificate is provided to the City. 2. Regarding recommendation Number 3.B.1 and 3.C., a parking permit program would have to be established. A resolution implementing such a program would be brought back for City Council approval. 3. Regarding recommendation Number 3.B.7, staff feels that a simple fifteen year amortization period is appropriate. There is no justification to treat properties differently simply because a renovation is proposed or the property is sold or otherwise transferred. 4. Regarding recommendation Number 3.B.8), staff is of the opinon that the existing City code is adequate to handle - 3 - t the work within the City street right-of-way under present permit procedures. Encroachment permits are currently reviewed by the Public Works Director subject to established City Code guidelines. Requiring Planning commission approval would unnecessarily lengthen the approval process and increase costs. Within the attached May 19, 1992 Public Works Department report is Table "A" and Table "B" showing the number of lots and locations where illegal vehicle parking is occurring along Beach Drive. Early morning counts on eleven different dates have shown the existing average total number of vehicles parked along Beach Drive as between 56 and 70 vehicles. There are approximately 22 cars presently being parked on the east side of Beach Drive that would lose their existing parking use. Also, there are approxmately 18 cars over and above the proposed two spaces allocated for parking at each property on the west side of Beach Drive. The proposed initial number of recommended parking spaces to be allowed on the west side of Beach Drive is 58. The City has 3 existing encroachment permits on the west side which prohibit parking at this time. This number of permits would increase under the Planning Commission's recommendation. The environmental effect on existing street parking for the full length of Beach Drive from 1st Street to 24th Street, between Hermosa Avenue and the Strand, will be very minor. The approximate average number of vehicles to be relocated is only 2.5 vehicles per each of the sixteen (16) residential blocks. Because of the minor effect, no Environmental Impact Report would therefore be necessary. Respectfully submitted, Lynn A. Terry v P.E. Deputy City Engineer William Grove, Interim Director of Public Works Concur: / At/U//4a/ Michael Schubach Planning Director /1/47- /9P/ /LABL E" Steve Wisniewski Public Safety Director Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager • Attachments: 1. Department of Public Works report, dated April 16, 1991. 2. Department of Public Works report, dated July 23, 1991. 3. A letter from a resident on Beach Drive dated February 11, 1992, with vehicle counts taken on eleven different days. 4. A letter from a resident on Beach Drive dated March 18, 1992, with photos. 5. Department of Public Works report, dated May 19, 1992. 6. Table "A", Number of properties affected by existing illegal parking along Beach Drive. 7. Table""B", Locations where illegal vehicle parking is taking place at the walk streets along Beach Drive. 8. Planning Commission minutes, dated May 19, 1992. 9. Planning Commission minutes, dated August 18, 1992. pworks/ccsrrow 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 92 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO AMEND THE CITY CODE TO ALLOW VEHICLE PARKING ON PUBLIC STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG BEACH DRIVE. WHEREAS, the City Council held a hearing on September 8, 1992, to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission toallow vehicle parking on public right-of-way along Beach Drive, and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the recommendation of the Planning Commission to allow vehicle parking on public right-of-way along Beach Drive, and WHEREAS, the City Council made the following findings: 1. The public street right-of-way on the walk streets outside of the center 16 feet of walking area, along and adjacent to the private properties, east of Beach Drive and west of Hermosa Avenue, have been used as front yards; and 2. The public street right-of-way on the walk streets outside of the center 16 feet of walking area, along and adjacent to the private properties, west of Beach Drive and east of the Strand have been used as side yards; and 3. The improvements made to the public street right-of-way areas of the walk streets, adjacent to the private properties, have been an improvement to the environment of the adjacent residential properties; and 4. Parking of vehicles has occurred on the public street - 1 - right-of-way areas between Beach Drive and the Strand for many years; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN THAT: SECTION 1. Section 29-38(2) is hereby amended to add the following subsections: e. The parking of vehicles shall not be allowed on the walk streets right-of-way east of Beach Drive and west of Hermosa Avenue; f. The public walk street right-of-way outside of the center 16 feet of walking area may be used for private use by the adjacent property owner through the use of a revocable encroachment permit; g. The adjacent property owners west of Beach Drive and east of the Strand may be allowed to continue the parking of vehicles on the public walk street right-of-way if they apply for a revocable encroachment permit within 60 days of the passage of this ordinance and they shall fulfill the conditions of the permit within 120 days of the issuance of the encroachment permit; h. All site development plans and landscaping plans for the encroachment areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of the encroachment permit by the Public Works Department. 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 i. The conditions of the revocable encroachment permit for the public walk street right-of-way areas west of Beach Drive and east of the Strand are as follbws: 1. Parking shall only be allowed within a maximum distance of 30 feet west of Beach Drive. 2. A maximum of two cars shall be allowed within the approved 30 foot parking area west of Beach Drive. 3. A minimum of 1/3 of the encroachment upon public street right-of-way area shall be landscaped, beginning at the Strand wall and measuring easterly. 4. The landscaping shall be in place prior to the use of the encroachment area for any parking. 5. All landscaping shall be limited to a maximum height of 36" unless shown on the approved landscaping plan. 6. A permanent barrier shall be installed between the approved parking area and the remainder of the encroachment area. 7. All access to the encroachment area shall be from Beach Drive only. 8. The parking is for passenger automobiles only. Trucks, boats, trailer, motor- homes, campers, vans, etc. are prohibited. 9. Parking of automobiles shall not exceed 72 continuous hours. 10. All fence or wall heights within the encroachment area shall be limited to a maximum of 36" high. The privilege to park within the encroachment area will 7 - 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 expire under one of the following conditions: 1. Fifteen years after the issuance of the encroachment permit. 2. Upon sale or transfer of title of the property. 3. Upon application to renovate the property. 4. Upon violation of the terms of the encroachment permit. k. Any required parking fees shall be determined and set by City Council Resolution. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. SECTION 3. That the City Council does hereby designate the City Attorney to prepare a summary of this ordinance to be published pursuant to Government Code Section 36933(c) (1) in lieu of the full text of said ordinance. That prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause the summary to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. 4 r• 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1992. PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: pworks/ordbdrow - 5 - Honorable Chairman and -Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 19, 1991 Regular Meeting of April %, 1991 /6 } VEHICLE PARKING ON PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: See attached memos. Background: The City Manager's office has received a number of complaints about parking along the walk streets. The City Manager has also received complaints about vehicles parking in what appears to be "front yards" but is really public right-of-way. On August 14, 1990, the City Council authorized staff and the Planning Commission to review the City's Ordinances and enforcement of parking within the setback area, with the intent to prohibit such parking. Pedestrian walk streets within the City of Hermosa Beach, where vehicle parking is possible in the public right-of-way, for the most part are those east -west -streets located west -of Hermosa Avenue and east of the Strand. (See Figure.l.) The majority of these public streets are sixty feet in width. However, only the center sixteen feet of the street right-of-way is paved with concrete. The remaining right-of-way width is equally divided with twenty two feet of public right-of-way along each side of the walk street. This is the area where it is currently possible to park up to 200 vehicles and that the Commission will be reviewing. (See Figure 2.) Staff will provide a slide show presentation of the current parking situation. 4 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH LEGEND uj wALKsTREEls I 'ETC/ AREA UNDER STUDY anaraminvg Flguro 1 1•. - STRAND BEACH PARKING IN WHAT APPEARS TO BE "SIDEYARD" EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING GARAGE EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING GARAGE R/W BEACH DRIVE R/W ISTING kRAGE EXISTING HOUSE ISTING 1RAGE EXISTING HOUSE 60' 22' 16' 22' n W zF>I H W 4 U X o < U n (-1 PARKING IN WHAT APPEARS TO BE "FRONT YARD" L) EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING GARAGE EXIS HOt EXI. GA: 0 N R/W R/W FST Figure 2 EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING HOUSE Analysis: The analysis is divided as follows: 1. General Plan Review 2. Current City Code 3. Number of Walk Streets Involved 4. Number of Private Properties on Walk Streets 5. Number of Locations Where Parking is Possible or Occurring 6. Items of Concern 7. Manhattan Beach's Experience 8. Alternatives 1. General Plan Review Open Space Element Philosophy: The underlying philosophy of the Open Space and Conservation Element is to preserve and enhance the existing green areas, and to increase the total open space areas within possible financial ability. Streets comprise nearly one third of the City's area, and considering the small size of private lots and minimal yards, these streets provide much of the "elbow room" within the community. For this reason, these streets should not only be preserved but developed for maximum impact as green areas of landscaped ribbons throughout the City. Stated goals/and policies of the Open Space Element are: 1. Goal: To obtain and preserve open spaces within the City limits of Hermosa Beach, sufficient to provide for anticipated needs of both present and future residents.. 2. Goal and policy #19: To obtain, preserve, and enhance green areas, such as street landscape strips, mini -parks and parkways as being necessary to the health and well being of the community. • 3. Goal: To provide room for, and adequate protection of, bikeways, pedestrian routes and trails. .1 7 4. Goal and policy #22: To provide for the retention and further beautification of streets as open spaces, and to encourage further use of same as pedestrian walkways, malls and plazas. Streets, when closed for whatever reason, should be retained where practical and used for shopping malls, where zoning is appropriate or part of the . bicycling and walkway system. 5. Policy #28: Streets. Any street not currently needed for vehicular access may be landscaped and used as bicycle and/or pedestrian ways. Circulation Element The Circulation Element approved by the City Council on August 14, 1990, includes City Policy No. 12 pertaining to Walk Streets. That policy states, "The City shall maintain its system of walk streets which contributes to neighborhood identity and cohesiveness and near the beach provides a safe and attractive access system for pedestrians, which is particularly important for children, handicapped and seniors. These walk street areas shall be landscaped and lighted and also designated as open space". 2. Current City Code City Code Section 19-61(b) states, -"No operator of any vehicle shall stop, stand, park or leave standing such vehicle...within any parkway". A parkway is defined as, "That portion of a street other then a roadway or a sidewalk". Section 29-38(2)(d) of the City Code also states that "Parking or driving on walk streets is strictly prohibited". Copies of the Code Sections are attached as Attachments "A" and "B". 3. Number of Walk Streets Involved There is a total of twenty five walk streets in the city. Of this number, there are six walk streets that can only be used by pedestrians and those walk streets will not enter into this discussion any further. The location of all the walk streets is shown in Figure 1. Moo 8 • 4. Number of Private Properties on walk streets There is a total of 568 private properties that face or have frontage on the walk streets within the study area. (See Table "A"). 'The majority of those private properties have fenced off the public right-of-way and use that land as a part of their front yards. However, only a few of these property owners have a City permit to use the public land. Most of the property owners do not have permission from the city or insurance that protects the city from claims that could occur from within the enclosed public right-of-way. PROPERTIES AFFECTED BY EXISTING PARKING ON WALK STREET PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 1. Number of properties along the Walk Streets, minus the properties that face the Strand. 305 2. Number or properties along the Walk Streets that do not face the Strand and do not use the public right-of-way for parking. (93.8%) 286 3. Number of properties along the Walk Streets that do not face the Strand but use the public right-of-way for parking. (6.2%) 19 4. Number of properties along the Strand 263 5. Number of properties along the Strand that do not use the public right-of-way for parking. (87.8%) 231 6. Number of properties along the Strand that use the public right-of-way for parking (12.2%). . 32 Total number of properties along the walk streets and on the Strand. 568 Total number of properties - the walk streets and on the that do not park on the public right-of-way. (91.0%) Total number of the walk streets that park on the right-of-way. (9.0%) along Strand 517 properties and on the public along Strand 51 • TABLE 'IA" ,5. Number of Locations Where Parking is Possible or Occurring There is, a total of sixty nine locations where the parking of vehicles on the public walk street right-of-way is possible. Of that number, eighteen property owners have fenced or blocked off the public right-of-way so that vehicles can not be parked at that location. At the remaining fifty one locations, vehicles are parked on the walk street publicright-of-way, resulting in approximately 200 parking spaces. Thirty two of the existing parking locations are on the west side of Beach Drive and appear to be in what would be considered the property side yard. Nineteen of the parking locations are east of Beach Drive and appear to be in what would beconsidered the front yard. All of these properties have garages on a public access at the rear of the property. That is the only area where vehicles should be allowed access to the property. The concern is where the property owners next to the walk streets are using the public street right-of-way as their private additional parking area. For the location of the subject properties see Table "B" on page 9. 6. Items of Concern 1. Liability is a concern because at locations where parking is occurring there is no private insurance that protects the city. If someone was hurt within the twenty two feet of public street right-of-way, the City could be sued as the owner of the property. 2. Some of the adjacent private property owners have installed gates or chains on Beach Drive along the edge of the street pavement, at the access to the public property, and do not allow the public to use the public right-of-way. 3. Some of the adjacent private property owners have placed signs on the public right-of-way stating that all others who park there will be towed away. However,_the land is*public right-of-way and only the City can have a vehicle towed away from public right-of-way. 4. The staff has been told that some of the adjacent private property owners rent out parking spaces within the public right-of-way during the summer and even year round. This activity is not approved or acknowledged by the City. The adjacent property owner also keeps the parking income for their private use if this action is taking place. .3 • -The use of the public right-of-way, along the walk streets, for parking is presently unclear. Because of the impact due to summer time parking, the city has not enforced the parking code along the walk streets. 6. The removal of all parking from the existing locations will cause a serious adverse effect on the parking in the beach area. 7. Cars and trailers stored in the public right-of-way adversely affect the aesthetics of the area. 8. Commercial usage by businesses is significant in some areas, especially the Sea Sprite Motel. 7. Manhattan Beach's Exverience In 1969; the City of Manhattan Beach formed a Walk Street Study Committee to study and recommend solutions to the encroachments on the walk streets throughout the City. In 1970, the Committee recommended that the City vacate the walkstreet right-of-way and thereby allowing the use of the vacated property to revert to the - abutting property owner. Advantages and disadvantages derived from such vacation are: 1. Elimination of encroachment problems 2. Elimination of City liability 3. Uniform use for all walk street residents 4. Saving of Council, Attorney and staff time 5. Assigns responsibility for maintenance 6. Increases tax base and revenue to City 7. Elimination of present hazards and unsightly areas only if parking is removed. May encourage more intense development of presently undeveloped areas without further zoning restrictions. Because of concerns about higher property taxes to the adjacent property owner, as a result of the vacated land, the issue of vacating the public right-of-way was dropped. Instead, the City of Manhattan Beach established an encroachment policy. The Director of Public Works spoke with the tax assessor and was advised that a reassessment of the vacated land would occur should Hermosa Beach pursue vacating the land. WALK STREETS (Locations on Public Right -or -way Where Parking is Taking Place) No. Intersection-- Corner Corner Corner Corner S.W. N.W. S.E. N.E. 1. Lyndon St. & Hermosa Ave. 2. 1st St. & Beach Drive 3. 3rd 4. 4th 5. 5th u u It - n u n n n n It 6. 6th " to It 11 n 7. 7th " " It n 8. 8th " " II n 9. 9th r' " II n 10. 16th " " " It 11. 17th " It " It 12. 18th " is It n 13 . 19th " " It It 14. 20th " It " it 15. 21th " " " II 16. 23rd " " " ii 17. 2 4th " " " " 18. 25th St. & Hermosa Ave. 19. 26th " n It n 20. 30th P1. " to 21. 30th St. & Manhattan Ave. 22. 31st St. " 23; 33rd St. & Palm Ave. 24. Longfellow St. & Hermosa Ave 25 34th Place n n n # • Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes . Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes u tt #- # # Yes # 4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ti Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Y Y x L x L. . # x Yes A L Yes No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No Yes 4 V a a Y x 4 IT u Parking taking place (51) Parking not taking place (18) Space not available - # (31) 18 18 12 3 0 0 5 13 7 _... 7 8 9 TABLE "B" -9- .4 8. Alternatives The alternatives considered are as follows: 1. Strict enforcement of no parking and not allow any parking on the public walk street right-of-ways.' (City Goal # 6 - Review of residential zoning standards) (City Goal # 8 - Increase parking requirements) (City Goal #10 - Enhance sense of community, improve the image of Hermosa Beach) (City Goal #17 - Improve the quality of life) Pro: The majority of property owners that live along the walk streets do not have the use of public right-of-way for their private parking use. Not allowing any parking on the public right-of-way would treat all of the private property owners equally. Con: To not allow any parking on the public right-of-way would increase the number of vehicles that need to be parked on the streets. This action would increase the parking demand on the streets in the beach area by approximately 200 vehicle spaces. 2. Change the City ordinance and allow private parking on the west side of Beach Drive only, with a city permit and parking fee of $0.50 per square foot per month with no conditions. (i.e. no landscaping, no limit on number of spaces, etc.) (City Goal # 1 - Improve the City financial picture) (City Goal # 6 - Review parking requirements) Pro: The City does allow the private use of public street property at four locations in town and the present rate charged for that use is $.50 per square foot per month. Estimated revenue for 2 parking spaces at each location. No. of locations west of Beach Drive = 32 Each space @ 10' x 20' = 200 square feet (32 locations) x (2 spaces @ each location) x (200 S.F.) x ($0.50 per S.F.) = $6,400 per month ($6,400 per month) x (12 months) = $76,800:annual revenue -The monthly fee alternative would be self policing in that only the parking spaces really needed would be installed. No one would be willing to pay every month for a parking space that was not required. Each of the spaces should be permanently marked and the fee charged against the private property for as long as the parking space exists. Con: ti With only a parking permit and no other requirements, this alternative would allow preferential treatment to those pri- vate owners who own the 32 corner lots on the west side of Beach Drive. In addition to the parking permit, an encroach- ment permit should be required which would then require. landscaping, insurance and city control over the total public area. The properties on the east side of Beach Drive should not be allowed to park in the public street right-of-way •because they would be parking in what is their front yard. 3. Change the city ordinance and allow only public parking with meters west of Beach Drive only. (City Goal # 1 - Improve the City financial picture) (City Goal # 6 - Review parking requirement) Pro: This alternative would increase the City's financial picture by providing additional parking spaces next to the Beach that would be in use most of the time. The City would receive additional parking meter income from these spaces year round. (Est. 32 x 2 x $200 = $12,800 annual revenue) The City would then control the parking which at this time is not enforced. Con: Of all the alternatives, this choice would most likely reduce the quality of life and the aesthetics of the adjacent beach area residences. 4. Not allow any parking and use the twenty two feet of public right-of-way for landscaping and to beautify the beach area. (City Goal #10 - Improve image of Hermosa Beach, better public and private landscaping) (City Goal #17 - Improve the quality of life, City beautification) Pro: This alternative provides the highest quality of life by installing large landscaped areas for the benefit of all the public that lives at or uses the beach area. Also this would improve the image of the community and would have the largest beneficial effect on the aesthetics of the area. ; Con: This alternative increases the demand for on the street parking and would impact an area that already has a serious parking problem. It appears that this alternative could add approximately 200 additional vehicles to the om-street parking situation. This would have a serious negative parking impact to the Sea Sprite Motel (west of Beach Drive and Mickey's liquor store (east of Beach Drive). 5. Vacate the excess public right of way to the private property owners on each side of the street. (City Goal #1 - Improve the City Financial Picture) • (City Goal # 6 - Review open space standards) Pro: This alternative releases the City from -the responsibility for these areas. The City would also receive additional taxes from this new private property added to the Community. Con: There would be an added City expenditure to accomplish a vacation (i.e. title search, deed recordation, easement reservation, etc.) A vacation has the potential of increasing the density of the City and may not be the best choice. Without changes to the zoning code, the City could lose all control over the development of these 22 foot wide areas. The open space standards and aesthetics of the area would not be regulated and the image of the community may degenerate and be degraded in the beach area. Someday the City may want or need to use the areas presently in use by the adjacent private property owners. The use of public right-of-way should instead be controlled and regulated by_ revocable encroachment permits. 6. Change the City ordinance to allow private parking on the pedestrian walk streets west of Beach Drive only, with the requirement that the private use be regulated -by a revocable encroachment permit and that parking fees be paid. In addition, parking should be allowed only in the easterly one-third of the right-of-way with no parking allowed near the Strand wall. (City Goal (City Goal (City Goal (City Goal #1 - Improve the City financial picture) #6 - Review parking requirements) #10 - Enhance sense of community, improve the image of Hermosa Beach) #17.- Improve the quality of life, City beautification) 4 Pro: This alternative would provide additional revenue, reduced liability and improved aesthetics. Present requirements on encroachment permits include, (1) insurance of $500,000, (2) that the City also be additionally insured, (3) that one-third of the public right-of-way be landscaped and (4) City control. Con: This will result in a loss of parking spaces for the Sea Sprite Motel (west of Beach Drive) and Mickey's liquor store (east of Beach Drive). Summary: a. The opinions among the various department staffs differ on this issue. A single alternative solution is difficult and a compromise alternative appears to be the best solution. b. A zoning ordinance prohibition or encroachment permit condition for the area west of Beach Drive should not allow parking in the westerly one-third of the public street right-of-way areas. c. Some encroachments are long standing and will create a hardship if removed. All current encroachments should receive active restrictions to discourage massive parking areas, storage of vehicles, driving on walk streets; and encourage landscaping, insurance protection and reduced City liability. All new encroachments should follow current permit processes. d. The vacation option needs to be evaluated, although it appears to not be the best solution. Respec fully Submitted, Concur: Lynn A. Terry Anthony Antich.. Deputy City Engineer Public Works Director Michael Schubach Planning Director § 19-58 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE § 19-61 Sec. 19-61. Areas where stopping, standing-, etc.. prohibited; exceptions.' No operator of any vehicle shall stop, stand, park or leave standing such vehicle in any of the following places, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in com- pliance with the direction of a police officer or other author- ized officer, or traffic sign or signal: - (a) Within any divisional island unless authorized and clearly indicated with appropriate signs or markings. (b) Within an y parkway. (c) On either side of any street between the projected property Iines of any- public walk, public steps, streets or thoroughfare terminating at such street, when such area is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface. (d) In any area where the city traffic engineer determines that the parking or stopping of a vehicle would obstruct the flow of storm waters, thereby causing such waters to overflow or be diverted from their natural drainage course so as to endanger or damage property, when such area is indicated by appropriate signs. (e) In any area where the city traffic engineer determines that the parking or stopping of a vehicle would constitute a traffic hajgrd or would endanger life or property, when such area is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface. (f) In any area established by resolution of the council as a no parking area, when such area is indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface. (g) Upon, along or across any railway track in such manner as to hinder, delay or obstruct the movement of any car traveling upon such track. (h) In any area where the parking or stopping of any vehicle would constitute a traffic hazard or would endanger life or property. Attachment "A" ARTICLE V. ENCROACHMENTS' Sec. 29-31. Definitions. Encroachments are features normally located upon public right- of-way that serves a quasi -private use and are not normally in- tended for public use. A public sidewalk would not be defined as an encroachment as it relates to this chapter, whereas, a deck used primarily by the adjacent property owner would be defined as an encroachment. "Encroachment" means and includes any obstruction, tower, pole, pole line, pipe, wire, cable, conduit, wall, fence, balcony, deck, stand or building, or any structure or object of any kind or character which is placed in, along, under, over or across public right-of-way. Sec. 29-38. Guidelines and conditions for -approval. These guidelines shall apply both to continuing and temporary encroachments; there being no permanent encroachments permitted. • (1) General - a. An encroachment permit does not constitute a build- ing permit. b. Encroachments are definitely a privilege granted by the city. There is no right to an encroachment. (2) Pedestrian walk street a. Fences may be permitted provided a thirty -six-inch maximum height is observed. To ensure visibility at corners, a thirty -six-inch maximum height is.required within a distance of five (5) feet from the corner. This precludes any landscaping exceeding thirty -six -inches maximum height. b. Retaining walls of masonry, block, brick or concrete may be permitted provided the grade changes, extreme contours or other factors necessitate such structures. However, the height shall be the minimum necessary-. for earth retention and shall in no case exceed thirty- six (36) inches maximum. A retaining wall on public right-of-way shall not support any structure -fan pri- vate property. c. Decks may be permitted provided they do not exceed twelve (12) inches maximum height above the existing natural grade and do not project into the public right- _ of -way more than half the distance between the prop- erty line and edge of existing or future sidewalk. Deck railings are permitted provided that they are of open wood construction and that deck and railing do not exceed forty-two (42) inches maximum height. d. Parking or driving on walk streets is strictly prohib- ited although exceptions may be granted during con- struction only by the director of public works provided the vehicle(s) do not exceed the weight limit. s C Attachment "B" - /8 - • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission +� FROM: Anthony Antich, Public Works Director Michael Schubach, Planning Director SUBJECT: Vehicle Parking on Pedestrian Walk Streets DATE: Regular Meeting of April 2, 1991 Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1. Select alternative #6 to change the City ordinance allowing private parking on the pedestrian walk streets west of Beach Drive only, with'the requirement that the private use be regulated by a revocable encroachment permit and that parking fees be paid. In addition, parking should be allowed in only the easterly one-third of the right-of-way with no parking allowed near the Strand wall. Michaels Schubach Planning Director pwadmin/AAll - 20 - ,,,\--,k1A1ji an, Anthony Antich ' Public Works Director__ July 15, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council July 23, 1991 VEHICLE PARKING ON PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS Recommendation: It is recommended by the Planning Commission that for the study area of along Beach Drive, the City Council: 1. *Allow the open space on the walk streets to be used by the Strand corner lots for private use. 2. Establish that a maximum distance of 30' from Beach Drive shall be allowed for parking. 3. Establish that 1/3 of the public right of way is to be landscaped. 4. Require that a permanent barrier is to be installed between the landscaping and the parking. 5. Require that direct access shall be only from Beach Drive. 6. Establish that parking is for automobile use only. 7. Require fence height within the public right of way to be limited to 36" maximum height. 8. Establish that no parking is to be allowed on the east side of Beach Drive. 9. Establish that private use is to be accomplished through either a vacation or a revocable encroachment permit. Staff Recommendation: It is recommended by staff that City Council_, (1) consider the Planning Commission's recommendations for Beach Drive, and (2) refer back to the Planning Commission for the purpose of studying other streets and developing a consistent and uniform recommendation for all City streets. Background: This item was originally heard at the April 16, 1991, Planning commission meeting and was continued for additional information and for input from the public. At the meeting, staff provided the following information. 1. Background data 2. General Plan Review a. Open Space Element b.'Circulation Element 3. Current City Code 4. Number of walk streets involved (26 total) 5. Number of private properties on the walk streets (568 6. Number of locations where parking was occurring 7. Items of Concern 8. The City of Manhattan Beach's experience 9. Six Alternatives total) (51 total A copy of the staff report is available in the City Clerk's office for review (17 pages) . Also provided in the City Clerk's office for review are the letters received by the City onthis item (19 total). - In addition, a copy of the Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of April. 16, 1991, is included in the information at the City Clerk's office (14 pages). Also available is a copy of the staff report and the Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of July 2, 1991, at the City Clerk's office for review (8 pages). Analysis: At the July 9, 1991 meeting City Council directed staff to notice all properties that could be directly affected by a potential ban of parking on parkways and hand -deliver notices to those properties. As well as Beach Drive, staff should notice properties affected on Monterey, Prospect, Fifth Street, etc. _The Public Works Department conducted a visual survey on Monterey, Manhattan, Prospect, Fifth, Third, and Eighth Streets and hand -delivered over 200 notices. The issue of vehicles parking on Beach Drive may be different than on the other noticed streets and it is recommended to study each area individually at the Planning Commission. Resp tfully submitted;) tic -\A,,, Antho Antich Director ofPub•l is Works / Leroy Staten Acting Director, General Services General Services pworks / CCSRVPWS Michael Schubach Planning Director See attached memo Charles S. Vose City Attorney Kevin B. Northcraft T City Manager 11 February 1992 Attention H.B. City Council and Public Works Department 31992 TO All Persons Concerned: In July of last year the City Council was addressing the illegal walkstreet parking adjacent to Beach Drive. Prior to the July 23rd Council Meeting, virtually every vehicle on Hermosa Avenue from First Street to Twenty Fifth was flagged with a handbill stating 200 vehicles would be flooding Hermosa Avenue if the City Council abolished the illegal parking. (See attached handbill.) Earlier during the Planning Commission's discussion of this issue Planning Commissioner DiMonda said he had been curious about the actual number of vehicles participating in this illegal parking. He did a count on two weekend days in June and esttoated,"between 55 or 60 vehicles," appear to be parked in front yards east of Beach Drive or on the side yards of the Strand properties. Over the past months I have made actual counts of vehicles parked on the walkstreets. (See Vehicle Survey.) Hopefully, this information will help you while addressing this situation that is highly detrimental to the beauty and safety of our city. Sincerely, John B. McFarlane 25 Eighth Street Hermosa Beach PROPERTY AT WALKS Cgle) Ori • N ' E -I O 0; pc, 4-N tsi �t4 v4 oNd 8i (i5tit,iti,..kvi,.cd•y;)vs);,kit::Au):,1?ssiyii-_k.,i•-;‘,3ti•Ati3,-,e.,3.,3k-.)(;)(1 ��WW��Wti��luvi�t�i33�y�;i3��1��'.��v'u��+��3�iw33�►''�33�i`��3�3t�3�1,� . , 18 March 1992 ATTENTION: Planning Commission Members, Director of Planning, Director of Public Works, and City Attorney MAR 2 31992 Dear City of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission and Officials, Soon you will be reconsidering aspects regarding the illegal parking of vehicles on city property. The McFarlane family is specifically interested that this Planning Commission evaluate the continuing misuse of the corner properties facing the walkstreets (the northeast and southeast portion of each intersection of Beach Drive and each walkstreet). Vehicles parked at the aforementioned corners are parked, stored, maintained, washed or moved in and out of areas which have been designated as "front yards" and this practice negatively effects every property on the street. We support the previous findings, July 2 1991 Planning Commission meeting (Hearing Item 10) with the recommendation of eliminating all "front yard " parking on the east side of Beach Drive and the allowing of parking on the west side for two vehicles (encroachment permit and parking fees of $.50/sq.ft./mo.and liability riders proven yearly) on the easterly portion (defined in one car's length deep, or 22 feet or one-third of property length) with permanent landscaping or other restictions on vehicular use. Realizing that several new commissioners were not part of the previous Meetings, we feel that this compromise is both sensible and very beneficial to Hermosa Beach for the following reasons: (1) The liability issue for the city would be resolved; (2) The city would receive badly needed revenue (estimated in the Study submitted by Public Works March 19 1991, page 10). Currently some landlords are reaping sizeable profits ($100 per month.per vehicle, some over $5000 -per.year) by offering parking space with apartments but higher rents. This is utilizing city land. Better our city obtain the $75,000+ a year income .described in .the Public Works study; (3) "Boot Leg " units and other over -crowded living is assisted by this illegal parking; (4) The Strand area is the focal point of our city, for many residents and visitors. We should strive to make it as attractive as possible. Surely landscaping and controlled parking is more beneficial than the present situation. We will be out of town during the time that the Planning Commis sion will be working on this item (The City Council 2-25-92 included a time limit within 60 days). If any person wished to see an excellent example of two car parking of vehicles (no R.V.'s, car or boat • storage) with excellent landscaping results, one might look at the northwest corner of 16th Street at Beach Drive. We submit this to you in the hopes that the City Council will support your recommendations and resolve this situation that has caused us such anguish. Susan W. McFarlane Respectfully, ‘,0147 7S G, _.. ^ _�- THE WALKSTREL1S AND THE ST2AND ARE THE GATENAY TO THE SEAM. May 11, 1992 Honorable Chairman and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission May 19, 1992 VEHICLE PARKING ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG BEACH DRIVE Recommendation: It is recommended by the Department of Public Works that the Planning Commission reaffirm the following conditions that the commission approved at its meeting of July 2, 1991. 1. Allow the open space on the walk streets to be used by the Strand corner lots for private use. 2. Establish that a maximum distance of 30' from Beach Drive shall be allowed for parking. 3. Establish that 1/3 of the public right of way is to be landscaped. 4. Require that a permanent barrier is to be installed between the landscaping and the parking. 5. Require that direct access shall be only from Beach Drive. 6. Establish that parking is for automobile use only. 7. Require fence height withinthe public right of way to be limited to 36" maximum height. 8. Establish that a private use is to be allowed through a revocable encroachment permit. 9. Establish that no parking is to be allowed on the east side of Beach Drive at the walk street right-of-way's. Background: The parking on Beach Drive was originally heard as a major part of a report related to pedestrian street concerns at the April 16, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. This item was continued for collection of additional information and to allow for more input from the public. On July 2, 1991, the parking item was brought back to the Planning Commission. More information was provided and recommendations were submitted to the City Council. Those recommendations are stated above. On July 23, 1991, the parking on pedestrian streets item was brought before the City Council. The following staff action items were generated: 1. Look at the issues of private use on publicly owned property city-wide. 2. Address whether this item requires an environmental review. 1 3. Take a more in-depth look at how many properties are affected. 4. How many cars are using said parking. On February 11, 1992 this item was brought before the City Council and the following staff action items were generated: 1. Staff to review procedure for vacating certain areas. The first area for review was to be Prospect Avenue. 2. Have the City Manager prepare a report on the City's current parking policy along Beach Drive. At the February 25, 1992, City Council meeting the following staff action items took place: 1. All action on Prospect Avenue was dropped. 2. The staff was directed to focus on vehicle parking along Beach Drive. Analysis: The staff is of the opinion that the Planning Commission evaluated all of the data presented at the public hearings and that the recommendations stated above are the appropriate recommendations. A copy of the staff report for April 16, 1991, is available in the City Clerk's office for review (17 pages). In addition a copy of the Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of April 16, 1991, is included in the information at the City Clerk's office (14 pages). Also available is a copy of the staff report and the Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of July 2, 1991, at the City Clerks office for review (8 pages). Also provided in the City Clerk's office for review are the letters received as of July 9, 1991, by the City on this item (19 total). Respectfully submitted, Terry Lynn A. Terry Deputy City Engineer pworks/pcbchdr 2 Concur: Michael'Schubach Planning Director r n 7. Leroy/ Staten Acting Director, General Services, Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager There is a total of 251 lots that face or have frontage on Beach Drive. A minor number of those lots have fenced off the public right-of-way and use that land as a part of their own property. Only a few of these adjacent property. owners have a City permit to use the public land. Most of the property owners do not have permission from the City or insurance that protects the City from claims that could occur from within the enclosed public right-of-way. PROPERTIES AFFECTED BY EXISTING ILLEGAL PARKING ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG BEACH DRIVE 1. Number of lots along the east side of Beach Drive. 82 2. Number of lots along the east side of Beach Drive that do not park on the public right-of-way. (81.7%) 67 3. Number of lots along the east side of Beach Drive that use the public right-of-way for parking. (18.3%) 15 4. Number of lots along the Strand. 169 5. Number of lots along the Strand that do not park on the public right-of-way (82.8%) 140 6. Number of lots along the Strand that use the public right-of-way for parking. (17.2%) 29 mz H g 0 H En w ow aH w zz ao za -a 7. Total number of lots along Beach Drive. 251 8. Total number of lots along Beach Drive that do not park on the public right-of-way. (82.5%) 207 9. Total number of lots along Beach Drive that park on the public right-of-way. (17.5%) 44 TABLE "A" 3 • ILLEGAL VEHICLE PARKING ALONG BEACH DRIVE (Locations on Public Right-of-way Where Parking is Taking Place) No. Intersection S.W. N.W. Corner Corner S.E. Corner N.E. Corner 1. 1st St. & Beach Drive Yes Yes Yes Yes 2. 3rd " " " " Yes Yes Yes Yes 3. 4th " " " " Yes Yes Yes No 4. 5th " ". " " Yes Yes No Yes 5. 6th " " " " No Yes No No 6. 7th " " " " Yes Yes No No 7. 8th " " " " No Yes Yes No 8. 9th " " " " Yes Yes No No 9. 16th " " " " Yes Yes Yes No 10. 17th " " " " Yes No Yes No 11. 18th " " " " Yes Yes Yes No 12. 19th " " " " Yes Yes Yes No 13. 20th " " " " Yes Yes No No 14. 21th " " " " Yes Yes Yes No 15. 23rd " " " " Yes Yes Yes No 16. 24th " " " " Yes Yes Yes Yes TOTALS Parking taking place Parking not taking place (44) (20) 14 2 TABLE "B" 4 15 1 11 4 5 12 appr• ed. He stated he did not submit the original plans . the origina •lan check expired. He bought the property D -•ember 1, 1991 and r bmitted the plans during April 1992. T - is pendens had been reco d December 10, 1991. Mr. Lee expl_ ed the process of'filing a "lis-endens". Comm. Di Monda re..ested that support documentation be su.. ied to the Commiss•- if this request is again presented in six..•'onths. Additi.-- ly, as,a general rule, documentation covering sim .r reque s should be supplied. to -the Commission. Public Hearing closed by C . Ketz 7:49 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Mer seconded by Comm. .- d, to APPROVE a six- month extension o ON 90-7 C.U.P. and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #22156 for a •-unit condominium at 829 15th Str-; . AYES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard and C Ketz NOE None TAIN: None ABSENT: None P-10 -- VEHICLE PARKING ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG BEACH DRIVE. Recommended Action: To reaffirm the conditions approved by the Planning Commission at the July 2, 1991 meeting. Mr. Lynn Terry, Deputy City Engineer, gave the Staff Report, noted this item had previously been heard by the Commission on April 16, 1991. He itemized the progress of this item through the Commission and City Council, noting the Council's decision to concentrate on Beach Drive, alone. He itemized the conditions previously approved and requested reaffirmation by the Commission; then he itemized the conditions previously approved. Using a display map, Mr. Terry discussed the affected lots and discussed current parking of vehicles upon those lots. Comm. Di Monda noted an actual count of the amount of cars parking on those lots had not been obtained. Mr. Terry stated the average number of cars on both sides of Beach Drive counted during July, August and September of 1991 was between 60 and 70, not 200 as initially stated (which was based upon a compaction of properties). Comm. Merl and Mr. Terry discussed the timing for project completion and the approval of necessary encroachment permits. Comm. Marks and Mr. Terry discussed the number of corner lots on the west side of Beach Drive. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 8:00 p.m. Jerry Compton, 1200 Artesia Blvd., represented a client at 542 6th Street. He suggested the City vacate the land which would result in putting the land back on the tax rolls, obtain tax revenue and the City would not need to obtain insurance for that land. He stated the City could impose building and parking restrictions. He 5 P.C.Minutes 5/19/92 discussed the possibility that encroachment permits would not: be obtained and the current insurance liability. Mr. Compton felt the entire City should be reviewed as to land vacation, resulting in additional revenue for the City. He stated of the 32 east side corner lots, 15 arebeing utilized and of the 32 on The Strand,29 are being utilized. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Compton discussed the approval history of Mr. Compton's client's project.and compared the parking pattern and situations within Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach. Comm. Marks and Mr. Compton discussed the impact upon the property owners if the land were vacated. Susan McFarland, 25 8th Street, distributed three photographs for the Commission's review after determining they had not previously received copies. She stated she had been concerned and involved in the walk street situation since 1978, noting the situation has escalated to include illegal curb cuts, walls removed and illegal vehicle entry and parking on the front portion of the walk streets. She requested a "strong review" of this situation be immediately conducted and that enforcement of vehicle violations be immediate. Chris Waggerman, 19 8th Street, stated the parking problems are continuing to increase, with landscaping being removed to enable more parking. She had been involved in this issue since 1978 and supported Staff's recommendation. She requested that "no parking" at all corners be implemented and enforcement be immediate. She asked that laws not remain in the "books" if they are not going to be enforced. Jim Listener, 2715 Eloesty, stated the nicest lots in town were those on the walk streets east of Beach Drive and west of Hermosa Avenue. He commented he did not understand why parking lots would be put in front of the views. He felt the City Council had sent the message that parking lots in front of natural settings were not wanted and supported Staff's recommendation. - Chuck Sheldon, 800 The Strand, discussed the length of testimony regarding this item and noted the substantial differences in parking ordinances and topography between Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach. He felt it was erroneous to compare the two cities. He discussed the complex issues associated with land vacation by the City and felt the Planning Commission did not have sufficient data to currently make -a decision. He stated he and other residents were concerned about the City's position regarding the issue of vacation and assumed land title. He noted the 65 years of use by the property owners and protested the removal of the owner's parking rights. He stated he submitted plans to the Building Department in 1985 which showed no guest parking except at the rear of the lot, which were approved. He discussed parking with Comm. Marks, stating he had not and does not consider parking on the rear of the lot illegal. Comm. Marks and Mr. Terry discussed the choice to not enforce parking requirements in that area until the City Council took its. final action. Mr. Terry -noted that prior to that decision parking requirements were enforced. 6 P.C.Minutes 5/19/92 Paul Shank, 1838 The Strand, said his property is a corner lot with parking on the east side and landscaping on the west... He felt the previous extensive review and analysis had been a superb compro- mise. He felt residents were entitled to parking because when the properties were purchased, parking was allowed. He sympathized with the situation on 8th Street, but felt that a "witch hunt" should not begin because of one situation. Jean English, 30 13th, stated her parents have owned the property at 2240 Strand since 1956. She presented a photograph of cars parked at that address in 1940. She explained that two lots were together with a garage on only one. If the parking allowance was removed, her parent would have no parking on her lot. She stated the garages cannot be entered from Beach Drive. She was against "vacation". Pat Corwin, 31 8th Street, stated he had reviewed the City's plans prior to the purchase of his property. He discussed the rental of properties and the associated abuse. He suggested the City's overall plan be reviewed to assure methods in which to beautify the City and increase safety. Jim Rosenberger, Bay View Drive, asked that Paul Shank speak in his stead. Chuck Shank, 800 Strand, expressed concern for safety on the lots on Beach Drive and corner lots, noted the importance of the port- able barriers, and protested allowing public parking within the residential area. Comm. Di Monda stated that at the current time, anyone may park on a corner lot on the west side of Beach Drive without being ticketed by the City. Mr. Shank stated he and his neighbors had purchased the properties at a higher premium with the understanding that the parking was available to them. He felt the suggested compromise was very fair. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 8:50 p.m. Chmn. Ketz and Comm. Di Monda agreed the Commission had previously left the decision as to an encroachment permit or vacation up to the Council's determination as to the best interests of the City, which Mr. Terry confirmed as true. Mr. Terry stated that particu- lar agenda item of the report he wrote, the indication had been to go one way or the other, not specifying as to which. Based upon further Staff analysis, Staff recommended the encroachment permits be the preferred method. Chmn. Ketz then commented that the statement at the top of the page of Mr. Terry's report was not true and were not conditions the Commission had approved at that meet- ing, which Mr. Terry confirmed. Mr. Terry stated the Commission had approved the encroachment permit or the vacation; therefore, Staff recommended the encroachment permit be the correct method. Comm. Di Monda asked why the Commission received a Staff Report in which it stated the Planning Commission had said something when Mr. 7 P.C.Minutes 5/19/92 Terry knew the Commission had not said it. He objected to the Staff -Report's statement that the Commission... had approved all of the conditions, as this was known not to be a true statement. He stated he was astounded by this, to which Mr. Terry did not respond. Comm. Di Monda then addressed "vacation", (a) explaining the tax benefit to the City would be minimal and the City would maintain more control and the ability to protect the land by keeping ownership and having restrictions, (b) the City Attorney had stated. the City does own the property and (c) the idea is to keep the land open. He stated Staff Report Item 6 was to specifically exclude boats, motor homes, campers and trailers, which is missing, adding a stipulation that all work in the public right of way will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. He stated commercial property has not been specifically addressed. No. 9 should include the walk streetsand clarification that the designated area is the east side of Beach Drive to and including Hermosa Avenue. Comm. Di Monda proposed that commercial properties should be pulled as a separate study, 23rd Street should be an exception and any other areas within the City that have structures fronting on public right-of-ways should be reviewed. Although Mr. Terry disagreed, Comm. Di Monda maintained that the subject area consisted of the east side of Beach Drive up to and including Hermosa Avenue. Mr. Lee responded that the noticing had been applicable to the public right-of-way along Beach Drive, which could be reasonablyextended to Hermosa Avenue. He stated that clarification to include Hermosa Avenue' would not represent a problem. Comm. Suard and Mr. Lee discussed the City's possible liability, the encroachment process and its control of the use of the public right-of-ways, as well as adequate conditions applied in terms of insurance, structures, safety, etc. Mr. Lee stated it was unclear at this time as to actual ownership of subject land title, but noted that the general rule is prescriptive rights will not apply to public -owned property. If the property owner did pot choose to maintain the public right-of-way, the City had that responsibility. Comm. Suard asked why encroachment had been chosen over vacation, to which Mr. Terry responded that if the City vacated the property, it would lose control as far as future possibilities, which should remain open. Comm. Suard and Mr. Lee discussed property evaluation conducted by the County Tax Collector's Office, which would not allow the land to be vacated to the property owners with a fee being charged based upon land value. Mr. Lee suggested the Commission consider the administration of encroachment permits, allowing use of public right-of-ways versus the continuing need for public purpose for the walk streets and make -its decision based upon those considerations. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl, to APPROVE the following vehicle parking on public right-of-way conditions and proposed separate studies. 1. Allow the open space of the walk streets to be used by the Strand corner lots for private use. 8 P.C.Minutes 5/19/92 3. Establish that 1/3 of the public right of way is to be landscaped. 4. Require that a permanent barrier is to be installed between the landscaping and the parking. 5. Require that direct access shall be only from Beach Drive. 6. Establish that parking is for automobile use only; boats, motor homes, campers and trailers are prohibited. 7. Require fence height within the public right of way to be limited to 36" maximum height. 9. Establish that no parking is to be allowed on the east side of Beach Drive to and including Hermosa Avenue at the walk street right-of-ways. 10. All work within City right-of-ways and applications for encroachment permits will be reviewed by the Planning Commis- sion prior to work start up. 11. The existing properties west of Beach Drive that currently sub- stantially confirms to the standards established by the Commission and administered by Staff will be allowed to apply for encroachment permits and continue to use the property in the manner it is currently being used. Additional encroachment permits will not be issued in order to prohibit additional parking in the public right-of-way. 12. The commercial properties along The Strand will be pulled and a separate study conducted. 13. The properties that have been built fronting a walk street and having the walk street as the only access to the garages will be pulled and a separate study conducted. AYES: Comms. Di Monda, Merl, Suard and Chmn. Ketz NOES: Comm. Marks ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Chmn. Ketz then brought forth for discussion Item No. 2, establish- ment of a maximum distance allowed for parking from Beach Drive and Item No. 8, establishment of allowable private use through a revocable encroachment permit. MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to APPROVE the establishment of a maximum distance of 30' from Beach Drive shall be allowed for parking, with a two -vehicle parking maximum. This limitation does not apply to the maximum distance of properties which meet the qualifications under Condition 11. AYES: Comms. Di Monda, Suard and Chmn. Ketz NOES: Comm. Marks and Merl ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 9 P.C.Minutes 5/19/92 Churn. Ketz felt the vacation issue was extremely complicated and recommended the Commission move forward on the encroachment permit, to which the Commission agreed. MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Suard, to APPROVE the establishment that a private use is to be allowed through a revocable encroachment permit. AYES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard and Chmn. Ketz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None -- ABSENT: None The Commission DIRECTED that the revised Vehicle Parking on Public Right -of -Way along Beach Drive recommendation be returned to the Commission for review at its June 2, 1992 meeting. A break was taken from 9:42 p.m. to 9:50 p.m. S 92-4 -- SPECIAL STUDY TO CONSIDER RELOCATING THE SIGN ORDI A CE BAC TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND TO EXAMINE OTHER POSSIBLE ••IEND- MENTS \,TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE • • NING COMMISS' ON. Recommende• Action: To direct Staff as deemed approp ate. Mr. Schubach ated Staff had presented the exis ng ordinance to the Commission •r its review and decision as t• parameters. Upon receiving input om the Commission, Staff ill then focus its study on the areas . d issues of greatest co. ern. Public Hearing opened • Churn. Ketz at 9:. p.m. No one wished to speak re• rding thi- item, and Churn. Ketz closed the Public Hearing at 9:51 p Chmn. Ketz felt placement int• the Zoning Ordinance would give better control, to which Comm Me 1 agreed. He suggested a review of neighboring cities' ordi =nces. Comm. Di Monda agreed, stating the business people of -rmosa Bea.h should not have any more burdens placed upon th than those 'n neighboring cities. He noted the sign ordinan• fees and fines ere the responsibility of the City Council, wh' would make a deter nation that it felt was fair, to which the 'ommission agreed. Mr. .hubach suggested Staff create a matrix comparison chart) going . ross the board, to include what i- done or not done by Hermosa Beach and similar cities. Comm Di Monda requested the sign ordi•ance be given to the Commiss ' .n, as well as that of another city t . t is located a distance . ay (i.e. Santa Barbara, etc.) for revie prior to the June 2, 92 meeting. Mr. Schubach agreed to obtain .e requested inform- ion for the Commission. Co'.. Suard stated the new sign regulations should be clear, not dundant and consolidated for easy understanding by the ocal usiness and any other affected people. Comm. Di Monda critici ed 10 P.C.Minutes 5/19/92 P-10 -- VEHICLE PARKING ON PEDESTRIAN WALK from 5/19, 6/16/92 & 7/27/92 meetings.) Recommended Action: To forward recommended Council for approval. Mr. Schubach stated Mr. Terry would be presenting the Staff Report. Mr. Terry discussed the project history, including presentation to the Commission during April 1991. He stated Staff disagreed with Condition Numbers 10 and 11. Mr. Terry stressed there are a total of 251 involved properties, of which 44 properties use the public right-of-way for parking. He further described those properties on Beach drive, referencing Table B as a visual breakdown of the properties. Comm. Di Monda confirmed with Mr. Terry that 16 intersections were involved and discussed encroachment permits and STREETS (continued conditions to City 6 P.C.Minutes 8/18/92 conditions currently applicableto many of the properties. Comm. Di Monda felt the results were incomplete, in that lots on both sides of Beach Drive that were able to park had not been included in the computations. Comm. Marks confirmed that three properties with encroachment permits carried insurance naming the City as an additional insured. Chmn. Merl invited audience participation at 8:35 p:m. Gloria Walker, 2040 The Strand, asked the Commission to consider the point of practicality, take care of the problems and do not include everyone in solving of the few problems. She discussed the "terrible parking problems", feeling that the violators should be penalized, but not all the residents. Ms. Walker disputed the term, "illegal parking", stating residents had been parking in these areas with the City's permission for 60 to 70 years. Charles Walker, 2040 The Strand, stated Beach Drive is narrow, stating he could not get his car into his garage. He stated he had put in and maintained extensive landscaping, had sufficient insurances and only wanted what everyone else in the City has; parking space. Charles Danforth, 18th Street, stated his property has minimum landscaping, was not beautiful, but very clean. He suggested that everythingbe cleaned up and the cars allowed to .park as they currently are. He discussed equipment on his property placed by the electrical company and his use of City property for parking. He stated retired life guard wanting the property across the street being cleaned up, and it had escalated from that point. He discussed the particulars of his property with Comms. Di Monda and Marks, stating he was willing to purchase the right-of-way area in front of his property from the City. The walls on his block was installed by the City at the property owners' expense. _ His neighbors use the right-of-way area for Bar -B -Q's and swing sets, and he wants to use the area in front of his home for parking. No one else wished to speak on this item, and Chmn. Merl opened discussion by the Commission at 8:53 p.m. Mr. Terry reiterated the only properties involved in this action were the 44 lots where illegal parking on City property is occurring. He stated the only properties that list the City as an additional insured are those with encroachment permits. Comm. Di Monda discussed the memo he had distributed to the Commission, explained Option A, and noted he might change Option B, 3.B.7 from "will expire" to "may expire", with a determination to be made at that time. He stated Option B was an attempt to deal with some dT the concerns. Comm. Oakes discussed the options with Ccmm. Di Monda, and asked the Commission where the people would -park if they were denied access to the current parking, discussing the properties and 7 P.C.Minutes 8/18/92 1 parking requirements on both the east and west sides of Beach Drive with the Commission. Comm. Suard felt parking; should not be allowed on open space, noting the purpose is to preserve and enhance the green areas ard.landscaping. He felt Option B.7.b was not a fair treatment of both new and old properties, which could be accomplished through lowering of the percentage. Comm. Di Monda stated the intent was that if a property was renovated, parking must be provided, the same as required of other.properties. He then discussed this concept, in depth, with Comms. Suard and Oakes. Comms. Suard and Oakes felt the percentage should be consistent in evaluating the structures. Comm. Di Monda felt the problems would continue if the Commission approved non -conforming remodels without required parking. After discussion, the Commission agreed to change Option B, 2) by adding the words, "1/3 hardscape", 3)B)7.b) by deleting the words, "in excess of 40% of the tax,". Item 10, Page 1 from the Staff Report, "All work within the City walk street right-of-way shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission" was also suggested as an addition, to which Mr. Terry objected, stating these streets were under the auspices of the Public Works Dept., to which Comms. Di Monda and Suard disagreed, as these were not vehicular streets. Mr. Lee noted the Commission wished to see the initial plans for improvements. He stated the encroachment permits were under the jurisdiction of the Public Works Dept., who must 'make the administrative decision as to issuance of permits. He felt it was the Council's authority to direct the Commission to review the initial improvement plans under the encroachment permits. It was agreed to add, "All improvement plans within the walk street right- of-ways shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to work start up." MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to ADOPT the memorandum entitled, "Vehicle Parking on Public Right -of- Way along Beach Drive," with the following changes: (a) Delete Option A, (b) Recommend Option B, (c) 7.b., placing a "period" after property and deleting the rest of the sentence, (d) 8. All improvement plans within the walk street right-of-ways shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to work start up. AYES:. Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None A break was taken from 9:30 to 9:40 p.m. 8 P.C.Minutes 8/18/92 PO Box 881 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 September 7, 1992 City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attn: Lori Administraiton, Second Floor Dear City Council: - z, -a: My husband and I own four units in Hermosa Beach on Monterey. Hermosa Beach has always had a parking problem. By taking away parking spaces on side yards along the Strand and on front yards facing Beach Drive would cause even more problems. This letter is to urge you to keep those parking spaces. Yours truly, Mr. & Mrs. Robert L. Kulp SUPPLEMENTAL SmrfRRMaTifI' 8 August 27, 1992 Dear Robert Essertier; 'EAT° 149 C/Ty, MGR of p/ce For approximately 40 years, the present owners, or past owners of 840 and 900 strand have fully maintained, insured, and policed their side yards. The city has NOT maintained or policed these side yards in all these years. It is entirely left up to the adjacent property owner of these types of lots. Strand Property owners paid considerably more for their properties that had these side yards. It is my understanding that the code states no parking in front yards; however, parking in side yards is not restricted under the present code. All the corner properties west of Beach drive have side yards in every sense of the word. They are not front yards. Please do not confuse the SIDE YARDS on the west of Beach drive with the front yards east of beach drive. It is not in the best interest of Hermosa Beach to move all the vehicles, now parking in these side yards, onto the all ready over burdened streets to compete with the other residents and local businesses. We have a local business in town as well as apartments and commercial property; however,we consider our local residency as the most important factor when considering local problems. We do not need more vehicles put out onto the local streets. For all these years the local government has allowed parking on these SIDE YARDS. They advised us what wording and size and where to locate private parking signs. They allowed us to do private impounds of illegally parked cars. They advised us to move fire hydrants in order to park on these SIDE YARDS. We paid the permit fees and water company fees (approximately $3000.00) to the city and fire department . In return they issued us permits to move the fire hydrants for the sole purpose of parking safely on these SIDE YARDS. Why do they now want to stop this? It is not fair. It is true that we are parking in these side yards. Look at how many residents are using the front yard encroachments as part of their front yards. They have also enclosed them with walls, decks, spas, etc. They all use them exclusively for their private front yard use. They do not allow the public to use these areas. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION They also would park in these front yards except for the fact they don't have access and the local code prohibits parking in front yards. If the city of Hermosa Beach decides to take away all these side yards and front yard encroachments, that they have allowed all these years, are they prepared to maintain, landscape, water, insure, and police all these hundreds of lots. Just think about all the police problems if you open all these areas to the public. My god they are just inches away from residents doors and windows. I truly, feel it would be in the city's best interest if they would VACATE these encroachments. The city would no longer have any liability and all these areas would be back on the tax roles and you will not further complicate the already over burdened parking needs of the residents and businesses. Respectfully, Darrell Lee Greenwald 310-376-5446 LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS P. ALLEN III A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 120 FISHERMAN'S WHARF REDONDO BEACH. CALIFORNIA 90277 (310) 376-0922 • (213) 772-8505 August 31, 1992 TO: MEMBERS OF THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Re: Parking On Purported City -Owned Property Dear Council Member: RECEIVED AUG 3 1 1992 ClT y MGR OFFICE I write this letter to address potential governmental action which would be unnecessary, whimsical, and extremely divisive: Abolition or restriction of parking on purported City -owned property which is universally perceived to be Strand "sideyards". I respectfully urge your restraint, and if you are to proceed with action, then I ask that it be only after all concerned persons (including Council members) have had an opportunity to absorb the lengthy history, the applicable legal documents and law, and the critical needs of affected persons and neighborhoods. I _am the owner of the residence located at 1602 Strand, Hermosa Beach, where my family and I have resided for the past fifteen (15) years. My predecessor (essentially a family member) resided in said residence for forty-five (45) years. We take great pride in our residence, our neighborhood, and the City of Hermosa Beach. Understandably, we are extremely concerned about the controversy regarding parking vehicles on the purported City -owned property which we have always maintained as our sideyard. The controversy caught us quite by surprise last year. We never imagined that there could be any dispute regarding the manner in which the subject property has been used for decades. By my previous correspondence on this issue to the Planning Commission and to the City Council, I respectfully requested that the City produce for public review the surveys, historical and legal documents, documents affecting title to property, and legal authority, upon which it relies. Unfortunately, I received no response whatsoever. The City has always presumed the factual and legal authority that would be necessary to support City action. This is a very complicated situation with a lengthy history, and such authority cannot be presumed. It is not my desire to challenge, threaten, or obstruct. My request for information and documentation has not been tactical. I most sincerely and respectfully ask that we "back up" and do the necessary search for all records which affect the property rights involved, and that the City make the relevant documents available to the public. Please recall action taken by the City Council last year: It was recognized that such properties are not limited to the walk street SUPPLEMENTAL 8 INFORMATION August 31, 1992 page 2 and Strand neighborhoods, but that they exist throughout the City. By a 4 -to -1 vote, it was acknowledged and agreed that the issue must be considered and resolved on a City-wide basis, and that the first step to be taken must be to identify all of the affected properties. Staff was directed to research and identify all of the subject properties, so that affected property owners and residents could be provided with notice and so that the impact of any purposed action could be intelligently measured. To my knowledge, said assignment to staff has not yet been completed. Allow me to move on to the sense (or nonsense) of any purposed City action on this issue. It baffles me to see us moving in a direction which so clearly aggravates the most sensitive issue in Hermosa Beach: parking. We are obsessed with the issue of adequate parking, and for good reason. Residents, visitors, and potential business patrons compete in their search for a parking space with agony and frustration. They necessarily circle the block like vultures. The local press and political cartoonists focus on this undeniable problem. The Planning Commission and the City Council work very hard to reduce the problem and move toward adequate parking. How can we possibly consider pushing scores of vehicles from their historical "off street" parking spaces onto Hermosa Avenue and neighboring streets? I am advised that the number of potentially displaced vehicles would stretch one mile. Surely, such displacement will result in overwhelming hardship to local businesses and every resident for many blocks east of The Strand, by an unavoidable rippling effect. Parked cars excluded from certain locations will simply appear at other locations. The socio-economic issues and sentiments which may reasonably bear upon this matter lead to the opposite conclusion than what I have thus far heard. At least one Planning Commission member and one Council member have demonstrated a rather perverse desire to "get" the Strand owners. However, the persons who will suffer most from a restriction of parking will be our local renters. They are the ones that circle and hover in search for parking on Hermosa Avenue and neighboring streets. Owners enjoy the use of their garages, and owners would enjoy the use of even restricted parking on the purported easement. And, we are not simply talking about Strand and Beach Drive renters, but renters on the walk streets and perhaps all the way back to Valley Drive. I would be very pleased if you would visit me at my property to examine a specific situation. Also, I urge you to consider the Strand properties at 18th Street, 19th Street, 20th Street, and similar Strand properties where the owners have accomplished a design and landscaping which appropriately balance aesthetics, efficiency, and accommodation: We have attractively landscaped the "front" one-half to two-thirds of our property (that is, the portion adjacent to The Strand). The "back" one-third of the property has been attractively developed for appropriate parking. August 31, 1992 page 3 On my property, the parking area is bordered by a hedge which is maintained (at my expense) at a height which somewhat "screens" the vehicles from view, but does not constitute an unacceptable obstacle. Such parking areas on the properties to which I refer can accommodate four compact vehicles by tandem parking, without creating any blight whatsoever. If the City would allow two Lincoln Continentals to park in a particular area, why would it object to four Nissans parking in the same space? If we are concerned about parking near the Strand wall, then we should address that concern. But that issue might be satisfactorily resolved without stating the number of cars that can be parked on the back of a property, regardless of the depth of the property or size of the vehicles. I respectfully suggest that the most attractively landscaped "side yards" on the Strand have been developed at tremendous expense (with the City's knowledge and approval) to provide for four compact vehicles. Lastly, I respectfully submit that a very unacceptable situation at a very specific location (8th Street) is provoking the City to consider radical action which will wreck havoc for all residents and businesses west of Valley Drive. Surely, there must be a more specific solution to a specific problem. I have confidence in your ability to design an implement an appropriate specific solution. Thank you very much for your careful consideration of this matter. Again, I respectfully reiterate my request for a public disclosure of the historical documents which affect the subject properties, as well as my invitation to visit my house for an "on site" review of this matter. TPA:nan 33: easement.ltr Very truly yours, LAW OFFIC S OF THOMAS P. ALLEN III — A-ROFE IONAL CORPOF TION Thomas P. Allen I September 2, 1992 Dear Council Member: RECEIVED SEP 0 3 1992 CITY MGR. OFFICE In the early afternoon of Saturday, August 29, 1992, two young girls were sexually accosted in broad daylight in the parking lot at Vons, in Hermosa Beach. The security officer on the property was extremely upset since this incident took place because the attacker perceived that the security officer was occupied in the endless task of writing parking tickets in the Vons parking lot. He felt certain that the attack would not have occurred, had he been able to be patrolling watchfully, as he was hired to do, instead of being a meter maid. Vons has started issuing parking citations becasue there is no parking in this town, and people are using the Vons parking lot for parking, out of desperation. They are allowing only an hour and a half parking time, barely enough to do a weekly grocery shopping at Vons alone. If a shopper also wanted to stop at CVS pharmacy to pick up a perscription, or go to another store, he or she would have to pack up his car and start looking for a parking spot in the same parking lot all over again. Can you see how this is fracturing the attractiveness of doing business (either owning one or using one) in Hermosa Beach? Why do I bring up the above incident in relation to Beach parking? Because we have all learned the hard way that the earth, cities, and families are all systems. What you do to one part effects all the other parts. As in all systems, everything is in a delicate balance which evolved over a long period of time. If one member of a rowboat suddenly leaps up, the whole boat tips over; the wise individual tiptoes around the boat, testing and waiting as he moves from one end of the boat to the other, slowly and gradually. The incident involving the attack at Vons is only the tip of the iceberg of the ripple effect that is going to occur as the result of recklessly ripping the parking away from us, and dumping it on the streets. Parking is a citywide problem, and needs to be evaluated citywide, and not just section by section. The city is overdoing its involvement in this matter on the one hand, and on the otherhand it is not doing the simple effective measures to correct the original complaint about the dirt lot on 8th street. The city failed to address and correct the problem there, at the appropriate level of government, and now has done everything but correct the problem there. The city originally estimated that over 200 cars would be displaced from the Strand area alone. When I showed my statistics professor the city report, which attempts to minimize this number, he fell on the floor laughing, regarding its accuracy. For example, the report failed entirely, to even take into account the number of visitors and workers who are presently not competing with street parking, as a result of being able to park on side yards. If the city council were really fair, it would ask the Strand corner lot owners if they would be willing to purchase the insurance to cover the city in the event of a claim. (To my knowledge there has never been a claim. And while it is possible, it is highly improbable that it's not going to happen if it has not happened since 1901) . Every Strand property owner I have spoken to either already has or is willing to obtain this insurance, and name the city on the policy. We don't want to be left with the feeling that every time we overcome an objection, you look for another one as an excuse to take the parking away just because you don't want us to have it. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Under the cover of taking away our parking in the name of "equality," you are harming the very people you are trying to make equal. All they would have is less than an equal amount of nothing because instead of gaining something, they would lose even more of what they now have. Your job is to relieve parking pressure; not to solve the riddle of the ages with some kind of an abstract idea about equality. The property owners are the ones who paid through the nose in the purchase price of the property because of the available parking, and the city benefits through taxation. The public at large did not. The property owners have invested in landscaping, building retaining walls, gardening, maintenance, insurance and improvements. The public at large has not. And they are the first to admit it! Beleive me when I tell you that non -Strand residents in large numbers are very upset with you for even considering taking away our parking. They are smart enough to know that they don't want to compete with us for street parking. They don't want to cut off their nose to spite their face because of a philosophical point! The overwhelming majority of people have not been at all as jealous and mean- spirited as you may have thought. Perhaps these qualities are projections of certain members of the city council. People are not walking down the Strand shrieking, "Oh my God! I'm having heart failure because there are four cars parked on that lot instead of two cars! Call 911! I'm failing fast!" But people are feeling that way in their daily, real, moment to moment life, when they have to drive around for 30 minutes when they come home from work at night, and they want to get on with their lives, and can't because they can't park! The sad truth is that Hermosa Beach is never going to look the way it did 70 years ago. We all love open space, but you have to be practical first. Where there is overcrowding, concessions are the logical solutions. Even if you did have the right to expel us from our parking, why would you want to? There are cities all over the country and all over the world which allow parking on public property. They don't make a big deal out of it. Even though these cities have a "right," that does not mean that they are compelled to exercise that right. They adapt to the current conditions. Since you are so quick to compare us to other cities, and Manhattan Beach in particular, why do you selectively compare us only with those cities that do not allow parking? In fact, it might be more logical to compare us to Paris than to Manhattan Beach. I have repeatedly submitted data specifying the tremendous differences between Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach, and both the city council and the planning commission have repeatedly ignored it. Manhattan Beach has a 30 foot alley, which is more like a street. Ours is ten feet in long stretches, to a maximum of twenty feet. Nowhere in Manhattan Beach is there a side lot of 25 to 35 feet. Their side yards are four to eight feet. Every one of our side yards is flat. Manhattan Beach side yards are on steep slopes, making it almost impossible to park. When Manhattan Beach switched from side yard parking, they provided sixty spaces in their 30 foot wide alley (Beach Drive) for the public. We are not prepared to provide even one single space. Hermosa Beach has 65 percent of rental population. Manhattan Beach has half of that. Why do I, the lowly public, have to know this better than you? Why are you deliberately misleading the public by withholding this information? Why are you trying to make a rule out of the exception? Why are you amplifying and siding with the few whiners and complainers, who bought property and paid less for it because of its location, and now want a windfall for themselves at the expense of the entire city? They knew exactly what they were buying when they bought it. Nothing was hidden. There were no surprises. It's not even as though someone changed something to make it worse. You are posing like a long-suffering spouse who just isn't going to "take it" from us anymore! All this illegal parking that has been going on for so long! The nerve of us! --Who started this adversarial hate mongering? To restore truth and sanity to this stance, consider that we have been parking this way for at least 66 years with the permission, assistance and help of the city. The city has advised people where to post their no -parking signs. The city has referred people to agencies for moving fire hydrants with full knowledge that it was for parking. The city has okayed building types of homes in which a certain number of parking spaces on alleged city property were promised. The city has allowed extensive landscaping on the property for private use. The city has encouraged us to build walls to separate this property from the public walkways. Someone is always going to complain about something, but the present system has done the greatest good for the greatest number. So leave it alone. Anything less would be unfair. People will concede to a compromise of a 20 foot setback in compliance with city code 11158D, which refers to a 20 foot setback in relation to parking. This is adequate room for landscaping. Why should we please the strangers walking by on the Strand more than the homeowners, business people and residents of our city? People will also concede to the removal of RV's and boats. This is, in fact, a compromise and a concession on our part. We can understand not wanting cars butting up to the Strand wall. From the Strand pedestrian point of view, a 20 foot front landscape is very pleasing to the eye. They cannot see beyond the first two cars anyway, so what difference does it make if two cars or five cars are parked on a lot? We videotaped pedestrians on the walk streets for hours, and not one single person looked to the side at our cars. Without exception, they were conversing with each other or looking toward the beach. Our automobiles did not even register in their perceptions or consciousness. If I gave each person a quiz, not one person would be able to tell me if I had two cars or five cars parked on the side yard. That's how insignificant this really is to passersby. Another example of planning commission and city council bias against us is the niggling, stingy, withholding of every foot and inch of space they may grudgingly dole out for our parking. A nice, impartial statement by planning commissioner Steven Suard at the last meeting was, "If they want parking, they are going to pay, and they're going to pay through the nose!" He must have spent twenty minutes arguing that 25 feet instead of 30 feet is enough space for us. He was finally stopped by a city official who told him that it was impossible to give any less because at least five feet is taken just from a turning radius. Yet, there was not even one single word of research or concern when we were glibly told to just park on the street. This, on the other hand, was completely broad brushed. No one pointed out that the yellow pole parking is always full, or that it has a time limit of 12 hours enforced 24 hours a day. The alternative is two-hour parking only, enforced from 6 a.m. to 6.p.m. every day, quarters only. This wonderful option carries with it the order that "vehicles shall vacate parking space at expiration of two hour limit." This would mean that a family with five cars, would have to move all five cars every two hours all day long. Did anyone bring up the fact that cars are more likely to be vandalized on the street? Or banged up? Or have car covers stolen? Did anyone mention that since we are an island here, we would have to walk from two to six blocks or more to our homes? If you want to talk about equality, where is the equality of us having driveways or parking on the street where we live? We don't even have a street! Did anyone at all, either on the planning commission or the city council express any concern at all for our lives and welfare? The answer is a resounding No. Did anyone even reach far enough into his or her thinking to mentally construct what this would mean in terms of moment to moment daily living? Of mothers struggling with their children from blocks away, and carrying diaper bags, groceries, school books, etc.? Of walking long distances in the famous wind storms we experience here? Or in the dark? Or where we will leave those cars when we go on vacation? Or carrying sick pets for blocks and blocks? Or the elderly? Or what to do if a solitary person in accosted by gang members, who have been boldly roming our streets? What about people who are ill or have several sick children? As a group, no one in the city would have to walk farther than we. How would you feel, if someone were killed or injured as a result of displacing us? The probability of this occurring is much liklier than someone injuring themselves on our walled in side yard, and yet you are utterly phobic about this remote possibility. By the city's own report, our tiny little one -aryl-a-half mile long city, is one of if not the most congested city in the nation. By the city's own report, we have been struggling with a 6000 car parking defecit for seven years. By the city's own report, we host over 100,000 visitors every year. The cars are not going to go away. Do not displace our automobiles from their present spaces, where they are doing no harm, and depriving no one of parking. Each property owner on the Strand bought his property specifically with his individual needs in mind in this chapter of his life. The city implicitly agreed to the parking, which you are now acting like you never heard of before. To change anything would be the grossest injustice. In fact, the city of Hermosa Beach has nothing in writing that isolates our rights and uses of side yards, with the exception of building on the property. If you will allow yourself to open up to any of this, you will know in your heart as well as logically that restricting or depriving us of our parking is absolutely the worst decision you could make. Sincerely, doria Walker 2040 Strand Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 - 5 BEACH DRIVE - HERMOSA BEACH 6 A DAY IN HERMOSA BEACH 1728 CARS PARKED NOSE TO NOSE TRYING TO CLEAR RED LINE ON BEACH DRIVE : : r .:ee :eac 1317 ,al_Le Dr.''_ E _er: ose _.each, ua -L11 r:"! a ;lC.Y CeccnQ Fin: r RECEIVED AUG S 1 1992 CITY MGR. OFFICE C 7'� V�L-�:'�6�i LLLJVnGY.--` _0 BEACH DRLE Cie Dear Council Members - R. Essertier, A. iemar_s, R. Benz, S. Edgerton, and K. P-idstokke: We have lived it uermcsa Beac":.for over 50 gears and in our present home (at 99 Hermosa Avenue) since we built it 40 Nears ago. We have our side yard (on lst Street) • bricked, fenced, and landscaped in accordance with City regulations and at considerable expense. After a scrutinizing bicycle ride the full length of Beach Drive, we believe that the recommendations being proposed by the Planning Commission are unnecessarily drastic. The stated objective to beautify Hermosa Leach is very noble but we all must realize that this is a crowded community with a severe parking problem. We think that most of the side yards are nicely paved, fenced and landscaped -- looking good regardless of the cars parked in them. We also disagree with the Planning Commission's opposition to parking boat and recreational vehicles. To us they seem a nice part of the "beach life-style" in this resort community that we live in and love. We bought cur travel trailer almost nine years ago, and before doing so, checked with the Hermosa Beach Police Department about the legality of keeping it in our side yard. We were assured that it was all right as long as we did not permit its use as a "hotel room" for overnight guests. We have never once allowed such use, and further, have never received complaints about its appearance. We do not all parking in side reason is given for understand the Planning Commission's yards like ours that are east of and this distinction when the properties Drive, sharing a common access. In regard to the li a bilit7 our insurance agent states that this acjac"-nt to hermosa Avenue. In this :, would cover the claim whe1�:.er it was recommendation to eliminate adjacent to Beach Drive. No are only separated by Beach for any accident taking place within the side yard, area wcu1C. be treetoc: .he sake ee the sideTralk e. ent, as we understand, our :.oneo•, kers insurance against us or against the City. We respectfuli request that ;; cu reject the Plannin ; Commission's parking pian (option E). To summarize cur position, we recommend retaining the "status quo" rather than adopting measures that would compound the already -awful street parking problems and open a real "can cf worms" regarding the City's many public right-of-way questions. Rc, h. Knox 99 Hermosa Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Phone - 372-0327 and Lois M. Knox sU?PLEME,NIAL �l INFORMATION a@ddaxii, rJrixg0 23671 MADISON STREET TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90505 PH (310) 375-4774 FAX (310) 375-2219 August 31, 1992 All Council Members City of Hermosa Beach ATTN: LORI (ADMINISTRATION) 2nd. Floor Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Council Members, RECEIVED SEP 0 1 1992 CITY MGR. OFFICE On August 18, 1992 I closed escrow on my new home at 18 - 19th Street. This past Sunday, August 30th., I was informed that my parking spaces fronting Beach Drive may be taken away!!! I can't believe this to be true. I'm writing all council members to voice my concern in this very important matter. I would never have purchased this property if it came only with the garages shared with my tenants at the rear unit. I've lived in the South Bay for 23 years, and can't imagine the city of Hermosa Beach actively seeking to reduce the number of parking spaces available. I look forward to meeting with each and every council member over the course of the next few weeks. I will attend the next council meeting on September 8, 1992 to voice my opposition to ANY CHANGES in the present parking along beach drive. I've run a successful Medical Corporation in Southern California for many years. My favorite maxim is, "If it's not broken, don't fix it". I'm anxious to speak with those of you who don't understand this principal, and would further add to Hermosa's image as the parking ticket capital of California. Sincerely, /----tet Steve eager President cc: Hermosa Realty Law offices Bruce Margolin SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION RECEIVED CAROLINE SHORT 1740 The Strang? SEP 0 1 1992 Hermosa Peach, CA CITY MGR. OFFICE August 29, 1992 Dear Council 'Members: What a difficult situation we residents of wonderful Hermosa Beach find ourselves in. How can we continue to enjoy living here if narking spaces become more at a nremium? I own a corner lot and am fortunate to have 3 garage spaces. The side yard has been used for years as parking by my tenants and friends and relatives. Within the next six to eight months I antici^ate obtaining approval to remodel. This will.include changing from a two unit apartment to a single dwelling and landscaping a portion of the adjoining city nronertv. I am in accost :.with Mr. Nash who proposed two viable solutions: 1. Leave the situation alone hut require encroachment permits (one time fee) and insurance for the city. 2. Deed the right-of-way to the adjacent homeowner with a restriction against building on the former right-of- wav as we now have. Yot s very truly Caroline Short SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION t, I ED NASH 600 THE STRAND HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 (310) 372-8430 August 31, 1992 City Council Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Council Member: RECEIVED SEP 1 1992 CITY IUGR. OFFICE _T am .,once again writing to protest the Planning Commission's ill-advised recom- mendation_ to reduce parking in the City of Hermosa Beach. Unfortunately, this recommendation comes at the request of the City Council, or at least three of its members who seek to deprive walk street side yard property owners of parking privileges they have enjoyed for over 60 years. As you are certainly aware, this issue was a major source of concern and devisiveness 13 months ago when the Planning Commission voted to reduce side yard parking to 3 cars on City right- of- way walk street corner side yards. Since Strand corner lots were singled out unfairly for this restriction and other right-of-way parking on Monterey, Manhattan Ave. and elsewhere in the City were not affected, the Council directed staff to study the issue and bring back an equitable parking plan for ALL right-of-way parking. But under the incredibly shortsighted and weak leadership of our Mayor, this issue has once again been put on the table, first to eliminate all side yard parking, and now through the planning commission's recommendation, to limit park- ing to two spaces with a host of severe and completely unacceptable related restrictions. The bottom line is that ANY restrictions on the current side yard parking situa- tion will add to parking congestion on Hermosa Ave., Manhattan Ave., and the num- bered streets and add to parking difficulties for all of the City's residents and their guests. The Planning Commission's A option would eliminate all parking along the walk street right-of-way. Its B option includes limiting such parking to 2 cars west of Beach Drive, requiring an encroachment permit that could be revoked at will by the city, charging for such permits and parking, and requiring adjacent property owners to build a fence on right-of-way property at the owner's expense, plus other restrictions. And all side yard parking east of Beach drive would be eliminated. I for one am fed up with this issue being raised by shortsighted council members time and time again and a large number of other residents with whom I have dis- cussed this issue feel exactly the same way. Both of the Planning Commission proposals set for your September 8 meeting are completely unacceptable for a variety of reasons, the most cogent being that fewer parking spaces would be available to the residents of Hermosa Beach and more cars would be forced out into the street, thus further exacerbating the SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION • City's most severe problem --parking. Any attempt by the Council to enact and enforce such an ordinance will result in two outcomes: protracted litigation and recall of council members who repeatedly attempt to make resident parking problems worse than they already are. The residents of Hermosa really are tired of this and related narking issues surfacing at regular intervals and will not stand silently by while a small vocal minority attempts to make life miserable for the majority of Hermosa's residents. Please reject the Planning Commission's recommendations on walk street right-of- way parking and continue to allow adjacent residents to park the way they have historically been permitted to for over 60 years. Sincerely, Ed Nash August 30, i492 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers City of Hermosa Beach Re: Parking on Pedestrian Walk Streets Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, RECEIVED SEP 0 1 1992 CITY MGR. OFFICE Attached is a copy of a letter I submitted to the Planning Commission last year. I feel that the points stated last year are just as valid this year, and I hope you will take them into consideration when you discuss and decide this issue. Thank you, / /' l */ Jeanne M. English 30 - 13th St, #E Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION June 24, 1991 To: Planning Commissioners City of Hermosa Beach Re: Vehicle Parking on Pedestrian Walk Streets I live on 13th Street now, and grew up at the corner of 23rd and Strand. I read the report dated March 19, 1991, submitted by Lynn Terry, Deputy City Engineer. I watched the Planning Commission Meetings on April 16 and June 4 about this matter. I read the article in the Easy Reader. And now I have some comments to make. 1) It seems as though this whole matter was brought about because of some problems at 8th Street with someone renting out parking spaces in what they thought was their "front yard", and with some inconsiderate parking/horn-honking/shouting early in the morning and late at night. Now this has escalated to the point where everyone who is parking on the public right-of-way, a practice which has been allowed for many decades, may lose that 'right'. 2) Item 5 of the March 19 report (Number of Locations Where Parking is Possible or Occurring) contains some incorrect information. The second paragraph talks about properties west and east of Beach Drive and then states: "All of these properties have garages on a public access at the rear of the property". This is not correct. At 22nd, 23rd and 24th Streets, at least, there are garages which face the public right-of-way (not Beach Drive). The only access to these garages is via the public right-of-way. 3) The March 19 report makes the assumption that the properties at each of the four corners from Beach Drive (southwest, northwest, northeast, southeast) is owned by a single owner. This also is not true. At the southwest corner of Beach Drive and 23rd Street there are two separate properties, owned by two different owners. There may be other corners like this. Any proposed plan to limit parking west of Beach Drive to only the eastern one-third of the right-of-way would be grossly unfair to the 'front' property owner, who would not be allowed any parking. 4) Parking is a problem in Hermosa, especially at and near the beach Further back from the beach, there is street parking available for family members, relatives, friends, repairmen. At the beach, we have metered parking where it is often impossible to find an empty space. Taking away the right-of-way parking would create a great hardship, putting many more cars on the already overcrowded streets. Residents will grumble and buy a permit (or several), and hope to find a place to park. (I invite any of you that don't already have to deal with this to try to find a parking place at a yellow meter, not once but every day--. how close can you get? how many times around the block did it take you?) But what about when the rest of the family comes to visit? What about friends? Where can we park those extra cars? How often would you go visit someone if you could only park at a meter, and then you still had to walk a block or two? Or repairmen? Do we make them park blocks away and lug their equipment back and forth? Make no mistake, eliminat- ing or severely limiting parking on the right-of-way would create hardships for the property owners and create a greater demand for street parking. 5) Parking on the right-of-way has been allowed for many, many years. My family moved into our house at 23rd and Strand in 1956, 35 years ago. <My mother still lives there.) The family across from us has been there even longer. And we have all been parking on the right-of-way all this time, with no complaints from the city or any problems with public liability. 6) What about other areas in the city where the right-of-way is being used? It seems very unfair to single out the area along Beach Drive for special action. 7) As far as solutions go, I think all sides of this issue would agree that at the very least parking on the right-of-way should not be rented or sold to others. And I think that most involved would agree to not use the right-of-way as a storage area for unused trailers, boats, or cars. But beyond that, I don't think any further solution that limits parking will satisfy any property owners currently using the public right-of-way. This parking has been allowed for a long time. To take it away now would make the limited beach area parking situation worse than it already is. Vacating the right-of-way has the very real disad- vantage of raising property taxes <by increasing the size of the proper- ty). Charging for parking, or severely limiting the number of cars allowed to park, is unfair. You are taking away something that has been allowed for decades, without problems. 8) Why not leave things as they are, except for not allowing the parking spaces to be rented and possibly not allowing storage of veh- icles. I think this would satisfy the majority of the people involved. Sincerely, Jean a M. English 30 - j3th St, #E Hermba Beach, CA 90254 3l, l??a. RECEIVED SEP 0 1 1992 CITY MGR. OFFICE CA5 (4en44(„L e>244-eli 14LA, e 01,tp.of, i;LA, A;d, 0_ cit6 52L,tea.e_ Ao-A- ALAI- 8.a44. cuu CU- 4S4AA--"S4A- 1 UPPL F ENTAL fqrr•';; f srhi July 15, 1991 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Hermosa Beach Re: Vehicle Parking on Pedestrian Walk Streets In 1956, we purchased the property at 2240 Strand, which is a 1/2 lot located on the southwest corner of 23rd Street facing the Strand. We have used the parking on the right of way since 1956. I am a Senior Citizen, 71 years old, and it would be a great hardship if the parking is now taken away. My family visitis mean a lot to me, especially on weekends and holidays, when parking on the streets is at a premium. Since I am only on a 1/2 lot, I hope you will allow me the same percentage of parking spaces you may agree on for the larger lots. Thank you. Sincerely, Donna English 2240 Strand Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 sUPPLEMENTAt INFORMATION August 31, 1992 Diane & Eric Ahrens 700 Strand Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attn: Lori, Administration, Second Floor Dear Council Members: As residents of to park our cars, we Hermosa Beach RECEIVED SEP 0 2 1992 CITY MGR. OFFICE who utilize our driveway are firmly opposed to the Planning Commission's recommendation to further restrict beach parking for residents. Parking conditions are already extremely bad in Hermosa Beach and to further limit legal areas for residents to park would create an even worse traffic and parking Further, as residents, we are paying good at the beach and part of that fee is to ensure nightmare. money to live that we have adequate parking and aren't forced to park on the street where our cars can get stolen or damaged. We have all moved to our current homes with the understanding that parking was included and to change that now would be a violation of residents' rights. For these and many other reasons --as echoed by the majority of the Hermosa Beach community --we are urging you to vote against the Option B proposal to further restrict residents' parking privileges and support your law abiding, tax paying constituents. VOTE NO!!! iUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION urc, / o -t 1/'011 s i3/s 1/44 I 1407 ,fir//. "T0 2- w DGS./ /1 /e.e ao.jair7.5 71— o ✓c =�- w l .5 f- - d g i'1,2 record removal le rib oae/ n c(7. -,Lk rei; c/Prts 4 4. k 7,7 4'7 G? i''/� I h q v t'1 RECEIVED SEP 0 1 1992 CITY MGR. OFFICE 3 h S� P SA_ y9a-=asy � roc s SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION George J. Lanz 17 Sixteenth Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attention: Lori/Administration/Second Floor Dear Council Member: I write concerning the issue of Vehicle Parking on Public Right -of - Way Along Beach Drive, which is on the Council agenda for the September 8, 1992 meeting. I have watched this issue evolve with increasing alarm as I gradually realized that reason may not prevail and that a discriminatory and divisive measure might be adopted by the Council. I have appeared before the Council to ask basic questions which have yet to be satisfactorily answered by City management and staff, and which must be resolved by the Council before acting on this issue. The issue of private parking on public property is a city-wide issue. Why is Beach Drive singled out? A "solution" there may very well not apply elsewhere in the city. A crazy -quilt mix of solutions across the city will certainly be viewed as discriminatory and inequitable, leading to a host of problems and perhaps lawsuits. At the same time, failure to proceed with similar measure for the balance of the city will certainly lead to legal action, since there is absolutely no merit in any argument to single out Beach Drive. The "solution" which the Council apparently intends to enact, "Option B", divides and pits the families and tenants on the West from those on the East side of Beach Drive, with no good reason. Why is a Strand dweller entitled to parking spaces on public property while a numbered street or court dweller is denied the privelege? What is the purpose served here, other than that of pleasing a vocal, self- interested minority of city residents, who enjoy this convenience or offer it to their visitors? A solution to this very long lived problem must be as widely and equitably applicable as possible, and the Option B plan is certainly discriminatory. SUPPLEI +EnITAL INFORMATION 1 In spite of some half-hearted consideration early on in the recent history of this issue, there has been little serious consideration of the consequences to those residents who live in the area bounded generally by Hermosa Avenue and the Strand. While it is easy for others to belittle the displacement parking problem which this action will create, I trust you realize that you will create more than a problem of simple inconvenience. A "domino effect" will ensue through which people away from the Beach Drive area will also be adversely impacted, as those in the Beach Drive area attempt to find parking on Hermosa Avenue and the steep hill streets. Some will be women and elderly people who will be placed at risk as they attempt to reach their residences from these now distant parking places. This is a risk for which the city can demonstrably be held liable. Those who continue to drive into their Beach Drive and numbered street or court living areas, park temporarily, and receive tickets, will also be needlessly placed at risk. They will understandably be angry at their neighbors who continue to park illegally, but with questionable *permission, simply because they live on the west side of Beach Drive. l( see the quality of our lives adversely affected by any such inherently unfair measure. I cannot see the Council acting so irresponsibly. I urge each of you to consider both the tangible and intangible consequences of a piecemeal solution to a fragmented problem, and to direct the city staff to conduct a city-wide feasibility study, to develop and carefully weigh alternatives, and to bring recommendations to the Council which will not further divide the city The Council and staff have not yet adequately defined this problem, the need to make changes, or the objectives to be sought in making any changes. There must be no action without a thorough city-wide assessment. Sincerely, George J. Lanz 2 JACQUELINE S. MARKS 702 THE STRAND HERMOSA BEACH. CA. 90254 Sept. 1, 1992 Dear Council Member, RECEIVED SEP 0 e me CITY MGR. OFFICE One of the greatest drawbacks of living in a beach community is the problem of sufficient parking. Hermosa Beach is no exception. Once again the city Council is threatening to remove or restrict parking on the right-of-way adjacent to The Strand. The removal of any spaces creates a hardship on ail the citizens of the community as well as visitors. There is no advantage to the city for this action but there is a definite disadvantage of more cars searching for precious few parking places. A few years aso when Beach was closed to put in drainage pipes, people living on the Strand had to find parking on Hermosa Avenue and side streets. Often at night. I had to park eight to ten blocks from my home. Walking alone, sometimes late at night was frightening and unsafe. It was also made more difficult when I had business papers or other material to take carry. I have three tenants who live on my property. These are hard working young people. They are the ones whc will be hurt if they must scramble for parking spaces. For 60 years corner lots on the Strand have been allowed parking. This has not caused a problem. I do have a residential encroachment permit, however, I doubt whether it would fulfill all the requirements of the new proposal. I believe that the recommendations are extremely unfair and one sided. 1. The permits would be revocable at any time. 2. Only two car parking would be permitted no matter how much available parking there is. 3. Owners would have to pay for expensive landscaping and fences. 4. Parking time would be restricted to 72 hours.• 5. The privilege would expire in i5 years or if owner wanted to renovate the property. 6. Owners would have to pay parking fees. In other words, the owners parking would be strictly limited, the owners would Piave,to pay, pay, pay, and there would be no future guarantees for parking on the right-of-way even when all the c=itereayhad been met if the council has a change of heart. This Planning Commission Proposal should be rejected. It is important that the use of the right of way be resolved once and Ior all.. It has been suggested that you leave things as they are but require encroachment permits (one time fee) and insurance for the City. Another possibility would be to deed the right-of-way to the ac jac .nt homeowner with a restriction against building on this location. I hope the City Council . a s t h e good sense and vision to act in such a way that parking spaces are not reduced, the City- is nut libel and the Strand owners SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMAT!f}N Sincerely, tl /7 - If? -se • c- -A— C. '_e, / 727 RECEIVED UP 0 1 1992 CITY MGR. OFFICE -(_, _ e e-- 7 - • er_-- _ / ..„..,(,e, ._4_4-.....,-t/-- ____----_,/ ..._.e_.1.0.2,6--.-- A.- ( .., /2---" -,..-7' A / '-"----;'1- - .4...e., < ' 7 -/ 4: tt/--/.Alt> " --i_e: If) "-- __- -A --e.,_- )...--?<ii.e.-% ,d-732-ece/z•Z,.? ei-f-e--- e - t., y , ---;,<--------.../ e • --7- 7 - -..,' . e"7 -----d. - •••• -ef; 7"-; - ...7.....ee .4- — ...•:;-6.„..c.f..._-4"..er.--, ' -- /-x• --e"Z - 7-1-4 e--- ,, ,___ • ,:_' #€:,---/- --¢,:, _..-c.„-:(`‘z"---;e6;• 7 i e.e./ ....._ ,.., ..,--.....---x„e6...,-___„:„....(,...___-‘---it .-...__---._ tZ./ ___7 i &.•71--.X.e---f...-i_ - „-c. c - - ____-• -zi•-• .$-Z., , -,"2-ze --7 ...--' - .. _ - - c _ - • _. 4' -if 4- 44" City o/ he,moaa Beach 1375 Valley D2.ive He/moaa Beach, Ca. Deal City Council /'lemge,a: Sept. 1, 1992 RECEIVED SEP 0 2 1992 CITY MGR. OFFICE I am waiting to you in 2egand to the 'City 2.ight o/ way pa'k-ing' . I &el-ieve the Planning Comm.ia s on' a 2ecommendat ion £a not to the Lene/.it o, the city on it'a c.it.izena. We live on the co2ne2 o/ lat. and Strand. I have lived he'e a.ince P1aach o/ 1934. fozkhe pant 58 yea2a we have kept the aide ya2d up. We g2.icked it in, landacaped .it and guilt a cement wall azound to uae you to the ent.iie a2ea with the peamizzion o/ the city to to able .it as out own p'ope'ry. I do not B.el.ieve it .ia /a.i2 /o2 2enege on th.ia ptom.iae. - It would ge a veay gig haadah.ip /02 ua to try to /.ind panking apacea on the atzeeta. Out ne-ighLo2a who live eaat o/ the Staand & Beach D2, a'ea have d.i//iculty ,.ind.ing paak.ing apacea now .in the.i2 ne.ighgozhood. We would compound th.ia p'oglem. And as Sen.io2 C.it.izena .it would gecome/impoaaLLle /oa ua to walk a Clock o2 two on. thaee o2 /out away from out home ca22y.ing gioceaiea 8 othe2 chopping. We would have to conatantly check the patk.ing £natauct.iona whe'e eve2 we /ind a place to pa'k. 7h.ia would demand many t2.ipa £ack & /oath to the mete'a. We have planned to live he'e .in out home the teat oL ou2 l.ivea. Pleaae don't take th.ia p2.iv.ilege away /tom ua . I Lel-ieve a 20 /t. aetUack on co2ne2 Stzand paope2t.iea iz adequate /o2 8eaut.i,-icat-ion. The .balance o/ theae iota ahould ge left /o2' oua pa'k.ing as we have had /02 58 yeaJa. We pay extra taxea & upkeep yo2 co2ne2 iota, we ahould have extza paiv.ilegea. Ate you.alio planning tokeat2.ict the uae o/ the /tont ya2d aet hack o, all St/and p'ope2t.iea and walk atieet paope't-iea? I hope th.ia iz not you2 intention. It -ia ou2 de..ize to keep th.ia city as a l-iveaLle home community. Pleaae don't make unneceaaaty, un.eaaonaUle & 2ed.icu/oua demand on ua that we might not Le able to live with. S.inceaely, fze.moaa Beach, Ca. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 5 RECEIVED SEP 0 2 1992 CITY MGR. OFFICE Yoshiko Koyama Sept. 1, 1992 Bunhaku Yano (Property Manager) 17-19 21st CT. Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach CA. 90254 ATTN: Lori, Administration, second floor Dear City Council Members, We are writing to you regarding the city way of parking. We are representing ( Daughter of owner and Manager) the owner of the corner lot facing Beach Dr. We sometimes make use of the front yard parking for the following reasons: 1. Although we have a two car garage, the size is not big enough to accommodate two big cars. 2.Flumbers, contractors, etc. should park the van at the front yard.This happens at least 5 times a month including the gardener. 3. When many friends visit us, we definitely need front parking so that their car won't compete with general people for street parking (Already it is hard to find the street parking over the weekend). 4.We bought our insurance policy listing Hermosa Beach as an additional $1,000,000. We request that the city will issue for a lot encroachment permit including two car parking without parking tags. Because it is not practical to assume that only two special cars have the needs for parking. Sincerely IV Yoshiko Koyama ( Daughter • Owner) Bunhaku Yano ( operty Manager) SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Q -71', cCeZ„ RECEIVED SEP u 1992 CITY MGR. OFFICE Z11/ &et -44—Y 2.J 24 ZeA &-d S6UA d21-/1 zvell 6f2 4,a c 9 I "r2A-e-1- SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION September 2, 1992 City Council Hermosa Beach, California Dear Members: RECEIVED SEP 0 2 1992 CITY MGR. OFFICE My wife and I are residents of Hermosa Beach and have been living at 604 Strand for the past six years. Our residence is an apartment located in a private home on the corner lot at 600 Strand. The home abuts a parking area on the south side of the home. The parking area is beautifully landscaped with grass patches planted in the driveway. It is used by the owner only for his occasional guests. By agreement with the owner, however, we are entitled to have guests park dhere in exchange for our services in keeping the grass mowed, watered, and the flowers and plants cared for. We spend many hours during the week tending to those chores and keeping the area beautiful. In addition to the landscaping choses, we keep all of the wrought iron fences and gates painted. Further, we insure that all oil spots, grease marks, and tire tracks are removed from the driveway. We are senior citizens with three grown children living in Riverside County with their children. The only time that our children oan bring our grand children to see us is on the weekends. Having young children, they must bring lots of gear to accomodate the needs of the children. Without the availibility of the parking lot next to our home, they would not be able to visit us because there is no other parking facilities they could use. Even we are landlocked on weekends because we can find no other parking space when we move our car on Hermosa Avenue. This is an appeal to the Council Members to continue to allow parking in the lot. Any other decision would be extremely unreasonable and would cause us and many others in the area a lot of unnecessary grief. Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Donald Prichard 604 Strand Hermosa Beach, California SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION September 1, 1992 Dear Council Members: RECEIVED SEP 0 3 1992 CITY MGR. OFFICE I live at 2040 The Strand with my parents. I have never been so grateful for close access to parking near my house. I recently returned home from a five month hospital confinement with a disorder which nearly took my life. I was completely paralyzed from the waist down during this time. Previous to this, I had never been sick a day in my life. My gait is improving now, but I still have to use my cane, and sometimes my wheelchair. I have to pause frequently to rest when I walk. I lose my balance easily, as I sometimes still cannot feel my feet. There is no way that I can manage over curbs, etc. with my wheelchair. It would be a terrible hardship to struggle with personal belongings and to walk for blocks, when I can barely make it from my house to my car as is. Please don't make me feel any more disabled than I already am. Please let us keep our parking. Sincerely, Linda Kaye Y SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION September 1, 1992 Dear City Council Members: RECEIVED SEP 0 s 1992 CITY MGR. OFFICE I was born in Hermosa Beach, and have lived at the beach all my life. I fail to understand why you are trying to take away our parking privileges now, when the crime and congestion has never been worse, and not likely to get better? I own a condo on 15th street, which consists of two bedrooms, and has only one parking space. This is a rental property,.. which I own. One of the two tenants is already forced to park on the street. If you drive the Beach side yard and front yard residents alto the steeet to park, this impact will make it that much more difficult for tenants forced .to park on streets. This in turn will effect the attractiveness of this unit for rental purposes. People were complaining 15 years ago that there was inadequate parldng. If you drive even one car out on the streets to compete with us, it is one car too many. Sixty-five percent of Hermosa Beach residents are renters. Landlords all over the city will suffer, and this in turn will negatively impact business and well as property owners because the prcperties will be harder to rent. As a dispatcher for Torrance Fire Department, I work on rotating shifts. I often go to or return from work at midnight. Have you ever tried to find a parking place around here at midnight? The thought of having to walk four or more blocks from my car to my apartment at night scares me. One of the reasons I moved to 18th street was because the parldng is much safer and better at this address, and this is one of the properties you want to prohibit parking on. You are not representing the voice of the people by reducing parldng at any place in this city. We must concede to function over form. We all like landscaping, but not at the price of human endangerment, negative impact on business, both direct and indirect, and aggravation of already hopelessly inadequate parking. With the exception of a few complainers, the city has always managed just fine the way things are. Everyone I have spoken to, who are not Strand or Beach Drive residents, is against any change. Very truly yours, 4144f annine Howell St. John 22 - 18th St. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION September 2, 1992 Dear Council Member: RECEIVED SEP 0 3 1992 CITY MGR. OFFICE I am very disappointed with the council's behavior in light of the fact that the constitution makes certain guarantees. We have perfected an interest in this property over the years, and have spent funds on the side yard on behalf of the city. Therefore our parking should not be challenged except through the proper channels of a state court, as is our constitutitmal right. In purchasing our property, we have actually purchased a bundle of rights, with the attendent responsibilities: 1) we have the right to possession, use and enjoyment 2) we maintain, upkeep, take care of and landscape 3) our rights were earned, vested over 70 years, plus or minus, by everyone who owned subject properties 4) taking these earned rights must be done through the courts. Deprivation of constitutional rights and due procces will occur otherwise. Regarding rights attached to the properties in question, the city itself set up these properties when the city was formed. The founding fathers knew what they were doing. The founding fathers built the city, not council members, who are in office a very short time, and then move on to something else. The founders made the entire city plan, with something in mind. A councilman at one hearing stated that Hermosa Beach is one of the most dense cities in the United States. With this fact alone, one cannot force one vehicle on the street, especially when there is no street parking close to homes. There is no parking allowed on Beach Drive since it is so narrow, making ingress and egress of garages very difficult. Barricades were erected on Beach Drive to prevent as much traffic through the alley as possible. There is a tremendous amount of resident traffic on Beach Drive. Behind our house, Beach Drive is 18 feet wide. Our Suburban does not fit in the garage, and there is very little room to manuver cars in and out of the garage. The main reason the city was laid out by the founding fathers was for people to live in. It was not created to be merely a beautiful, unfunctional place. If sheer beauty is what you want, then tear everything down, and erect a beautiful movie street scenefor beauty only, and not for functionality. Sincerely, 1/4-/-4/(4--?._-(L7 Charles M. Walker 2040 Strand Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 sUPPLEMENTAd INFORMATION August 31, 1992 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Council Member: RECEIVED SEP 0 2 1992 CITY MGR. OFFICE I believe it is important to write to you to express my feeling as a property owner and resident. I first became aware of the beauty of Hermosa Beach approximately six years ago when I rented a house for a "beach vacation". I not only enjoyed the beach but the community. I returned at periodic intervals and began to look for a piece of property to purchase. I finally decided upon and purchased the property at 542 The Strand some two years ago and proceeded to demolish the existing house and build a new residence which cost in excess of $2,000,000.00. At the time I purchased the property there were no obvious restrictions for parking on the side corner lot. When the final plans were approved they required me to sign an "Encroachment Permit Agreement" limiting my use of the corner property. Since I had purchased the property and incurred very substantial sums I had no choice but to sign the "Agreement". Construction of my new home is completed and I expect to receive my certificate of occupancy within ten days to two weeks. At the present time my parking is limited to two cars in the garage. If the city council adopts the proposal of the planning commission I will he able to park 2 additional cars. I have two children one in high school and one in college. This leaves no additional parking spaces for any company. I know you recognize that parking is difficult. I also know that you want to have the older homes on the beach replaced with newer residences. The parking limitation makes it difficult and discourages homeowners from making the substantial investment necessary to maximize the reasonable use of their property. I strongly urge you to permit the continued use of the corner lot for parking. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION City of Hermosa Beach August 31, 1992 Page two I invite the council members to come visit my home and see the problems for themselves. I believe you will agree with me that my home is a fine addition to Hermosa Beach and that the request for continued use of the corner lot will not interfere with other individuals enjoyment of the beach. I am pleased to be moving to Hermosa Beach and hope to become an active and constructive resident of my new community. SJM:jec September 2, 1992 Robert Essertier, Mayor Albert Wiemans, Mayor Pro Tempore Robert Benz, Councilmember Sam Edgerton, Councilmember Kathleen Midstokke, Councilmember Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: RECEIVED SEP 0 2 1992 CITY MGR. OFFICE I write to you about an issue of grave importance to me as well as to many other Hermosa residents, the parking on properties accessable from Beach Drive. The history of the areas in question is relevant to the issue. In the 1920's in Hermosa Beach, some areas originally dedi- cated in 1901 as public thoroughfares were designated instead as sidewalks for public access to the beach. The areas origi- nally designated as public rights of way for streets were narrowed from the approximately 60 feet in width originally set aside for streets to the approximately 15 feet in width of the sidewalks still existing today. And what became of the balance of the property originally dedicated for public thoroughfare? Simply put, it tacitly became private property. The adjacent property owners, over many decades, have had all of the burdens - as well as the benefits - of the private use of that property - with the full knowledge and cooperation of the City of Hermosa Beach. At private expense, these front yards on the walkstreets, and sideyards on the Strand corners, have been landscaped and maintained; walls have been built; bushes, trees, planters, lighting and sprinkler systems have been planted, built, and maintained; lawns and gardens, and where accessable, parking spaces have been designed, built, and maintained, with full city awareness, permission, and in some cases cooperation.. The historical use constitutes a precedent, certainly ethically if not legally, and the legal issue is yet to be determined, and may be litigated at great expense to the city as well as to the residents, should you choose to take issue with it. There is some indication that these dedications or easements for thoroughfare were dedications for surface rights only, with an underlying estate in fee belonging to the adjacent property owners. Since it is obvious that this municipality clearly cannot justify any future for the tacitly abandoned portions of the dedication for thoroughfare, it must follow that the City should abandon the property to the adjacent property owners formally. Does this mean abandoning control? To the contrary! En- forcement of laws and zoning codes has come into question UPPLEMENTAL to INFORMATION precisely because of the current questionable status of these properties. Parking abuses were allowed to continue due to confusion about enforceability on usch dedicated but tacitly abandoned lands. If these properties were abandoned to the adjacent property owners, then the existing zoning codes would apply, would be enforceable as they are uniformly throughout the city. Wiht regard to the encroachment permit process suggested as a "solution" here, I would only say that, although this may be a legal alternative, I question the decision for two reasons: First, morally, because the underlying premise that a potential future use for streets in place of the sidewalks is a farce; and, second, politically, because the process would be an administrative nightmare. The idea of overlaying hundreds of properties with encroachment permits begs so many questions: Would there be fees? How would they be set? Would they relate to the size of the property? The value? When would they be paid? Monthly? Annually? Who would decide? Who would enforce? How? Fines? What if someone refuses the permit? Would you litigate? What about review? Every two years? Five? The encroachment permit process could cause this council to be remembered not for efficiency in government, but for leading this city to great new bureaucratic heights! This issue is before you because of some complaints regarding abuses of parking. I urge you not to overreact. Deal with the abuses, but please consider the issue carefully, and don't disturb a situation which, for the most part, works to everyone's benefit. Sincerely, Missy Sheldon 1800 The Strand Hermosa Beach (310) 376-3421 September 2, 1992 RECEIVED SEP 011991 CITY MGR. OFFICE Charles E. Danforth 18 - 18th St. Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 (310) 374-1070 Dear Mayor Essertier, Councilmembers Wiemans, Benz, Edgerton, & I am writing this letter regarding the proposal by the commission to terminate parking in front yards east of When I bought my property, approximately 16 years ago, big points in buying it, was the ample parking spaces. owned property on another walk street, with inadequate know what it is like not to have adequate parking. Midstokke planning Beach Drive. one of the Having parking, I If you go through with this proposal, I will lose not 2.5 parking spaces, as your survey suggests, but 4, in my front yard, which I have been using, not illegally, but with your permission for all these years. Where am I to park these 4 cars? On Kermosa Ave. or Manhattan Ave? There is already a lack of adequate parking in this city. This is only going to make matters worse. Where are we to park while unloading groceries, etc.? Illegally, with our blinkers on? We have no driveways, our area is a unique one. I have one tenant, a female, who works rotating shifts. She sometimes leaves for work at midnight, other times she arrives home from work at midnight. By that hour, the parking on Hermosa Ave is taken. Is she to drive around for hours, hunting for a parking space after a hard night at work? If she finds a place, she may have to walk blocks, to or from her house. Is this safe for a woman alone at midnight? With crime on the rise, I don't think so, and I think the Police Department would agree. I have no problem with listing the City of Hermosa Beach on my homeowners liability policy. I have checked with my insurance agent and it can easily be done. If city liability is your concern, that should alliviate that concern. I also have no problem with restricting the use of this property to passenger vehicles and trucks and excluding boats, R.V.'s and campers. Since I bought this property with the citys permission to use my front yard for parking, you are not only devaluating my property, you are taking away my rights without due process of law. If we are to be prevented from parking on this property, let the court make the discission. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION • It is beyond my comprehension, with the parking problems that already exist in this city, why anyone would want to put more cars out on our streets. I respectfully request that you reject the Planning Commissions proposal. Yours truly, alf01/TY" Charles E. Danforth August 31, 1992 City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Sirs: This letter is to voice my total opposition to the Planning Commission recommendations to the city Council regarding walk street parking. These recommendations are ill advised and extremely detrimental to the City of Hermosa Beach. Government is supposed. to solve problems not aggravate them. Parking in Hermosa Beach is at a premium. This is a fact - Hermosa Beach has a serious deficiency of available parking. Throwing 200 plus cars out onto the streets is no way to solve this problem. This is not the selfish concern of a few property owners. This ill conceived action will affect every resident in the City of Hermosa Beach. This city is in bad enough shape economically that I cannot see how you can further endanger the economy by doing this. If you eliminate this parking used by residents you reduce the available parking for visitors who spend money in the city and benefit the city with sales tax revenue. I respectfully request that the City Council of Hermosa Beach reject the Planning Commission proposal completely on this issue. Put your attention to improving parking availability, not to undermining it further. Reject the proposal. Yours very truely, Alfred W. Salido 20B 4th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (-4 90 fj Q2�7) •.)/7g/ pd "3Q-4 IN AN ATTEMPT TO RESTRICT OR TAKE AWAY OUR 66 YEAR HISTORICAL PARKING PERMISSION, THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUALLY COMPARE:' US TO M.B. TO JUSTIFY TAKING AWAY OUR PARKING. SINCE THE CC & PLANNING COMMISSION HAVEFAILED TO DO ANY RESEARCH WHATSOEVER,) WE HAVE DONE IT FOR THEM AND SUBMITTED IT, ALTHOUGH IT HAS BEEN CONTINUALLY IGNORED. FOR PUBLIC RECORD: 1. THE STREET BEHIND THE STAND IN M.B. IS 30' WIDE COMPARED TO BEACH DRIVR" WHICH IS A 20' ALLEY AT ITS WIDEST POINT, AND IS NARROWER THAN A PARKING SPACE, AND IS ONLY 10' WIDE >IN:_:.LONG ..STRETCHES. 2. M.B. SIDE YARDS RANGE FROM 4-8 FEET WIDE, WITH A MAXIMUM WIDTH OF 12.5 FEET. H.B. SIDE YARDS RANGE FROM 25-35 FEET. 3. M.B. SIDE YARDS ARE STEEPLY INCLINED, MAKING IT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO PARK, WHILE H.B. IS FLAT. 4. WHEN M.B. SWITCHED FROM SIDE YARD PARKING, M.B. RETURNED 60 PARKING SPACES IN THEIR STREET BEHIND THE STRAND. H.B. IS UNABLE TO PROVIDE EVEN ONE SPACE ON BEACH DRIVE. 5. WHILE H.B. HAS A POPULATION OF 65% RENTALS, M.B. HAS ONLY HALF OF THAT. THE ABOVE FACTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT A COMPARISON BETWEEN M.B. & H.B. IS TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE. II. THE CITY C. & PLANNING COMMISSION IS 7, PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY' changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded :parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Name Printed 6 Signature /�7k.) S Pfa/0 Address 02S— ` 133 Ar.e.,MWO-ar rte, N r ermL. Phone Date ?57' 72 . .r= e J 5 c4p 5h 5.4\P6/4--. CA 0 2_ yerAt- 9.///2 q• 8' 902, 1-k-9-2- L v Q7V ..11111, ''/lam 1,4111 di ■i.,. at rt DS %0 / / 1/1 .2 i- 3 • �c� C C f3o N 1U A Baa .7AC►wdso 411.-{n4q. � /o/ /bwld5 4 fit/ l° c r3FdcilNo VEV�- Q2:�VsRm�sQ- ��E 2� a 0 U St(a� H6 /, 3, y, 6, 7 9, /o. /1.. PETITION HERMOSA BEACH E YARD PARKINQ We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY' changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking:is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa B - ach. Name Printed *1C7V1 �l 'Ye m/4-dilit . Si re !�h/ k ✓g/ r4 fiecctor\ ( 3itVtnc?S WI/ .(4t-ACC3 _geo LN /2 . ®' ri /3, A.4 Air ` 4-� /( Address Phone 64 -r>&. - Date 4 90-ae-141,16s /J- 4t/, (pr p- Xt/e X41 Heil mn8 Newt �3 3 1Li-k.t u; srz _ 3)•? A r 2 (o •�.�•��. S frcji i)c-ii • . i) /7. / 9, /� ?„o. .2/. �7� - _ , PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY' changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. , We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on; the streets of Hermosa Beach. Name Printed: Signature Address Phone Date latlieti.A am( An, /3. I3V /`tim.42 (-f-g & th h4e' /4 fj // P 1/10 1036 I{pt aia cA ke aollvdAt 1212 )Jj ( �s /', /7, /9. zo • .2/: 17�-05.E ; . PET TIACN HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City ANY changes from the historical permission to park automobiles stn w i 0 or front yards in Hermosa Beach, on walk street side We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and crib problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical cal parking gin such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. parking Name Printed ti Ft- VJlnroo Co 1 s• 0 • g 1 -0 • TT J Il //_ iIffiliM; '1 `ACU.• ' (. yCr-)A /)/ • / %i hal. (. � x.16 • Address Phone I. '30 1 e.✓KS I •1) ._1 1 • 13 • lei'?-,/ 7 ;1'tj x' Date 42 60 a. 9'4 '7/ PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded ,parkin areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Name Printed • f-$11. Signature Address Phone grk / �.Sti0. )• -ril orl -. 2t-: /A46.,773/— 1 � ei • `/ {5'{171 j/ LY p L 9. %• HERMOSA BEACHSIDE NYARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents. of the City of He changes from the historical or front Hermosa Beach strongly walk sopposetreet Ade yards in permission to park automobiles on walk street aide Beach.. • .• .We acknowledge that parking is one of. Hermosa Beach's problems and that any prohibition or reduction of h s most icaon.ie and critical .areae, would have tremendous negative impact bn already . areas on the streets of parking in such . Hermosa Seach: Y overcrowded parking Name Printed.. Si Address S Phone ANNIBINIV, 2 • S f3. Date , v7 (i67-0, uGN'�X,? 3.2C, Sc..: 37 .0Nt-cam• 4,(,:: ANIF etotek 114-12, &Frard • /67C; Com ct PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already .overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Name Printed Signature (kV' 1 lav 4 111 LL /- o &i JJ Address 4-4 s r -- --1 Gy 6c'Jr. Phone Date 9 �2. -�a 9-z 2- i dU :Mr.ig-r `, ,. , /l3(o3 0 Sf 0-1 Al2LCbsir)vw room,1'' / .4 -4 7fit r Cie.o V - I( cunt • PCI Crud �.�e 04,4 ,s / Sf .70 aLe ((\1401- ` (,_ ()1 r Sod sr &)) n) l'4Ie142kd*- 1u4'e r /n'4J7 , // �,J �} r W.9 /� � 4 /zacP4i i,/ /7436, /c7 5 L /'1-9192 -�z f/e/s-2, VIA f4 47/7 47.7Zz 2joq e tazc/ DQ 4,� r%9 IMO .'i ire ( No /$_19 4%7/ 422 ✓ti /i/1r €/ /V1 '14' 9/77r /3, PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents. of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly changes. from the historical permission.to park automobiles nwaSoppose AN treet id or front yards in Hermosa Beach.' on walk street sid • .We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic 'and critics problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in suc: areas, would have. tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parkin! areas on the streets of .Hermosa Beach. • Name Printed itr Si t dro) 9 i i sri-a Address .11 Phone D-te y!.V •I1. t At.. /l / eile '- LI .14 4' /I L' 470, riefrft...7.41Orrid.W� • 6 3 w/ aa. 4-141moi. Lit Li ,�_•, • .� % 16z r �� a to %- Gam. e (►^'`QS 3-5�-(-( 2 qzMAW / 4 iI r J LG l Wl ozr 4711, Eirla • AIA 4L.7A. g �To`ZS�i��1i i, 5 - Ar e. ■ da Al Af Li al. Ai 1,4 1 r f 10. Are PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly o or front yards in Hermosa Beach changes from the historical mission to park automobiles pilose ANY' walk street side We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking critical areas, would have tremendous negative im act on alreadyin areas on . the streets of Hermosa Beach. p overcrowdedparking such Name Printed Signature "ddress '' Phone Date S\ t'i e_AIS �V T``w wNiq.,.V•A Ate. IOW - =_eire,A) AL -a / t t' tat) 74/02.1 (a44. 1. a. f7/& i).'x P - 9/a/9 y 16- 1 PETITION HERMOSA BEACH YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY changes. from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side 9 or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and problems and that any .prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in sucl areas on the streets of areas, would havetremendous negative impact on already overcrowded pa.rkirig Hermosa Beach. Name Printed f. rySc. Si nature Address r/AP sr / ��► r_ r � cff"" vr,r Cee -42C.2 =;/3 t o «29 ,c' ,fie. Phone Date c-y,�F--7466/ /'l lei z It 411Wr 410 AINLIK PW ��I b R t. • y a w IJP / \rA.5 /Hifi 5/4 M -11c\ s-re4. Eti 37 sem, , soy t- wtozx %,,,\,1/442v C �- c2(4 19 1 v�✓s�r�;�r� S O. fni9r1 • b31/9 Q-►! AA.D Sw Pc1)-Q a 5 L /102 � ttP4.2 Is-/, earn 5X` /57 6, cisi �CC d :L irk Tugs 9 r:, S, PETITION HERMOSA BEACHYARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the Ci changes from the historical City of Hermosa Beach strongly e or front permission to park automobiles on walk street id yards in Hermosa Beach. ckno We aawledge that parkin We cknolems and that g is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critic anypprohibition or reduction of the historicalc overcro a] areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. areas, would have tremendous negative impact on alreadyParking in; such wded parkin Name Printed C 0 K./ N t �C'�1 Tref 1.t Si nature Address _--- Phone K s 4ddSRfi , '2. -3, y, PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents. of the City of Hermo sa Beach strongly changes from the historical permission to 1 o or front yards in Hermosa Beach.' park automobiles 9 Y pilose Alinon walk street side We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's . most chronic and critical areas, would have tremendous ne problems and that any prohibition or etialready overcrowded of the historical areas on the streets of Her os _ e imps • t on parking in such crowded parking Name Printed • Address Phone (- Date v& ms=s Si 6/ p�P�y'Z PETITION HERMOSA BEACH E YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose AIYY' changes. from the historical permission to park•automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such and criticch areas on the streets of . Hermosa Beach. y overcrowded areas, would have. tremendous negative impact on alreadowded parka ng Name Printed• Si• nature eN Mi-ismf AI) 11 / e 1/ 1 Alfa A dill CX4'441 , e« 7 g. 9, /2• /3, i GL Address.• Phone Date 3,. .� r '7 / .— / -/7 y ,' AUL •.7 YO - 73' 2/0) 2 Si" 410,- 9/ 9 Y • 9 • PETITION HERMOSA BEACH IDS E YARD PARKING We, the Undersigned the fromg residents of the Cityof or.front thegHistorical Hermosa Beach strongly in oppose. AM on walk street nide We acknowledge that parking is one of problems and that any.Hermosa Beach's most chronic and areas, woad prohibition or .reduction of the historic criticalouch have tremendous negative impact. on areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach, parking ouch already. overcrowdad_psrkine Name par ted /na Si ture 4 �ar Add=ess • np redo -21(4.k Phone ata Q A. xe f dYtt/ (/a//e b _ 9 p2- • •,� sal•A,; /rf2 �. /�1/ .�� - .f,(,r •%ei;:y, P. 14,-.w'/"/ ,,,, r, = .ice Wei/cp._ .C,CJ C ✓• z� N FI, S. 6, ire � - -241) St., htEemosq Sefi 7 M _ M E.L�zce -4 g. 9, �0. /1. /2 /3, cO_S___ke_ci24161 PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY • changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Name Printed Si jlfM/ )),fis 4 NOVeziamer .101111r/ is ture o Address Phone �? ice"04, PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY' changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach... Name Printed Signature Address 13&a zgP st Phone CzK N / c_\ ncira�g d ,-rbk. 1G1r�l�i tEt). T tk.bilets14.zr r rUU2.c,b / 6(7,64 (/L LLor36-F o vs/ 101 Ht fl Att( Zoo- an Date 9- 3-92_ ©°1-off-�a PETITION HERMOSA BEACH DE YARD PARKINQ We, the undersigned residents. of the City of Hermosa Beach strong0 or front yards in Hermosa Beach... ission to park automobiles 9 Y oppose A11iY on walk street side We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical pand critical paand .in such areas, would have. tremendous negative- impact on already overcrowded areas on the streets of .Hermosa :Beach, pa parking Name Printed Si. nature S<r% 6,_ Address • Phone Date PETITION HERMOSA BEACH DE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the. Ci changes from the historical permission to park automobiles soh strongly or front yards in Hermosa Beach, on walk street side We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa areas on the streets of.Hermosa Beach. a Beach's most .chronic problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parkingand critics . areas, would have tremendous negative im act on alread din Such. p y overcrowded parking Name Printed Si • nature Adams 6J'g 1-1-1'\ Sf �-1,t Phone Date 'VCZ- 9/3" ga__. 9; 9 z HERMOSA BEACH YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residentsof the City of Hermosa changes from the historical Alln front yards in historical Beach. mission to Beach strongly oppose side park automobiles on walk street side We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the histochronicrical pa and critical areas, would have tremendous negative ative im act on already areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach, pparking in such overcrowded parking Nam = d Si nature Address Phone Date 7, HERMOSA SEAOH RI? !,ARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City changes from the historical permission to of Hermosa park automobiles strongly or front yards in Hermosa Beach, 9 Y oppose ANY on walk street side We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking critical suchareas, would have tremendous negative impact on already areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach, in such overcrowded parking Name Printed Si e nature � / Address Phone Date -f-q2., 14/11 a. C : I`ve 95-92_ Z 7[.f 4 77 ,' /. 3.27 2 03 y 7; o :� • . 01/47 9/SCA2 9A/7 1/ c E-: Jl/L- 6,�. ft%.9/t1 AIA L$ ) 1111 1 AV 94/92 griqZ eov)4 ,)A fi s -7Y1 PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY• changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermo7a) eac . Name Printed Si ' �� Address A�' , / �( '/� � Phone i <<-J�-1 RO `.5./(,(6-)/((4 /� �. r, ;: -T Dat 1 ltii a (1_,/c/ S ) c,G 4, 7 r� ee'?^_ `moi `' c'L t'✓tet /S / K / O_ ' . al X#Ti3riwiiiir; bt. iiir4K . Yo. 6 77/- . " A -t., -A LS "ii 'Vit ti., z, - .4. /-77e-:Arr 6,/'.7 .-_-, v- ic,-, (-- 7 f� _ /11 ,\ ,/ �.362- / f -, -- J 3 pt1-tAl 4r~ _ +_ ate:' 1.11 ingrAgier aralriar: • ( 1 JkicU s 4lI' k1. // /57 c-� 2 / � . /gee' ,:- t, .T -17-.7- / T-17-.- C•' T l / 37 12 7/,,g�� / 1 ERt OSA BEACH :SIDE YARD PARKING Wo, th:r undersigned rnr,_ldr,ntq of the City of Hermosa Ecce ��chezngr?,s from the historical permission to par. k automobi.le� on soon walk street eidE 1 or front yards in HermosFl Beach. 9 Y oppose ANY We 4cknowZr�dr�F, that: parking eoblems and that any 7 is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical areas,p,� prohjb tt.ion or reduct:lon of the historical would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowdedparking in such areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. parking Name Printed Si nature Address .S lig tA Sher€11447 F_r_�., ._.-tea_ �✓��usz. �__ -3� stln.goil) �, TENS/NS 744/4_701/4/ DEng Phone' ate (1-37q.2 !2 lnlr.1'•p �ir? ern Ccc,a .i • // %� Sri ✓� _10,& ,2: DY4( 9-2 • !"fid cath /, F -z'-- 9../J z 8. 9, /o. PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING • We, the undersigned residents of the City • of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical. problems •and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such • areas, would have tremendous negative . impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of. Hermosa Beach. Name Printed •xJ.. iJj7r1c 4/\ L22M^ Signature Address Phone bS - I jet -6 -Q ---- lT/2 ,9/ /D( 3 �`1kNF 06414A\ 1,u4,-, I i# 6:u Ic. ems.,_ 1,0 96)�,. z1S�fu 11 l- ,; love (11-1, Cr_ .�.# 16511 �l day' to (t Date Date s?r130 z 30/9-z eAcyfiL- - 3/3e)/Pa-- 3 5, P 4uu- / (Y (1 t ee bv(c)e a_ t 4f -ah flio (7,L2 �l) ?/w7; :PAiej g.136 g. 9, /o. i/ PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY'. changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Name Printed Signature Address 4C___ /6?=/ 5' Phone Date '‘"Tc—) A • rv�r1 tA1,4 J a'rj /''(.Gil 1 lei .1otN f 4a r To ( Y e --Doi fir_ ,9 1v 311 .3o7" ,ice. 'y � l z� .c (k'U- Wi p(2.cs .1-4`15} • \- 5 6541 1,z2i /1-6: / 3171c- � r. Lf(f011/< C' 1.S/ 3i 61 .4ve '2. A,�✓� _I�� -�� /ZX 7 /719 6. 4 c 4-1 4 s'v►'\ (7 1-1 ! 6•a`--( Wt 4-A444-7-7410 4-✓ . E..,c . c . _ L. V ,t. 11 11 --9-‘/.-L- le i' G e-- 0 - •- - /1'D r )ucf i+ -h W61 rk / arkcei . k4A, ..3 )/ Jy - . /4" 2/ AIA -C..- 111"/ DAL() .15-:)--/ i i. S *ii-foll (:)4- 2 -Iiia OD's? tli:Voc_cit, kife-t-T brc-k, 1\\' \ }` p. / iv 1_4\wczk a" _, f f t g//4. i -.-2-i Mc N V 8L it -Z. K - 8 . - 8 /3°/52. 1:Y q isr. rai✓ iv ht.f) .. 00; 5%5 0/, 06,2 p/t -t_ 4-)-4 " g_ (:fit rvwE= .4- ru.(re_. Sir ,401 to -eve, SSI PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach ongly oppose ANY • changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Name 'Printed .L -r; • Signature ';t 4A'( Address Phone Date /AfL 21.3•x^ .rn `IKTz/E: 4(iF r,167 2°1-4 Nov!(em,! Sd % s • P, 174- i/vlc if -lel' _.\e 0.fi L.L. . ,dfl.Cf �(...Jeit!5-- .4472041)n 3. gi ?/. ;,1,1.. Ems; INS ) r A-Ipte4 z_r I 6-60 3 *r2,57 ;00,2 9Ale F gVqz es Wq2_ sm/qz, l 4I'1.1•(.'%-C.e...e, )/va . /J -6J VI.// Fr, %-1- _T i 2ii/ L,/ /, 7 y (./ fiL t• . s ,44 (7---- � 27.1'1z�1 )& P • ft J ��;�=� �s� ��_.� `lam L- - k €.3 7 Y 7 lig J PETITION HERMOSA BEACHISS DE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents. of the City of Hermosa changes from the. historical or front yards in Hermosa Beach.' ission to park 'automobiles st'rcr�gli, oppose AN on ;walk street sid We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa•Beac his problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the to chronic and. critics areas, .would have tremendous negative impact on historical parking areas on the streets of .Hermosa Beach, in sucl p already. overcrowded parkini Name Printed S nature 1, / '.4 Gt,( `A NMI afe- 4 / for i� �M 0.1))1- 0/-_,) l� i; cs— /I 1 / , -,i, ) /TC P , .-1 Address Phone r4z-2moS'A Avg" • ••, .@ i e 200 gfhS.* .17 .0 r GFX/ Me-/2heof/A.: A VQ, fattyt �i { 1l ,AA,rrly (1 1 -nN'rr+ 3 c. ti 1 c -es 1 / Gi Avc l( IL A, tL'-,.s 1171 i Date 9Z 9 CIZn'aI)J »J rkrn bs .h /S? orola 4- C` S Viz- Z: s-7111 Sic �2s a, 3, 7 , 7, 9, /o, /1. /2. /3, PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents . of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose AN changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street aid or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critica problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in suc areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parkin, areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Name Printed fU ff1t/ 114 1 �!`P'C.''1.��%��. .�l'-�1./l�i i'D.-.1.�/�' {�1�f�%QfC./ ///te- ,-- ..,/ --l= -, ,. ;.;�;-.-,{>...../ -7;; . _' % 1�,�1, , .. 0 - ,, . -).,..i_p,., i Ph/ 0,/-7- /4, (:)7 4-- Pp -i -q-3 -5/.),<--- , c ) .1 Q '''''-fg(.1 .i -k A. ,../c Lc -7-)-) „:7--4-;i1A •-•:, \.(' ..... .1.-( , (',%. Co,. 9(.0 q((-fitij; (1 -Ni:( Cc, ,., 7 ;-",,*.' ( 1,14 1 tf.t,s-Ki 1(•'('/.-F. ' '71./oh.; Phone Date V (L L(*/(K � f/, /I ( (: \s6 (LA,: /L- I102:1" ;'1.64 ti 7 �•.�—/7'.'.. 1) A .' ),, /( uF G %�a/J (/f / ./ %1`'x;7 z l 27% :kR7 91'1/ 3, 7. S. 9, /2. /3. PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strop 1 changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk streetet side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking •is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic -and problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parkingethical areas on the streets of areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overc owdeda such Hermosa Beach. parking Name Printed .14...tif..it Acs4I/ Si nature %few Ao Address r aA 41, Phone Date 2f/ os;: ,fit// - � 14. 4,� �12Lc'MADg, AraDVVAMIlailIFL, 4/: F 4 vc ArdWriallall= vairAminimrxdpr .t.Vi,1% Al ra do lb illV,' ! i .d)::::- -e_ -7--i)vii)()> :-.4 '1hq es_so e� 0( - ' F i.-, (. w r e /47 /. c-/2 .. 1 _v . - •1 V'1 .\/" Al.\^a., t\;E_ ct K,, /4,/p/icr5'/' /TVc: A/6 6, ' / 1/';- �. , l /LI Jq A 1 i'Y\., - r.. ' 1 ' 4/, .S, 6 9, /D, //, /2. /3, /4/. /6, / 7, PETITION HERMOSA BEACH YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents. of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk str et s. or front yards in Hermdsa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critic problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in st areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded park] areas on the streets of ,Hermosa Beach. Name Printed )f SSin nature Address 7/ / sC 4 i • 1 Arr ofillr o e.kul t .) AMOK L /3° ?-c-: �f p (>iNcl04 4 v Pci L \c Ioi.t,(9 117(-7(_i c�.,G( J 1 - 6 //, //L /,� t 4 107 Unc)1 :St- Phone'' Date 4' 11 L5 e= LtD5F 3r. 44 2 111) W,utlatt-; , .LL .14-C; lr ( 1. ,y, / . 3, 4/1 7. 9, /1. /2. / �. is /6, /7, _ /916S Cohcke") g. PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residentsof the Ci strongly oppose Ah changes to from the historical permissionpark automobiles y of Hermosa Beach 8 n°wak street sic or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa. Beach's most chronic and criticE problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in suc areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parkin areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Name Printed ( 4 •Si. nature itit .1 "e :5 v;'l /;/'.,C. I I/'=J!i A % e;C{ r1; c I '/11.4x) 7 ,,.d . /(.. 1. Jet ew,.': / G40,/, ,de ;73 Address /45+ ,,1l 06're(1 /1/' /,/& Phone ca m -7,/ya.-ur =.e.t=-`' O �', / �r7 . i (:12-14146 "/,d y/ f, Imo, r rti , V LEE tti " • 2 / '/2 ,...(f-1„ S '.- /fes 1 ` y ` 7 7 y �/ ,35o 1(4.10,41(1/64i Ave. kseFYjo 3 Oe ' ({ l o FJi �/S ✓G 2-0. .Po L ;047-1E-72._ ! X - ;z ler-0 # f ° er Z.43c2-M.: SA 'AVG PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE . YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents . of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose AIV changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street sid or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critica problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in suc areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parkin areas on the streets of . Hermosa Beach. Name Printed Signature Address• Phone . Date CSGj/ % �ih�• 1.4 -11Y1 ner t--61 c-100:3 41-11, itYL 14--ecdu-L? Ia.s6 t s -f 3d1-241/7/1/.74/a,e() - kit d 33UZ lututittcf etk Ai/ t -3. :I Z at nn114- ,/# L /6-0 /y/eirt%.4- -0e c7ri Q -/4A-: {{ -TO /1. Vvt'-rz,v F7)FF /3, • nth t i/comav6 f A t k`i Ai /V ././rAtitt 1.� OV t -bo j4- 2-1°' 'ice /1-(.p s—, - MIA .a q,t /4/. aAA OLy%! 6 , '�o_'1Z..1 / %, • ,'ham r It\ O./kV(' -\; O 4) %z(? ,30j:E�.� g -y j°ic) v?) -1-14._ 7 .$u;: a (/(14e,,, 7, 81ccs S`) I I/-itLa-n:.v, e t),01► '-/ ' ii! (-1 (r1Ki111/0 S/ # 'feu) Li- c tit-:: .1. 9L Asy PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY' changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Namel Printed Si nature db. LA:1 ,64-/v/g,cw:d (rG� Address 4 SViic7fce /-74.5 t �'` � c 2 d'f7iL.r i✓ 1.ie Oc) i C ug.i .. h t Y� :: f c' ART - ao f'� •-e _ �2 Date • 8 28' yz '2 . �, ))4-( ' 1. �T ).: , A,..) /\) .reed /A)194 t'A) (Y.", c 1.r1 1740 a - S //1./ 7 0A; k)' 02 SeAlit l CJ c? /,,-14/7"7.).4: 5/ x574 �".i ./D4z_. c/.? / 5' tip' 17 9, 9. ,o. 2/. 'Tim Lcve :sr 19J-1 V(0tt•- C%r s s z (0o �f ti- e o ia I-1 4.-1 - qa- r,. PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on strop walk. street side 1 or front yards in Hermosa Beach.9 1' °Pilose ANY' We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical chronic and criticah areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already parking in such areas on the streets � of.. Hermosa Beach, overcrowded parking Name Printed Si- nature K 4 CI1 r�>v ager AINIMMISDA AAA 'ima • - mom lel Address 3� -The sr -16,10-6 i l j (A. `--11(1 I a. 5teiC� i ugw S -CSL 1 i 7ck >l e 32 3e5 2/ ., , AV • tee* 2.0 Agr- „Am. .7 'a.„ 1??1,- Phone j4 6 V Ale Date (thi _q %�, 3 - t 90� ■n.�j . 444,, C �a•57 kyr / 7S71-101 X13 - ria �3 ) / l ` �4("e_. % V V R o' r�;u,, C„:f._-71C PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the Ci ty of Hermosa Beach 9 Y changes from the historical permission o pa k utomobiles s n�oppose ANY walk stree or front yards in Hermosa Beach. t side .We acknowledge that.parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibitionp or reduction of the historical arking in such areas, would have. tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded areas on the streets of . Hermosa Beach. parking Name Printed Si nature 1 C, tl .,'� (p) Address Phone I I. z 8.. 9, /0. //. /2. /3, -', Ccs a L ER 14 L !� /)I 1' :l 1 5'e r 7 /IAeIoi, T J / 7 tsiti (4 i ..7.6T.141'-4..1 91s / Y ,,:k19./61,9 2 PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD. PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach s - • -gly oppose 'ANY' changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa. Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Name Printed Signature 15 COO VI 3-eo g rib cb7-5 , hi, 02k1ETT" 1� 6/64 Ddg Address Phone $56 moot-elec.) pi 05 /cv 7' -z/ ickoC-61C.7 L Date 6(36/T -z, IJ `'S, /2D PCH #3/4 a /33 3S Orr/ 6133 -3co fit" ke.../;, c . 7f 1 /554- e ;S car• 7-- 54 0/ 7-7,./ --eal" 1 .., 7 05 lia.-U-cD, 3 t V,Z , AiS26-4 rivi,a4K,...-,L.yo.4_,,,e-ii-c-c-yci/c2 ,_ —Fr -4)v /6e),...„_,)r,i,,fre /3 3 QE,L ►Seg G" 19i 3 c.. 1 \,:c 41 ACom( e -b c ZEIJ qy- 3 z� 714, NOL ..2a.rA h,ct 0 '- 41�, �/5 jr PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY' changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that anyprohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Name Printed (R\c\:..\ \\lc:NI 3 Sig 01 Address Phone Date YI 1 CL (Th�Z*Al D.J'Y1 J Q.v' 9, (i / /-/4e040-Cf. (9/3/ % 6.d/ IZyI c' a 6170. S -a 9- ?a 00)- _) �/sem 9� 2.1. Bi h �f PADA? 1'6)1'A-hot/kat-am . 7' -g 3 23 ?/ 30/ /0. M r,4. _ (7/9 � -� ie //.///4-ta&e_ /2. /3. ,-4-4-3c 'J r') G Gom_ RErii-sr . 'g-/4 (loft- t, e. g2c5.4 .1 (23 er F i P/c / 92-9 (1si//ey /fir,¢ /�✓ E? \T \ C -A G • 114 �., / 484 2,5111 —..z7/1—= 7 4.64 Q ,2)7) P C h l -%n. (i)Cwt 014, '1-3C)) PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY' changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Namz„, e Printed•Sig �r Vi n ETY1 (ay) I • Address Phone ( 3t eA-\\ tl M\S-4 is • t( Date rau vNli..i f� ,PA -4 7 /. _ (7/9 m ei /641,.2, 9 .4. .1, ‘J.11 `JA .fig . „Lis 10Z RRFr Sr, " �y. as€ (P. old i'ry -A 123 /� LT -Wu X 92-9 v41/9/ /!j44,, -rr�n /f. r 011° 2C..) n C Pc h 1-124.42. t.a6ti 2,0 C c 484 2.5:1c4 . _ ..- g / 3o/ 92 ..2/. PETITION(I)HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YPARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach. strongly oppose ANY' changes from the historical permission. to park automobiles . on w_ treat side or front yards in Hermosa . Beach. We acknowledge .that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chr• _ .. critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Name Printed .• ✓ Signatu e Address f'" -5. -1-i) yv\ A. G Ti 0 /4"/qq,)- -PM* S7A SA "A a - 4, JrKe,C) nef h 'Rak \ lit ,,( 4,/ / s. Phone Date 4r2APL 6, -c,— V 'ii s ? ..A-E, . ,r ap. , AC l rl=P41u q 2 (;ff .S 2 V .P-`7 s% !- ,rmoso ' l /,'re.,,.._ E.,/,' ( riu.✓+ 2-y _? .. 7 4.4 sji----_ / -ma r c,___ , t) g, / /. 44,x:,_ n_v, 5'Y Cc,� Geu z c14 -4,x,,--,0___ /2. .. ...... / r J()`\ 0-4 z S-1 - )zqJ'.1r/2_9/7L_. (14id iib' h ► ,-�, c. 1�P\kACP- &JrU Z �L �' ,lhme 444 1.l /& /° "d --f/Ye Li o_sG�- A _ g 2ti r • • /•676„z,,� 100,60-1 &!oft Guatit6✓ .2o4 Fd S%2q�R< PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YA KING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY' changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk str3=ide or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one. of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and cal problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Names Printed Signature Address Phone Date ?J1 l.t,t .'... - / �� Y,C(r'Le,,,.%`-ey V) ( vr/ 2� 1 / // �r 12t? / c/ ` � ��7 , z - 59-v21: Pr 1 l� c) /'.rciaZ_ (7CA3F\ ?rca 2�.�tirf-( -G 33 ie-/, 1703. f11(6( nt 4 _ . Lvt, \W xz.5'7.714,4.42,S AA 1) etin ("l /-- 46c-Ot\\-V2-{,pco ,s% ()/4/Ai e,V./ /e/ :91*D- 2al 4 / Q L 1-9X- �C ) i irl(t1/1 14 %.1 A to Poroace-(.3 ,-A°IryikInz.a ,PdA a-. oto_alci , z,e__,--zr-- /1), 2., .? _c'/ s /.4f0745/)- / f.4SAY /j c. / / c.e_w`7 `_--- Nr 11 i",.,� c6:- f� / s; �5 0, i�L� �oa5 ci2qj PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose .ANY' .changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on: walk street side . or front yards in Hermosa Beach. . We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of • the. historical parking in such;`:.;. areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parkin` areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Name Printed Mi\v, V(Zeti Signature .Address Phone Date 1.Jc. /N c-tc.7 'I. - r-fr,J,-r /1)1,34 Mgit,f-e Xje. A gAug-IA-r'(Pvg E. . /h��,eTt t9 ,/ 5/. Xqc I// ey 9L. 649/s✓.. )1ii\1& ai In,1r,��l ��J _.4 211-11 4r-k)(2(r 75 /Z.1 /k'Jc- Jtait,fryrkii, 7Fvc1 11n14. ..%, A.1 -4s 2_ f / `( •— — 5T--- - Gre*Ai, 12-6 5 `f Wig..IlnI \PJ?ccs`s, . h en 1.131 c nA .,, 1►7 I-3 � -L � v x%0, 3 2 ' /rO.#, /!ex°No.) ,dam Z rti V -w R1,2_1112 m �� vott f4 i(f-e )-1, . a � o0,-9 (\l\c) Q ae•ez;1- gidg4)_ 7,ft/qk cli)scW 3(471 12_9 AL- PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY' changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street = •e or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and c - cal problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Name Printed Signature k_��t � .rc_rc//97(//) � b Address Phone lio6k 'yap 423V-•-• ..4 . A21utac( 4 r y62. 1.11/ (In d e1-2/Yr) C, -N a. /a A 5,0 a c Date 9 8. 9, /O. /3. I .LL • 'L4\ V � ,'/2 0-0cem Ca ( AfiAik AJ erJ— ereihAt ei _ 1/, ti11-)SA�, rrnp-x ))P Li 1 i�.'i 5 ktIn sri_ (;,;Z 22/6 S+* /a 4/21/f, 8�21/1Z __sz2.9A2 si rn ca. darnyyv,sa 4ci sc f At THAT- *- /41)-4/4- 8.)(?qic, 8.E; 2- L cv I :re", fi.l<j fl eiNIA.Hcfl .��. C. /'(((, (141 u K [110(Ker ,?oar) 5trah j /YE?, PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of . Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY' changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walIsistz eet side. or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic\and' critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Name Printed Signature Address Phone Date /.ARCA e MLQ. FRO OCer-45-tiMic agzatt los& 8 f3 e' — 7 -7 44 3, 6t 7. 8. • (: C' � ne, grit\ D, c 1-14,4. r S20)3/ (2,4Y.ktiii. C7- ) ct '114 Si Rianiii :t/ 2_415 /sib 1 1,o - /o ( c2_: / / 5- ,4 -4 f- `-- r7"7 v ti c'I,i /C. �G a z z A6/ /7Z--( s . • /1. tc-LD LtAl It mt46-T4 4/C - /L• \ ,,, C�... kcio \\()53, --)c.•14Z_. /41. / 7. l �", :��- ; �. 3. I I 6, 7. 9. /o. 1/. /2 /3. /14. /3- /6. PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY' changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on wal eet side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronicn critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical par ngin such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Name Printed Ylda \. kit, .floc yr gr' • I nature Address 4 4 4 Phone Date . D 51YO aq -C19- hieeeV J/.B W?/-. Leg It/ /(GNiF2e. ,s . gee/tout-2444 CA • o • /7o7P *4'8 flov &i.t #.1 A srJ-cif 8)cazi, 41/47/-e 47444o51( f I "4 f.lL g4 s ...gei,4( _ ./ d / , ft / % fr--Z 1'73/ ('r,' i a /1/ , '22 �( ! 3 l Vg //-a-gfir, . g , x'19-1 -5 i/ c 0 7;0x . 1413. a° i S G< 1 `t d Et ica3 90ar '"\ t r� acs "%os -G, /go 4-6 Mcr hr2_ VOA q \\J/ox ( 1 e. ic1-. 14 ��1 • 1 7/ e. 9, 'O. PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose . ANY' changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. N inted e PrIgna re Address ��hon Pe Date RIOS illOgIN cZ 2 4v vPPsr 237 Oa ( Df _ - g glz71! I ■_ ./ - 1 Q s ��v YY4'-E ! c 1 • 0i'4712.1 /6 gel. S6 -toy/ /I IQ Ate& • -ke___agatg,fr t 50.writ(colt o 5 I-V- Y\ `� �� L� X54- tt,R, Of- 0z 311tX P a 762r4., 5 -Is•1-4 gC,S-6_ � 4011) ¥i A 1514 54 - /-z-9i Jil 0 42.- 4- c ct'vl , *CP_ . 44 rac,bt/ 31. fSf 6-0 7-a-? ,)/..,,, 53 ,5'4 Sy. io /L//9v v 4 &( T (A.114 3b2 71t.e sf(?) j , 3/2/9Z , i1.0)'r-{ C. hit 141,t 44,4� f . 74, :4} 3,7z 71-1 •srles,,42, PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY' changes from the historicalpermission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Name Printed Si 7J7vc.C. /r394. K` J Y• S72 42...R Ate -to /3ci 1 AD 244(4,c_,./(4„i„Qci : yz� (14-f per .e / revosk 3ew�� CJi - 11,4P-7_, go srr2A 0 He ,A -, ,' - - ,, 84 /v ,1., Q) v I` D CJ I .61, 4Qd(f r s, -' t:D c i,, i _ „' - ,7L M QS / - - 114 f•/0. � 77, /. PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. /- v , Name Printed Signature gAddress Phone Date (1.7.:: K(mik -)"--5-n 11-7,7747(4 f 111 ) MP All Lk ( t(iAA ) Th2v1'Ad r 71 /1 K/2 3 461.:iliv-k. „ 309 ) /Z3 22/•7,11/5 ACK) . _ k_91. /),-/X 1'4 1 .,20&c- ,Th /2. / /3. - / IkAKG/7,-e.E-7----- AL -PI i'l . 1 ' ' F -' - ,.. A)kt).. ., )11 ,1”) / IpA -3 ./ 16, Ai i Go Leel / /.9. ./,...:,,i 6,,, . / ,9. N\ .1Y -e_ 2-4 . 2i.- I. 4,1%1Y1V _., z . ' '). • ..... f . • ),(-) C//( J /-4 t- .5 -?7 /5.) 3 - 522 j4r61ti "--1gf C2.-`7 p/- Prz4v2-, ----( 6 /c- _s 4, ,,,( Aloj-L7 71 ) ltf\ Lig Irt (106)( L C (re Le /)/' r into /4 7 / 6 9 •- $(4/ 9-) f/ PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY' changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Name Printed 3. UEJ , <. i, S, 7• 7. 8. `9, GreYi '0.dal A Adndnress Phone Date 1 . .~exr, /52 /4,% 1(6014 (67-, .te $/ia/9 z shileas /f 9c 504 SET 9/t. v • 1 r.--te J/ _ 9/34/9".... -51) g 0— . A 7Z '1.'q't V) -- (((o (' S'fr Vii/ r 1c 38 ' tek k o/ 2/2 vsMsf-pi-,l� f)24/ 5'7" 9 _id/ ,P4 -o/5:, „74 61- Si- )-1J}%\O& eg1zr)9a- PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY`. changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk s reet side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic an critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Name Printed Signature c. ,5 rfeto 11..t, u.�.�:�, _- , ck ict o. S j 8. 9, /0. /1. /2. /3. /1. /S LEON1 Q�.�r1cr� S-anej Address Phone Date • 9(2.0z &AR:, eloCi)16777e,,qa? c'Iga rnbo tE (2717 oue /?9 Df /fern k7i%'Al6 140/ 2-1` 3 ekwintefki r\fit\ \.\:‘ ..r.r\\'',; 53l ( n ,;51:0 it i5( W 8I gi Alk ��. /� //l-cc-.�t.CY { :(-1 'e374N Z' /fi ", 1�7` ra -",4 L I ! (/ 3 2 4 kl )(id -3°2(F1 / g) �c ;-,2A (L- SSP Rk) 0'0 tea i(-tki,L. • ----) ti(-6'-vk 9 --,(xu. a_.;-0.\ / 7.0' v1 fwv, 5d-L-('/,� 4-5 J -t, ;...9 . g. 6 � C IG SV oVo-/ _ w. -e-----______ 81-X/ qd- • 817e /. t" -?6,1u / / 4:L-0066/17 A aid /APP? 41-iL 9&2C f%, 1/v7/k cA 4,101 (b LL .:41.-21s'77//g PETITION HERMOSA . BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly: oppose ANY' changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is , one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Name Printed Signature Address Phone Date 7, 8. 9, PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY' changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Name Printed Signature efieL) (7nihrtzli �rvrZct& �&-T 73Pu'�ve.r Address Phone ate 82 z - Alt ar 8 3l -9�- /at) --34 fitgieti •c-7 194;4- . sfi/ / � 9)64 ( ii, 4l 11-1 IB r_/?- C (- s Q Ari /1. (nit. 'a l'61-0,0 n rk - 5('Q_ 04 .194 01 C drA e// l 4 44 Cet /Mr ( (4,0)a, ey5 -1 ) J p-)1 - /,5. `/ AvyiL ! i; 17 3i ( HI *. K13 C.A '10. j Z$4 m/i h rt A n tk. Q 902 Mi \-rrkr\) P- t4 -, R-0�-�- (-'oCau tf /74. 5 ` t /ot 1 v, l b,r% , - (T 1 11`8' , _ J_ .._ �1 l•'G,�' L/i/I) f ievc.,..o se, five C _ 0(1 Iv k _ Nick PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY7 changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledgethat parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Name Printed Signature P Address Phone ece,r �o. 1 17 l -.e rc d �Sl • ,. (-facts Fi, o s+ -6'-(0 /Gc-e S� Date 9, e;2es'/ - We Git d(2 8 -AP -P ST /2. ofi& /a2 qGT.7 .?( /3, ariaKtovv__ 4a4'1vo. A ed_Ul I bid iki'doei\Au-Q t1 -(1410A 0 OW c `?/ 37 H \3� .77/ %1-33 /.: iL/Q d\_ 7y3 T' 71 lac/� tom 14 V/2 // L `o2Sy • 9/V? a 7- l 53( - ?q 11, 61, �� l PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of .Hermosa Beach strongly .oppose ANY' changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in. Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of. the historical parking in such.. areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa .Beach. Name Printed Signature 1 Address et 0 (; ger yY) i Phone Date -1- si 1 In' r4.n 1A -1,6\I - . 7-//k -P,;2 31 7/8 /)10.44 6Yk-,N) 4-151 •:---Z6 d".5 11-a�- - 7/3 rAcl‘i ( //"Ce,"/ -9-1, //,‘ 70 2 sy �� 12 AA/nse; frs 60 a q.113 ilailts ffor [;/- '- ;C-A--)'ti0)X0'. 8731 r3(2 AM- • 90.059 'F/3/ /ca:?3 114 .� (44- %� '• 4-. A i9M /�/// %w— / ►, - ✓�-L� Wiz'_ PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY' changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Name Printed Oiekb-77)9- 4/. ` .r 4r,(;) — rni s (3/44) (,)/4/T - Signature Address 8. KATHi v FR16 9' ))/3lJt'. /2 o, /L' �ahrir;�th-lh1G11 /41. ,r,)/ tik) • /7, t. r.L4 LAA 1 /- -CY( .61J !� zo. SDI o r P/ifrie Phone /9t --f 146 ..d 24.4. 4h?• • 21,1/9 Pfiuv1 3 qZ (3r. ..., p(--& �.� / (61A, �!1,7J SG &,-//(� // / 7 f � ' 4,e • 9 j/,g.!�t...., 0. 114. F3 ? ! ?�3 (/��. �r , �,'�;�, 0 -Ar -e / r . z efiA,e163-s c -2,r c„ -t- W qz- '2tif 77o (;_,1 -)/5 7/9 c -C' PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beachstrongly oppose ANY'. changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. • Name Printed f I-4 /C;• l,r�/i 4 PA Signature A )(7 §-rra \);oh 1erMa6 l�6c\C's L4 Address . y� Phone ?/-.1117 1 /5 );;Y/d/'1.111 ', Ae.g,,, CGU s CI, A A A. g,\)J ,V-S4..1C/ J YJ Date �9 /41 29" 31v -7(.07o 41. ?C2, ii'?,- li11 DJlgl4�'F .�D mo5N , itno, 6 0 a./ 4.57-1g0 it..6 /44. (9.2/5t/leiralk4 &iihak� kIl/ f ( ;—v t„ `(anv /9\2/stile/Ivo (/)c�t ,IT (. litif-0- ..O 2. t mktre 5k'1k kY -w zo• giJ o a054$0 .2/. 77C -416-r- 2. C f -r- K,- flait.ls.4168, ,;)3V With 4 l_ /47, 77,44114 "( 41 J-� PETITION HERMOSA BEACH DE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly 0 changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street or front yards in Hermosa Beach. 9 Y PPose ANY' t side We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parkingin areas, would. have tremendous negative impact on alreadyo Chronic and critical areas on the streets of : Hermosa Beach, such overcrowded parking Name Printed n _..- Address P n - o 917, ._.�.-_,-.,.,.,..T Date 1 b _ • 1 14- Y 1•IsSA !/ 0 �e/m?. -& AMP 1 1►- 111411. A..41111. 1 1-fd-r 1/2« --rat( 03� �IPrrv��s t I Y.X 9J //,(//164-i //a(. Zf . �'1lp Q3 • 4 1.9 N'ttsk fweto i -ice moo - 5 a v/�v�rt CSQ• ,e 7 c v. g £ t7•�.Y'� . Q 1/(11. k k )Oo'j /10 lir MIR 1l i $111.mt ...�u• '( CrMr*i mitt 9 /S//4� i/2-314-. i413 cp6.xs-el PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY'` changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Name Printed Signature Address Phone 1 1 t 1. / 1%l"44'/5 " `, p(o154.� `l'- /6 ru sr- ge ,4 a , u. /144/2 l7 - /4 f/.5 ; 9-2 >U /w 5 C,v/''r" /(' sr (14? /, /-(4 'tiPiz/a4// P('1 im iot 9, 'o ,/• 2 . '3, I• 9, 9. / ZS J 0o A. 0%-7122i-26.0.-/ ,1 111'—`sT,-4ci tr 2/, • S. I' 2 % s' .c' /lX �. 3 .1 CH '.'&k PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING. We, the undersigned residents of the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose ANY' changes from the historical permission to park automobiles on walk street side or front yards in Hermosa Beach. We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic and critical problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in such areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. Name Printed Signa cr Dike4111, n? 6' 1 & Rini i / C%�. TAY %r,/i/l (,;(((i J fi ture Address -/S. < Lre/-0," J , Phone L. A -4N) Carrte=ll, K Date 1/4/7-2 eyOz /3/sySCJ :i S3/19.4.7,11,L - - _ q,,X1 / .r `'ft. /�',� i4:•y -. S. o• /. 3, 0, c ,/944/4/a' 7/. " -2 4/4224 k /7/h c51-- ro 5;:' ;,(;N, 410 LA 1'4) LL,) ill M LLQ. c1.1 tt,j6 f a \�.. / tet"`l 6/ Chri.s Cheer) -7 3 -9_ r ,e 4140 (gq i k//! iih#771 pp R�� 2-c; r; L 1 l I r) -1'a ;1.44 —c' —L / C<A, c,CA- 64c c... Ci- (b 2-&-y 14,C" riijU C/ »ki) vz,�� -47; :5 a -4!) 18.41. s:t P, /� K- /L n/. l i2 ('-7 PETITION HERMOSA BEACH YARD PARKING .We, the undersigned residents. of the City of He the historical Beach strongly .or front yards in Hermosa Beach changes from mission to parmosa rk _automobiles on4PPosa AN3 walk street side We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most .and critical • problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the: historica 1 parking. 3n such areas, would have tremendous -negative impact on .already areas on the streets .of Hermosa Beach.. overcrowded parking Name Printed Si • nature lel sc �Un Ad s i Date ?ice 11 -{ St 71% p�' 11PS 2- �-- "1/61� S._rr �� ►�, /2 /3, ".7 PET--- ISN HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residentsof the City of Hereto changes from the historical permission to front yards historical Beach. Hermosa Beach strongly oppose Ain id€ park automobiles on walk street aide . Weacknowledge that parking is one of. Hermosa Beachs • problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the most chronic and critical .areas, •would have tremendous negative impact on alread y overcrowded parking areas on the streets of Hermosa Beach. historical parking in such Name Printed 4 O.) • A IIS 4 J nature 4 a Lamm D l? ' ►16 Address I l/�t� ✓rrr� irY 120. S /l/ L h•1i 411411 tP4,71(100We 641X !L 40-r Mr i °`'`^-e-Le C� (C • 4 ill 4" &a A/1W i10 • 0 At/1/icC L I/ C2v 2 !_vim 7, INF J. Mgr Yar Affinikt w.Nlanwrit impir • i►� ��Il l�r44 ' / Sa 2 i 3„, X36. f Phone • _ -Oh, n 0/P 4,•'u -`c ,` 71, .j ' 'we a _ L. _. LDate _7y2 7- - 9a 9- 9/7/f V7hl /21/ z. I .. y` 7 7/C1-4 ti/C 2 7 - 2 -77 9i? 3, 6, 7,. 9, /0. //, /2. PETITION HERMOSA BEACH SIDE YARD PARKING We, the undersigned residentsof the City of Hermosa Beach strongly oppose A14 changes from the historical. permission to park automobiles on walk street aid or front yards in Hermosa Beach, We acknowledge that parking is one of Hermosa Beach's most chronic problems and that any prohibition or reduction of the historical parking in suc' areas on the streets of areas, would have tremendous negative impact on already overcrowded parkin! Hermosa Beach. Name Printed Signatur Address Phone Date lj/K TV/,4 4 L 1_(\f �R vJ l<t1r, iAtrwtns x ‘4- 10.1s-4 s-/ ty Y�TL�1 /Z-5 7-w4 CiaCte tie G7.9 90 f 92Z , 9/8/c. 9z ,fig/Qz