The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/09/937. 555;, "Do not let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do." -John Wooden AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, March 9, 1993 - Council Chambers, City Hall MAYOR Albert Wiemans MAYOR PRO TEM Sam Y. Edgerton COUNCILMEMBERS Robert Benz Robert Essertier Kathleen Midstokke 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, Fire Department, Public Library, the Office of the City Clerk, and the Chamber of Commerce. During the meeting a packet also is available in the Council foyer. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Members of the Public wishing to address the City Council on any items within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. (Exception: Comments on public hearing items must be heard during the public hearings.) Please limit comments to one minute. Citizens also may speak: 1) during Consent Calendar consideration or Public Hearings, 2) with the Mayor's consent, during discussion of items appearing under Municipal Matters, and 3) before the close of the meeting during "Citizen Comments". Citizens with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are requested to submit those comments to the City Manager. -- 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 Where there is no vision the people perish... HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WELCOME! By your presence in the City Council Chambers you areparticipating in the process of representative government.' Your government welcomes your interest and hopes youwill 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 com- pilation, they will be distributed prior to the Council meeting. Oral communications with Councilmembers may beaccomplished 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) w 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. ,/(g) ✓ (h) ,i (i) 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. Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on February 23, 1993. Recommendation to ratify Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive, and to cancel certain warrants as recommended by the City Treasurer. Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. Recommendation to receive and file the January, 1993 City Treasurer's report. Recommendation to receive and file the February, 1993 monthly investment report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated March 1, 1993. Recommendation to adopt -resolution ordering the prepara- tion of a report for the formation of the Hermosa Beach Street Lighting District during fiscal year 1993-94. Memorandum from Public Works Director Charles McDonald dated February 8, 1993. Recommendation to adopt resolution ordering the prepara- tion of a report for the formation of the Hermosa Beach Crossing Guards Maintenance District during fiscal year 1993-94. Memorandum from Public Works Director Charles McDonald dated February 8, 1993. Recommendation to approve renewal of lease agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and Beach Cities Coalition for Drug Free Youth, Inc. for the use of Room 4 in the Community Center. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated March 2, 1993. Recommendation to approve Women's Professional Volley- ball AssociationcTournament-)June 12 and 13, 1993. Memo- randum from. Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated March 1, 1993. CONSENT ORDINANCES. ORDINANCE NO. 93-1083; AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WITHTHE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RE- TIREMENT SYSTEM AUTHORIZING SECTION 20930.3 - MILITARY SERVICE CREDIT FOR LOCAL POLICE MEMBERS ONLY. For adoption (b) AN-ORDINANCE\OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AMENDING THE CITY CODE TO ALLOW VEHICLE PARKING ON PUBLIC STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE WALK STREETS ON THE WEST SIDE OF BEACH DRIVE. For waiver of full reading and introduc- ,tion:, Memorandum from Public Works Director Charles McDonald dated March 2, 1993. 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 B. J. Mitchell dated February requesting the Council to place a hold on reconstruction project until its position by the courts. 16, 1993 the Strand is clarified PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. y% 5. TEXTAMENDMENT,TO SIGN ORDINANCE AND TO RELOCATE THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated March 1, 1993. 1/ 6. TEXT AMENDMENT\ REVISING NONCONFORMING ORDINANCE ON DAMAGED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. Memorandum from Plan- ning Director Michael Schubach dated March 3, 1993. i/ 7. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADOPT CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN (CMP)/TRANSPOR_TATION_DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) ORDINANCE, with ordinance for -introduction. Memorandum from Plan- ning Director Michael Schubach dated March 1, 1993. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 8. MID -YEAR BUDGET REVIEW FY City Manager Frederick R. Viki Copeland dated March February 23, 1993 meeting. 1992-93. Memorandum from Ferrin and Finance Director 3, 1993. (Continued from 9. RECOMMENDED USE OF ASSEMBLY BILL 702 RETIREMENT REFUND. Memorandum from City Manager Frederick R. Ferrin dated February 22_, 1993. 10. STATUS REPORT ON PARKING LOT CONFIGURATION, VICINITY OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN SECOND AND THIRD STREETS. Memorandum from City Manager Frederick R. Ferrin dated February 3, 1993. (Continued from February 23, 1993 meeting.) CONTRACTRENEWAL BETWEEN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BEACHES AND HAR- BORS. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated March 1, 1993. 3 12. REQUEST BY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO USE THE WAVE VEHICLES TO HELP TRANSPORT PERSONS BETWEEN THE FIESTA DE LAS ARTES AND THE REMOTE PARKING AREAS. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated March 2, 1993. V/13. `AWARD OF -BID -;FOR 300 FT. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICING SER- VICE. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated March 1, 1993. 14. 15. (a) MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL Notification of absences of Cable TV Board member. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated March 2, 1993. (b) Report on publishing a tentative City Council agenda in the Easy Reader. Memorandum from City Manager Frederick R. Ferrin dated March 3, 1993. 16. 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 Edgerton to direct staff to prepare a resolution to forbid the sale of used guns and confiscated guns by the Police Department. (b) Request by Councilmember Benz for consideration of elimination of red stripes between parking spaces. (c) (d) Request by Councilmember Benz for consideration of re- ducing the price of parking tickets in commercial areas. Request by Councilmember Midstokke for discussion of prohibiting smoking in all public buildings. 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 Pl• MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CIT COUNCIL of the Ci'y of Herm sa Beach, California, held on March 9, 1993, at the hour of 7:3 P.M. ***** start page = 80?? *********** C i 1-1,2,E-4 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Ez G --ow ROLL CALL Present: Benz, Absent: -ice` Edge ton, Essertier, Midstokke, 7; 3Y /10 Mayor Wiemans PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Members of the Public wishing to address the City Council on any items within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. (Exception: Comments on public hearing items must be heard during the public hearings.) Please limit comments to one minute. Citizens also may speak: 1) during Consent Calendar consideration or Public Hearings, 2) with the Mayor's consent, during discussion of items appearing under Municipal Matters, and 3) before the close of the meeting during "Citizen Comments". Citizens with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are requested to submit those comments to the City Manager. Coming forward to address the Council at this time were: li✓ --� =rte J -Z C7 i/ 5.; aV '.„—yL A -0L...) , A, % : 5Cp oe---/ LS /i490 -7-c_ -,0.9 — 0C? -A &( .€57 7 : ax 0 Lz-p.„, ,64,L7L I 4 7,- L_i7-----c2-)-- .;- ,--- 4.-e 0 ---6%C?/--- --:: C---,, ,,,' .;+•-• .--. .----,a ? --) .G---J---"v"c:) )--1- /----""3 J.(..-----/' , t.....A.----J k..X,---, ,....„ ,oefe,...„, AL). „„___)- y Council Minutes 03-09-93 Page 1 • 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 Action: To approve the Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (i), with the exception of the following rj)items which were removed for discussion in item 3, but are shown in order for clarity: Vv(c) WriP , , (h) W , and Motion - , second ) . So ordered. C t 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 February 23, 1993. (b) Action: To approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 12, 1993, as presented. Recommendation to ratify Demands and Warrants No. 43140, and Nos. 43245 through 43345 inclusive, noting voided warrants Nos. 43254, 43255, 43265, 43275, and 43292, and to cancel certain warrants as recommended by the City Treasurer. Action: To ratify the demands and warrants as presented. City Council Minutes 03-09-93 Page 2 6.4/ (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. Action: To receive and file the items as presented. tentative future agenda (d) Recommendation to receive and file the January, 1993 City Treasurer's report. Action: To receive and file the January, 1993 City Treasurer's report. (e) (f) Recommendation to receive and file the February, 1993 monthly investment report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated March 1, 1993. Action: To receive and file the February, 1993 monthly investment report. Recommendation to adopt resolution ordering the prepara- tion of a report for the formation of the Hermosa Beach Street Lighting District during fiscal year 1993-94. Memorandum from Public Works Director Charles McDonald dated February 8, 1993. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 93-559', entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO PREPARE A REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 4, CHAP- TER 1, PART 2, 'LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972,' BEING DIVISION 15, STREETS AND HIGHWAY CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHTING FIXTURES, APPURTENANCES AND APPURTENANT WORK AND THE MAINTENANCE THEREOF IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CAL- IFORNIA, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 1993 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1994." City Council Minutes 03-09-93 Page 3 (g) Recommendation to adopt resolution ordering the prepara- tion of a report for the formation of the Hermosa Beach Crossing Guards Maintenance District during fiscal year 1993-94. Memorandum from Public Works Director Charles McDonald dated February 8, 1993. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 93,19,a entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO PREPARE A REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 2, CHAP- TER 3.5, TITLE 5, OF 'THE CROSSING GUARDS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (ACT OF 1974),' BEING DIVISION 2, OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE FOR- MATION OF A CROSSING GUARDS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 1993 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1994." Recommendation to approve renewal of lease agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and Beach Cities Coalition for Drug Free Youth, Inc. for the use of Room 4 in the Community Cie Memorandum from Community Resources Direrary Roone dated March 2, 1993. Action: TSS approve e ewal of lease agreement with Beach Cities Coalition for Drug Free Youth, Inc. for the use of Room 4 in the Community Center (798 square feet), with a monthly rental of $670 ($.84/sq.ft.) and an in- crease to $694 as of July 1, 1993. Recommendation to approve Women's Professional Volley- ball Association Tournament June 12 and 13, 1993. Memo- randum from Community Resources Director ary oone dated March 1, 1993. Action: To approve the Women's Professional Volleyball Association Tournament to be held on the Pier Courts June 12 and 13, 1993, and to authorize(t e Mayor to ex- ecute the contract. Q2 14 /A•Oic) if/Y -1/ Q) City Council. Minutes 03-09-93 Page 4 • 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. (a) ORDINANCE NO. 93-1083 - AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WITH THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RE- TIREMENT SYSTEM AUTHORIZING SECTION 20930.3 - MILITARY SERVICE CREDIT FOR LOCAL POLICE MEMBERS ONLY. For adoption. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 93-1083. Motion ��, second . So ordered (b) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AMENDING THE CITY CODE TO ALLOW VEHICLE PARKING ON PUBLIC STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE WALK STREETS ON THE WEST SIDE OF BEACH DRIVE. For waiver of full reading and introduc- tion. Memorandum from Public Works Director Charles McDonald dated March 2, 1993. Public Works Director McDonald presented the staff re- port and responded to Council questions. Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 93-1-g. 7 Motion '';=J f second ,44? . /ITh+e motion) .3-F, -- Ga' l ''` > rte! --zi yt Final Action: To waive further reading of Ordinance No. /)o 93 -JO 'y, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA I' / j1/ N 6 BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO AMEND THE CITY CODE TO ALLOW VEHI- CLE PARKING ON PUBLIC STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE WALK :,( STREETS ON THE WEST SIDE OF BEACH VE." Motion , second iJQ1j A ( 61 Q1( AYES: c•"),/ � / � M � �' \ NOES; � ��♦V'i., / -� � —� ) /t � ,----611ty ounc minutes 03-09-9 Page 54v&f.jp .1/0/q/7' Au6bc wits -Corms U 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Items 1( ) and ( ) were heard at this time, but are shown in order for clarity. * Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. (a) Letter from B. J. Mitchell dated February 16, 1993 requesting the Council to place a hold on the Strand reconstruction project until its position is clarified by the courts. Coming forward to address the Council on this item was/ w: B.J. Mitchell - 135 31st Street, (— 6/9 — i4 ) /06 11 -Ye' Action: To Motion , second A . So ordered. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. TEXT AMENDMENT TO SIGN ORDINANCE AND TO RELOCATE THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. Memorandum from Planning anning Director Michael Schubach da ed March 1, 1993. an¢. Planning Director Schubach presented the staff reporfZ and responded to Council questions. �,/ G. 717 fo,(‘L )v ( L-,,Le_.,01-‘ 0 /7/7. C5'1" = ,'9t-, City Council Minutes 03-09-93 Page The public hearing opened at i:35 P.M. Coming the Council on this item ,/were: forward to address The public hearing closed at g:$ P.M. Action: To approve the Planning Commission recommenda- tion and introduce Ordinance No. 98- to amend the sign ordinance. Motion , second Action: To approve the staff recommendation and intro- duce Ordinance No. 93-/DP5 to amend the sign ordinance, with the provisions relating to the definition of, and how to calculate secondary frontage be retained as cur- rently written. Motion /i✓ second g -TA. Final Action: To waive further reading of Ordinance No. 93-/p$$, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO AMEND THE SIGN ORDINANCE TEXT, AND TO RELOCATE THE ORDINANCE INTO THE ZONING ORDINANCE." Motion E7,0L , second AYES: (9 (91--L,/ NOES: /3t, '#//4r �d` " L City crounci 7 ) • eJ Action: To refer the item back to the Planning Commis- sion for report and recommendation on adding provisions to preserve nonconforming signs of historic value. Motion second The motion 9,77,9/7, 6. TEXT AMENDMENT REVISING NONCONFORMING ORDINANCE ON DAMAGED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. Memorandum from Plan- ning Director Michael Schubach dated March 3, 1993. Planning Director Schuback presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. The public hearing opened at y•p"P.M. Coming forward to address the Council on this item -e% i. ) 2Q -a oa/ /97A --E--0 *e2'' --)-s > �, oe _l0.)7 The public hearing closed at 9:0*IP.M. Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 93- 1Dn, as recom- mended by staff and the Planning Commission. r Motion � , second The motion C 1/i Final Action: To waive further reading of Ordinance No. 93-J, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT, \' SECTION 13-6 PERTAINING TO THE RECONSTRUCTION OF NON •, •:V - RES AND THE ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONME TAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. AYES: NOES: ---"'�� City Council Minutes 03-09-93 Page 8 • T,3 -/D 7. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADOPT CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN (CMP)/TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) ORDINANCE, with ordinance for introduction. Memorandum from Plan- ning Director Michael Schubach dated March 1, 1993. Planning Director Schubach presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. public hearing opened at ?:3.5 P.M. Coming forward to address Council on this item was/were: The the The public hearing closed at 1/35P.M. Action: To introduce Ordinance mended by staff and the Planning Motion , second '?° /7))t) 3 /j) n,/ir(dt 7Vjezi NICIPAL ‘(/(;* /� /� 1 G No. 93- /b'7, as recom- Commission. The motion Final Action: To waive further reading of Ordinance No. 93-47, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT FOR TRIP REDUCTION AND TRAVEL DEMAND MEASURES (TDM) IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65089 AND 65089.3." Motion �� , second GA) . The motion .... .5j0 (>./t_4(.2/1_vi l le •Y" 9-13g 3 8. MATTERS MATTERS MID -YEAR Manager Copeland 23, 1993 BUDGET REVIEW FY 1992-93. Memorandum from City Frederick R. Ferrin and Finance Director Viki dated March 3, 1993. (Continued from February meeting.) City Manager Ferrin presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. U City Council Minutes 03-09-93 Page 9 ---��y� c em ,05 O 2 v /i) Comingforward to address the Cncil on this item Ci0/were .: Jo\ iee-r`' -96-1°y .0150 152, /*C-1 �_Pi .� 410-1"-÷-1-1- 7,/774 L---"`"/ Action* To 'reconsider the use of Fire Flow Funds and direct staff to return with an amendment to the Fire Flow ordinance to expand use of the funds for fire flow activities, specifically, for the lease/purchase payment on the fire engine. Motion second The motion (';i0 �" — ) EIZ� ,t) dXcti n: To approve the personnel, salary and expendi- ture reductions reflected in Attachment A. Motion , second The motion Action: Motion s 9. ),--•RECOMMENDED USE`OF To ... second . The motion fd,/ Y-4, 2/t,e--) (76 ASSEMBLY4B1LL 702 RETIREMENT REFUND. Memorandum from City Manager FrederickR. Ferrin dated February 22, 1993. florij p -sented 'the staff report and re- estions. ii7)? 'CASK - "(Le—f--64evi x24-- :c2.5 ead I ) I City Council Minutes 03-09-933 Page 10 j \w\\ o, I\1\(INk(0 H.\\\ P t c \% \I %:4 \\4 r\ %7%, Ocs, i 1 Q ,� - )(\ S tj� �f \ wy � • Coming forward to address the Council on this A1/41/4-e72,r/u2-,- /7r- ,46fre--etz;-- item was/were: J ni Action: To approve the prioritized list of uses for the AB702 Retirement funds as shown below, and designate such funds accordingly. � e Motion second The motion Action: To Motion Coming second The motion STATUS REPORT ON PARKING LOT CONFIGURATION, VICINITY OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN SECOND AND THIRD STREETS. Memorandum from City Manager Frederick R. Ferrin dated February 3, 1993. (Continued from February 23, 1993 meeting.) City Manager Ferrin presented the staff report and re- sp nded to Council questions. 1/ v (J " ~ forward to address the Council on this item was/o: 6O v-<, / 9-lcs-e,? •7c Action: Motion second /1) To The motion City Council Minutes 03-09-93 Page 11 • 11. CONTRACT RENEWAL BETWEEN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BEACHES AND HAR- BORS. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated March 1, 1993. Community Resources Director Rooney presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. , Coming forward to address the Council on this item was/were: Action: To approve the contract amendment to the City's agreement with the County of Los Angeles Department of Beaches and Harbors that will provide the City with beach lifeguard and maintenance services at no cost to the City through June 30, 1996 with an extension option through June 30, 1998, as recommended by staff. Motion �� , second Th^el motion 12. REQUEST BY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO USE THE WAVE VEHICLES TO HELP TRANSPORT PERSONS BETWEEN THE FIESTA DE LAS ARTES AND THE REMOTE PARKING AREAS. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated March 2, 1993. Planning Director Schubach presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Coming forward to address the Council on this item was/were: 1/fid. 4 4 :.d, ion: To approve the request to use the WAVE vehicles 2 /27'" i--/c-tt to help transport persons between the fiesta and the remote parking areas, for an estimated cost of $4,500 per event, and with the use of Proposition C funds. Motion , segond J The motion /VD City Council Minutes 03-09-93 Page 12 .• i 13. AWARD OF BID FOR 300 FT. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICING SER- VICE. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated March 1, 1993. Supplemental letter from Cathy McDermott dated March 8, 1993. Planning Director Schubach presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Coming forward fi to address the Council on this it ry6,0A4 �-- ��_ Action: hearing To award the contract for the 300 -foot public to The motion noticing service Motion secon 14. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER £?d/ / � flti� �-/ ;4441)‘-e- (24,-,&) 15. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Coming Notification of absences of Cable TV Board member. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated March 2, 1993. Community Resources Director Rooney presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. forward to address the Council on this item was/were: 7101 City Council Minutes 03-09-93 Page 13 Action: To waive application 2-64 with regard to automatic sion Board Member Dave Reimer two Commission meetings during Motion second Action: Motion second of Municipal Code Section vacancy for Cable Televi- who has been absent from the first 1993 quarter. The motion To The motion (b) Report on publishing a tentative City Council agenda in the Easy Reader. -- I believe Mr. Ferrin will be giving an oral report -- Memorandum from City Manager Frederick R. Ferrin dated March 3, 1993. City Manager Ferrin presented an oral report on this issue and responded to Council questions. Coming forward to address the Council on this Action: Motion (a) 2 c,4 second OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL item was/were: To The motion 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. Request by Councilmember Edgerton to direct staff to prepare a resolution to forbid the sale of used guns and confiscated guns by the Police Department. Councilmember Edgerton discussed his request. City Council Minutes 03-09-93 Page 14 n = )).____7; .• .s.e 4 , Action: V' /7 in Motion/1 (c) (d) second To The motion Request by Councilmember Benz for consideration of elimination of red stripes between parking spaces. Councilmember Benz discussed his request. Action: Motion 'A) i, second _ The motion Request by Councilmember Benz for consideration of re- ducing the price of parking tickets in commercial areas. Councilmember Benz discuss d V,5, request. C��2 Action: / To , ✓ 4 /YJ Motion // ) "'seco The fiiotioni�Se( -- (API 0.-t`' 'Pr , Request by Councilmember Midstokke for discussion of prohibiting smoking in all public buildings. di) i) Councilmember Midstokke discussed her request. v Action: -� -% , ///241 To Motion CITIZEN C TS _,`)O fes(= IV`s =yam i'f / s second //1/4/4i.„1 Zip -ire The motion 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. City Council Minutes 03-09-93 Page 15 • Coming forward to address the Council at this time was/were: Lam. /��r_-� ✓ ��-- � �' , ��J `_ ADJOURNMENT - The Regular Meeting of the of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned 1993, at the hour of A.M. to the day, March 23, 1993, at the hour of 7:30 �-J City Council of the City on Wednesday, March 10, Regular Meeting of Tues - P.M. City Clerk City Council Minutes 03-09-93 Page 16 ACTION SHEET ACTION SHEET REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, March 9, 1993 - Council Chambers, City Hall Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY EVELYN VAN KREUNIGAN ROLL CALL: WIEMANS ARRIVED AT 7:36 P.M., EDGERTON ARRIVED AT 7:38 P.M. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION JUNE WILLIAMS - SHOWED THE COUNCIL THE RECALL PETITIONS RETURNED WITH SIX THOUSAND SIGNATURES. SAID THEY WOULD BE SHREDDED TO ENSURE THAT THE SIGNATURES REMAINED CONFIDENTIAL. PATTI EGERER - SPOKE ABOUT THE PROBLEMS WITH STRAND RECONSTRUC- TION GRANT FROM LACTC AS IT APPLIES TO PEDESTRIANS. WILMA BURT = SPOKE AGAINST VEHICLES ON THE SAND AND THE STRAND. RICHARD SULLIVAN - READ FROM EASY READER ARTICLE RE. CHIEF WIS- NIEWSKI. THINKS THE CITY IS SETTING UP FOR A MAJOR LAW SUIT. READ QUOTES BY GARY BRUTSCH FROM PAPER. THINKS BRUTSCH SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED. DO A PROFILE OF WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: (a) Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on February 23, 1993. (b) Recommendation to ratify Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive, and to cancel certain warrants as recommended by the City Treasurer. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. PULLED BY RE - MOTION RE/KM TO RECEIVE & FILE. SO ORDERED. CITY MGR. SAID BUDGET WORKSHOP SCHEDULE WILL SHOW NEXT TIME. (d) Recommendation to receive and file the January, 1993 City Treasurer's report. (e) (f) Recommendation to receive and file the February, 1993 monthly investment report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated March 1, 1993. Recommendation to adopt resolution ordering the prepara- tion of a report for the formation of the Hermosa Beach Street Lighting District during fiscal year 1993-94. Memorandum from Public Works Director Charles McDonald dated February 8, 1993. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-5592. (g) (h) Recommendation to adopt resolution ordering the prepara- tion of a report for the formation of the Hermosa Beach Crossing Guards Maintenance District during fiscal year 1993-94. Memorandum from Public Works Director Charles McDonald dated February 8, 1993. Recommendation to approve renewal of lease agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and Beach Cities Coalition for Drug Free Youth, Inc. for the use of Room 4 in the Community Center. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated March 2, 1993. PULLED BY AW - MOTION AW/KM TO APPROVE. SO ORDERED. (i) Recommendation to approve Women's Professional Volley- ball Association Tournament June 12 and 13, 1993. Memo- randum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated March 1, 1993. PULLED BY RE - THINKS FEES SHOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER. MOTION RE/AW - SEND TO STAFF TO RENEGOTIATE A HIGHER FEE. FAILS 2-3 (RB/SE/KM-NO) MOTION RB/SE - FOR STAFF REC. OK: 3-2 (AW/RE-NO) KM/SE - TO DIRECT PARKS & REC. COMM. TO REVIEW FEE STRUCTURE FOR THE COMMERCIAL SPECIAL EVENT ORDINANCE FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR AS RELATED TO THE TOURNAMENTS. SO ORDERED. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. (a) ORDINANCE NO. 93-1083 - AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WITH THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RE- TIREMENT SYSTEM AUTHORIZING SECTION 20930.3 - MILITARY SERVICE CREDIT FOR LOCAL POLICE MEMBERS ONLY. For adoption. MOTION RE/KM TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 93-1083. SO ORDERED. (b) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AMENDING THE CITY CODE TO ALLOW VEHICLE PARKING ON PUBLIC STREET 2 RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE WALK STREETS ON THE WEST SIDE OF BEACH DRIVE. For waiver of full reading and introduc- tion. Memorandum from Public Works Director Charles McDonald dated March 2, 1993. MOTION RE/RB - TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 93-1084 WITH SECTION 2 TO READ "AFTER 30 DAYS"; ALSO CHANGE SECTION "i" TO READ "PROPER- TIES THAT HAVE EXISTING GARAGES FRONTING ONTO A WALK STREET, AS THEIR ONLY ACCESS, SHALL ONLY BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THOSE CONDITIONS AS MAY BE IMPOSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS." OK 3-2 (KM/SE-NO). 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 B. J. Mitchell dated February 16, 1993 requesting the Council to place a hold on the Strand reconstruction project until its position is clarified by the courts. MOTION KM/RB TO RECEIVE & FILE. OK 4-1 (AW -NO). PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. TEXT AMENDMENT TO SIGN ORDINANCE AND TO RELOCATE THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated March 1, 1993. MOTION AW/RE - TO APPROVE STAFF REC. AND INTRODUCE ORDINANCE 93- 1085. KM COMPLIMENTED KEN ROBERTSON ON AN EXCELLENT REPORT. KM WANTS BOND REQUIREMENT TAKEN OUT, ALSO RE TEMPORARY SIGNS IF OWNER WANTS TO HAVE A TEMPORARY SIGN IN HIS BUSINESS FOR 60 DAYS, HE SHOULD NOT NEED TO GET THE CONSENT OF THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING. WOULD LIKE SOME LANGUAGE IN THAT THERE WOULD BE A SMALL ADMINISTRATIVE FEE NOT TO EXCEED THE PROCESSING OF THE AP- PLICATION TO BE DETERMINED BY A STANDARD FEE RESOLUTION INSTEAD. THE MAKER AND SECOND TO THE MOTION HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE AMENDMENTS. OK 3-2 (SE/RB-NO). MOTION SE/RB TO BRING BACK A RESOLUTION TO DIRECT P.C. TO DRAFT AN AMENDMENT TO SIGN ORDINANCE RE. HISTORICAL SIGNS WITHOUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR A C.U.P. SO ORDERED. 6. TEXT AMENDMENT REVISING NONCONFORMING ORDINANCE ON DAMAGED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. Memorandum from Plan- ning Director Michael Schubach dated March 3, 1993. B.J. MITCHELL - SPOKE IN FAVOR OF THE ORDINANCE. MOTION RE/SE TO APPROVE STAFF REC. AND INTRODUCE ORDINANCE 93- 1086. OK 4-1 (AW -NO) 7. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADOPT CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN (CMP)/TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) ORDINANCE, with ordinance for introduction. Memorandum from Plan- ning Director Michael Schubach dated March 1, 1993. MOTION RE/RB STAFF REC. AND INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 93-1087. KM SUGGESTED C.A. DO A SUMMARY TO SAVE US SOME MONEY. RE MAKES PART OF THE MOTION WITH RB CONCURRING. OK 5-0. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 8. MID -YEAR BUDGET REVIEW FY 1992-93. Memorandum from City Manager Frederick R. Ferrin and Finance Director Viki Copeland dated March 3, 1993. (Continued from February 23, 1993.meeting.) MOTION SE - TO RECEIVE AND FILE THIS REPORT AND TO USE U.U.T. & FIRE FLOW FUNDS TO THE END OF JUNE. WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT RESTRUCTURING WILL BE IN PLACE FOR JULY 1. SECOND AW. VOTE: 2- 3 (KM/RE/RB-NO). MOTION KM - TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH ADDITIONS THAT THE FIRE TRUCK BE ONLY THE LAST TWO PAYMENTS OUT OF FIRE FLOW FUND, WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE STAFF LOOK AT FREEZING THE MERIT PAY FOR THE REST OF THE EMPLOYEES AND MEET AND CONFER IF NECESSARY; FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO VOLUNTARILY REDUCE THEIR SALA- RY BY 50% FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR; TO INVITE THE CITY CLERK AND THE CITY TREASURER TO VOLUNTARILY REDUCE THEIR SALARIES BY 10% FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR; TO REALLOCATE THE DEPUTY CITY TREASURER 1/2 TO THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT TO COVER THE LOSS OF THE SENIOR ACCOUNT CLERK; AND FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO COME BACK IF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE MERIT PAY AND THE REDUCTION IN SALARY COULD PRESERVE ANY OF THE POSITIONS THAT ARE RECOMMEN- DED FOR ABOLISHMENT. AW - MS. MIDSTOKKE WOULD YOU ALSO WANT TO ADD THAT IN THE EVENT THAT THE PUBLIC WORKS BUDGET SHOWS SOME MORE MONEY THAT IT ALSO BE ADDED TO THE PIE. KM RESPONDED THAT SHE WAS SURE THE CITY MANAGER WAS GOING TO DO THAT WITHOUT COUNCIL TELLING HIM TO. RE SECONDED THE MOTION. RB - ASKED IF THERE IS ANY COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR LOOKING INTO BRINGING THE CITY ATTORNEY IN-HOUSE. RESPONSE FROM RE IS THAT IT HAS ALREADY BEEN LOOKED INTO AND THERE IS NO COST SAVINGS. THINKS THAT THE WAY WE ARE GOING TO SAVE MONEY ON LEGAL FEES IS TO REDUCE OUR RELIANCE ON ATTORNEYS. THAT MEANS CUTTING THE STAFF'S USE OF ATTORNEYS. KM - DOESN'T THINK THIS 3 -MONTH PERIOD IS THE TIME TO LOOK AT THAT. HAS NO PROBLEM WITH LOOKING AT FOR THE NEW BUDGET FOR NEXT YEAR AND THAT THE PREVIOUS STUDIES FOR THAT DONE IN THE EARLY 80'S BE DUG OUT OF THE FILES. THERE ARE OTHER ASSOCIATED COSTS THAT BRING IT WAY UP BESIDES THE CITY ATTORNEY'S SALARY. YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE HIM WITH A SECRETARY AND MOST LIKELY A LAW LIBRARY. RE - WOULD LIKE MOTION AMENDED TO PRESERVE THE CITY MGR. SALARY. SECOND SE. MOTION TO AMEND MAIN MOTION FAILS 2-3 (KM/AW/RB-NO) VOTE ON MAIN MOTION - OK 3-2 (SE/AW-NO). MOTION KM - TO APPOINT A CITY COUNCIL 2 -MAN TASK FORCE FOR BUDGET WORKSHOP PROCESS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF DOWNSIZING AND REOR- GANIZATION - NOT TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE BUDGET, JUST TO LOOK AT THOSE ASPECTS OF THE BUDGET. (TO HAVE TWO COUNCILMEMBERS, THE CITY MANAGER, THE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR AND MAYBE THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER) TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BUDGET WORKSHOP PROCESS JUST FOR THIS ASPECT. OK 3-2 (SE/RB-NO). MOTION TO APPOINT ES- SERTIER AND WIEMANS AS SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS. OK 4-1 (SE -NO). 9. RECOMMENDED USE OF ASSEMBLY BILL 702 RETIREMENT REFUND. Memorandum from City Manager Frederick R. Ferrin dated February 22, 1993. MOTION RB/SE - TO APPROVE STAFF REC. OK 4-1 (AW -NO) 10. STATUS REPORT ON PARKING LOT CONFIGURATION, VICINITY OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN SECOND AND THIRD STREETS. Memorandum from City Manager Frederick R. Ferrin dated February 3, 1993. (Continued from February 23, 1993 meeting.) MOTION RB/AW TO RECEIVE & FILE. SO ORDERED. 11. CONTRACT RENEWAL BETWEEN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BEACHES AND HAR- BORS. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated March 1, 1993. MOTION SE/RB - TO ADOPT CONTRACT. OK 4-1 (AW) 12. REQUEST BY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO USE THE WAVE VEHICLES TO HELP TRANSPORT PERSONS BETWEEN THE FIESTA DE LAS ARTES AND THE REMOTE PARKING AREAS. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated March 2, 1993. MOTION SE/RB - TO APPROVE REQUEST. FAILS 2-3 (KM/RE/AW-NO) MOTION RE/KM - TO CONTINUE TO NEXT MEETING UNTIL COCA COLA SALES PROBLEM WITH KIWANIS IS SETTLED. OK 3-2 (SE/RB-NO). 13. AWARD OF BID FOR 300 FT. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICING SER- VICE. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated March 1, 1993. MOTION RE/RB TO AWARD CONTRACT TO OWNERSHIP LISTING SERVICE. OK 4-1 (KM) 14. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCED HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ROUNDUP APRIL 24?. 15. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Notification of absences of Cable TV Board member. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated March 2, 1993. MOTION SE/RB TO RETAIN BOARD MEMBER. SO ORDERED. (b) Report on publishing a tentative City Council agenda in the Easy Reader. Memorandum from City Manager Frederick R. Ferrin dated March 3, 1993. WANTS TO CHECK OUT BEACH REPORTER BEFORE PROVIDING A REPORT. HAS HEARD PERHAPS THEY ARE DOING IT FREE FOR CITY OF M.B. KM - ANNOUNCED SHE ATTENDED DARE GRADUATION. SE PASSED OUT INVITATIONS TO LITTLE LEAGUE GRAND OPENING. 16. 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 Edgerton to direct staff to prepare a resolution to forbid the sale of used guns and confiscated guns by the Police Department. MOTION SE/RB TO MAKE THIS A CITY POLICY, WITH STAFF TO COME BACK WITH RESOLUTION. MOTION FAILS. (b) Request by Councilmember Benz for consideration of elimination of red stripes between parking spaces. STAFF ALREADY WORKING ON, WILL BE COMING BACK. (c) Request by Councilmember Benz for consideration of re- ducing the price of parking tickets in commercial areas. MOTION RB/SE - TO BRING BACK A REPORT ON PRICE OF ALL TYPES OF PARKING FINES. MOTION FAILS 2-3 (KM/RE/AW-NO). (d) Request by Councilmember Midstokke for discussion of prohibiting smoking in all public buildings. MOTION KM/RE WANTS ORDINANCE BROUGHT BACK FOR REVISION. OK - KM/ RE/AW. AW - ASKED ABOUT CHANGING MEETINGS TO 7:00 P.M. BRING BACK IN FORM OF ORDINANCE. OK 3-2 (SE/RB-NO. 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. DIANE LOUGHIN. SPOKE ABOUT LACK OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DEPART- MENT HEADS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES ABOUT POSSIBLE WAYS TO CUT BUDGET WITHOUT TAKING JOBS. ADJOURNMENT AT 12:55 A.M. 7 The Hermosa Beach City Council 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 RE: LACTC STRAND PROJECT . March 5, 1993 Mr. Mayor and Council members: The LACTC grant in the amount of 1.5 million could have provided our community with an opportunity to eliminate or ease the conjestlon of mixed useage along the Strand: Your project to refurbish the Strand ignors the compelling need for the development of a dedicated bikeway. The citlzenries formost concern is the separation of pedestrians and bicyclists not the restoration of the Strand. Over a span of 19 years memorandums from city staff to city manager identify the need for development of an alternate bikepath due to the problem of mixed use. In spite of the dangers and the public outcry the bikeway issue was stonewalled. Council, you have no constituency for the Strand project. This represents a misappropriation of 1.5 million. The existing problem of mixed use will be intensified. These grant funds were our golden opportunity to resolve a prominent problem. Respectful ly, atricia A. Eger Hermosa Beach '.esident Mailing Addrss: 1 142 Manhattan Avenue, No. 282, M.B. 90266 Phone: (310) 379-2878 This will be verbally presented at Council meeting on March 9, 1993. 0-9-93 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on February 23, 1993, at the hour of 7:42 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Shirley Cassell ROLL CALL Present: Benz, Edgerton, Essertier, Midstokke, Mayor Wiemans Absent: None PRESENTATION OF CHECK FROM KIWANIS CLUB TO THE HERMOSA BEACH COM- MUNITY CENTER FOUNDATION - Cary Bichlmeier, Chairman of the Her- mosa Beach Kiwanis Christmas Tree Lot, and Dallas Yost, President of the Kiwanis Foundation, said this was the fifth year that the Kiwanis had donated 10% of its profits from the Tree Lot to the Community Center Foundation and this year the $2,138.13 check was almost double the amount given last year. Accepting the check was Bruce Gelb, President of the Community Center Foundation, who thanked the Kiwanis for the check and said that this year the Community Center Foundation's focus had been on Community Theatre and was proud to have the Hermosa Beach Players, under the direc- tion of Anne Hulegard; reminded the audience that there was less than two weeks left to see the current production of "A Prelude to a Kiss". PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Coming forward to address the Council at this time were: Roger Bacon - 1100 P.C.H., concerned with the safe- ty of the Greenwood Park Windmill; said there were three fins out, any one of which could come loose and hit. a car; asked the City to rectify the unsafe condition; thanked the Coun- cil and the staff for their help; said there would be a Pre -Grand Opening for the new Ralph's store on March 24, 1993, that the fes- tivities included a parade up Pier Avenue with the Mira Costa Marching Band; asked for dona- tions for the Band or for any group interested in participating to call him at 374-8991; Scott Dester - spoke with other employees of "Bes- ties"; said there were 22 employees, who, with the owner, were innocent of any of the charges, but, would be out of jobs if "Besties" were forced to close; asked for support and help from the Council; Steven Suard - 3436 The Strand, Planning Commis- sion, said that eight options, all approved by the Planning Commission, to enhance the Strand had been presented to the Council at the last meeting; questioned why the Council had not City Council Minutes 02-23-93 Page 806611 discussed any of those options (which had fund- ing), but, had requested the Planning Commis- sion study beautification for Pacific Coast Highway (which did not have funding); Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, presented the following objections to portions of the minutes: 1) 2-9-93 meeting, item 5, should reflect her reference to 1901 Grant Deed; 2) 1-26-93 meeting, item 4(b), should reflect her reference to 1901 Grant Deed; 3) 1-26-93 meeting, Public Participation, said her comment was that the recall was not con- ducted in a manner proper, rather than as shown; and, 4) 2-9-93 meeting, Citizen Comments, said Jer- ry Compton's statement was shown incorrectly, that his comment was, "Sam, from Boston,, here are your teabags."; Rick Learned - President of the Hermosa Beach Cham- ber of Commerce, asked that item 13(c) (reduc- tion of the price of parking tickets in the commercial area) be agendized for a future meeting for Council consideration; Richard Sullivan - 824 Third Street, read the quote of Councilmember Edgerton in the February 19, 1993 issue of the "Easy Reader"; asked that he retract his statement regarding the Alcohol Beverage Commission; Jim Lissner - 2715 El Oeste Drive, said the sound was better from the sound system in the Council Chamber; thanked MultiVison for its efforts; announced that the Federal Aviation Agency has formed a citizen, industry and FAA helicopter study group and were looking for delegates; also, bothered by the quote referred to by Mr. Sullivan and by Council denial of interest in "Besties"; Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., concerned that the meeting had started late again; asked that item 1(e) be removed from the consent cal- endar; and, Peter Mangurian - 1100 The Strand, asked if it were true that the ABC would come to the City to investigate a possible violation only if re- quested by the City. At 8:11 P.M. the order of the agenda was suspended to go to the public hearings, starting with item no. 5. 1.• CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve the Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (f), with the exception of the following items which were removed for discussion in item 3, but City Council Minutes 02-23-93 Page 8067 are shown in order for clarity: (a) stokke, and (e) Midstokke, at the Cassell. Motion Essertier, second Edgerton. No one came forward to address the Council from the consent calendar. (a) (b) (c) Essertier, (c) Mid - request of Shirley So ordered. on items not removed Recommendation to approve the following minutes: 1) Adjourned workshop meeting with the Planning Com- mission held on January 20, 1993; 2) Regular meeting of the City Council held on February 9, 1993. This item was removed from the consent calendar by Coun- cilmember Essertier for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To approve the minutes of the adjourned regular (workshop) meeting of January 20, 1993 as presented, and to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 9, 1993, with amendments to include the com- ments of Wilma Burt and to include the definitions of - items 7(a), (b), and (c), which were excluded in the motion on page 8062, paragraph 3. Motion Essertier, second Midstokke. So ordered. Recommendation to ratify Demands and Warrants No. 42931 and Nos. 43030 through 43139 inclusive, noting voided warrants Nos. 43033, 43034, 43035, 43053, 43068, 43113, 43114, and 43115. Action: To ratify the demands and warrants as presented. Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. This item was removed from the consent calendar by Coun- cilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting due to: 1) calls regarding cars overhanging the sidewalk on Longfellow, questioned enforcement practice; 2) the conceptual approval of the South School Park for the meeting of March 23, 1993, asked that it be a public hearing and that the park be referred to by its location at 4th Street and Valley Drive (formerly known as South School); and, 3) questioned when the Strand Safety specifics would be agendized. Councilmember Essertier questioned if the Ordinance regarding parking on the west side of Beach Drive would be on the March 9, 1993 agenda. City Council Minutes 02-23-93 Page 8068 Action: To receive and file the tentative future agenda items as presented. Motion Midstokke, second Mayor Wiemans. So ordered. (d) Recommendation to receive and file the January, 1993 City Treasurer's report. (e) This item was withdrawn prior to the meeting. Recommendation to approve the street closures, parking requests and event application from the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce to operate the Fiesta de las Artes street fair on Memorial Day (May 29-31) and Labor Day Weekends (September 4-6) in 1993. Memorandum from Com- munity Resources Director Mary Rooney dated February 12, 1993. This item was removed from the consent calendar by Coun- cilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting. Community Resources Director Rooney responded to Council questions. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., said the Council"should find someone to negotiate with the Chamber of Commerce for at least $50,000 per Fiesta, from an estimated $300,000 income from the two Fiestas, and not give them the City for costs; or, the City should run the Fiestas and receive all of the money; Richard Sullivan - 824 Third Street, said that the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce is different from many other Chambers of Commerce as it receives no funding from the City and it funds itself from the proceeds of the two Fiestas; felt the Chamber should be more accountable for the monies received and spent; suggested that all of the non -profits organizations could run the Fiestas; Rick Learned - President, Chamber of Commerce, said that the $300,000 figure was a gross profit and there were many costs that had to be paid from that amount; said that the Fiestas currently offered an opportunity for local non-profit organizations to participate and raise over $20,000 in funds; Mark Conte - Mark Conte Productions, Fiesta coor- dinator, said he believed the Fiestas were the premier events in the South Bay; felt they were well. run and any problems were quickly corrected; Helene Frost - owner of Coast Drug, Pier Avenue, said the Fiestas give downtown merchants a lot City Council Minutes 02-23-93 Page 8069 (f) of business as the merchants were allowed free space in front of their stores; concerned with the negative comments; Cary Bichlmeier - Bichlmeier Insurance, Pier Avenue, and Hermosa Beach Kiwanis, said many non-profit organizations make the Fiestas their major fundraisers; asked that the status quo be maintained; Parker Herriott - 224 24th Street, asked if Chamber revenue was public record (Community Resource Director said it was in the report and the net from the two Fiestas was $130,000); asked if the Chamber could pay for sidewalk cleaning after the Fiestas; and, Dallas Yost - Pacific Silk Screen, Pier Avenue, said the Chamber of Commerce has steam cleaned the sidewalks after each Fiesta. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to approve the street closures, parking requests and event applica- tion from the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce to oper- ate the Fiesta de las Artes street fair on May 29-31, 1993, Memorial Day week -end, and on September 4-6, 1993, Labor Day week -end. Motion Midstokke, second Benz. So ordered. Recommendation to approve the use of the Community Cen- ter lawn by the Kiwanis Club to operate a Christmas tree lot for the 1993 holiday season. Memorandum from Com- munity Resources Director Mary Rooney dated February 16, 1993. Action: To approve the use of the Community Center lawn by the Hermosa Beach Kiwanis Club to operate a Christmas tree lot for the 1993 holiday season, with $1,000 or 10% of the proceeds (whichever is higher) to be donated to the Community Center Foundation, and the lawn area to be returned to its original state by the Kiwanis- Club. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES - None 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Items 1(a), (c), and (e) were heard at this time, but all items are shown in order for clarity. * Public comments on items removed from the consent calendar are shown under the appropriate items. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. City Council Minutes 02-23-93 Page 8070 (a) Letter from Richard Sullivan, 824 Third Street, dated February 15, 1993 regarding the action of the City Coun- cil on the Beach Drive parking issue. Staff Recommenda- tion: To receive and file. Coming forward to address the Council on this item was: Richard Sullivan - 824 Third Street, spoke of con- cerns regarding the Council sub -committee re- port; requested a straw vote by Council to put the issue on the ballot for a vote of the peo- ple since it is a Citywide issue. Action: To receive and file the communication. Motion Mayor Wiemans, second Edgerton. So ordered. (b) Letter from Patricia Egerer, 1142 Manhattan Avenue, Man- hattan Beach, dated February 16, 1993 regarding deed restrictions on the Strand. Staff Recommendation: To receive and file. Coming forward to address the Council on this item was: Patricia Egerer - 1142 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, requested a response from the City At- torney regarding her letter (City Attorney Vose said he stood by his previously stated opinions); questioned why a 1974 legal opinion and other cases were not mentioned; requested a definitive court opinion on the City's level of authority regarding the legality of bicycle use for the Strand. Action: To receive and file the communication, with the understanding that there would be a recommendation from the R/UDAT studies regarding a separate path and an in- dication of support for putting any major decision like that on the ballot in November. Motion Midstokke'; second Essertier. So ordered, noting the objection of Mayor Wiemans. Coming forward to address: the Council on this item was: B.J. Mitchell - 31st Street, who was told that since action on this item had been taken, no fur- ther comments would be heard. (C) Memorandum from Planning Commission dated February 16, 1993 requesting to review the issue of. addressing on Loma Drive. Staff Recommendation: To allow the Public Works Department to continue with implementation of Council's direction given at the January 26, 1993 meeting. Action: To approve the staff recommendation. Motion Midstokke, second Edgerton. So ordered. City Council Minutes 02-23-93 Page 8071 (d) Memorandum from Planning Commission dated February 14, 1993 requesting City Council to direct staff to investi- gate implementing a design contest for the Biltmore Site. Staff Recommendation: 'To approve Planning Com- mission request. Community Resources Director Rooney responded to Council questions and said she would like for the Parks, Recre- ation and Community Resources Advisory Commission to have the opportunity of reviewing the proposal at its next meeting on March 18, 1993. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Merna Marshall - Co -Chairman, Public Improvement Committee, Downtown Improvement Board, submit- ted a letter dated February 23, 1993, which requested that the Council consider allowing local college landscape architecture classes to take on the Biltmore site as an assigned proj- ect rather than spend staff time and City money on an open competition; said UCLA was receptive; Parker Herriott - 224 24th Street, objected to the idea of an outside design because it was not in the spirit of the Ordinance, was unnecessary for outside people to design the park, and, was by-passing the Parks and Recreation Commission; wanted the design to be a community event; Joseph Di Monda - 610 Ninth Street, Planning Com- mission, said the Public Improvement Committee could turn the design project over to a college class as it did not bind the Council decision; felt there was no reason for objections as the designs could prove a groundwork for subsequent public discussion. Proposed Action: To approve the staff recommendation. Motion Edgerton, second Benz. The motion was withdrawn by the maker. Action: To allow the Planning Commission recommendation to implement a design contest to go forward, with the UCLA group, predicated upon the condition that the con- cept is approved by the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission at their next meeting. Motion Edgerton, second Benz. The motion carried, noting the objection of Mayor Wiemans. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL, LIVE ENTERTAINMENT, 24-HOUR OPERATION, TAKE-OUT WINDOW SER- VICE ON STRAND, AND TANDEM PARKING FOR MOTORCYCLES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1100 STRAND (SCOTTY'S RESTAURANT). City Council Minutes 02-23-93 Page 8072 Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated January 4, 1993, with Resolution for adoption. Sup- plemental letter from:_ James O'Brien, 26 Pier Avenue, dated February 23,. 1993. (Continued from January 12, 1993 meeting.) Planning Director Schubach presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. The public hearing was opened at 8:12 P.M. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Peter Mangurian - 1100 The Strand, owner and appellant, said his appeal was not about al- cohol or entertainment but about the decline of the downtown area; said that skateboards and roller skates on the street, drug dealing, crime, noise, driving under the influence, and motorcycles were all problems that needed to be dealt with, but Police Officers, the Public Safety Director, and the City Council were all unwilling to enforce the City Codes and deal with the problems; Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., said there` were so many bars, what difference did one more make; felt 24 hours was too long to be open; questioned why Mr. Mangurian should be. denied the same right as other bars had in the down- town area; Helene Frost - owner of Coast Drug on Pier Avenue, said that Mr. Mangurian had a very nice room for those who enjoyed a quiet drink and some music; asked the Council to give consideration to his request; said that motorcycles were a problem, parking illegally in lot A, and tandem parking made sense; Wilma Burt 1152 Seventh Street, said she kind of. supported Mr. Mangurian; Merna Marshall -.360 33rd Place, said the downtown needed a, place to eat after the bars close; felt it was not fair to deny the request, but the noise should be monitored; Gene Dreher - 1222 Seventh Place, agreed that the permit should be granted; said it was hard to find someplace in town to eat after 11:00 P.M. and it made good business sense; and, Peter Mangurian - 1100 The Strand, owner and appel- lant, said his proposed take-out window was six feet from the Strand; tandem motorcycle parking would allow five more spaces for autos, noise from his entertainment would not be a problem as there was no attempt to enforce the Noise Ordinance; and he saw no difference between people gathering to hear music and .people gathering to have dinner as there was only limited seating. City Council Minutes 02-23-93 Page 8073 The public hearing was closed at 8:35 P.M. Proposed Action: To grant the Conditional Use Permit amendment. Motion Benz, second Edgerton. The maker of the motion accepted an amendment by Mayor Wiemans to exclude the tandem motorcycle parking and the take-out window. This motion was withdrawn following the City Attorney's ad- vice that the item must go back to the Planning Commis- sion (no need for a public hearing) for its review and recommendation, then come back to the Council. Action: To send the item back to the Planning Commis- sion for review and recommendation of approval of the Conditional Use Permit amendment, with conditions; with instructions to consider the exclusion of the take-out window and tandem motorcycle parking; and to continue the public hearing to the regular meeting of March 23, 1993. Motion Benz, second Edgerton. The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of Essertier and Midstokke. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO MODIFY CONDITIONS 4(e), AND 10(a) OF RESOLUTION 91-5505 REGARDING REAR DOUBLE DOOR AND REMOVAL OF ROOF SIGN AT 30 PIER AVENUE, (LIGHTHOUSE CAFE). Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated February 16, 1993. Planning Director Schubach°presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. City Attorney Vose said the approval of the sign was not before the Council tonight. The question of whether the sign was a repair or a replacement could be answered by the Building Department. City Attorney Vose said anon - conforming sign could be kept if it were only repaired, but a replacement sign would have to meet the current code. The public hearing was opened at 9:00 P.M. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Carol Roberts - Regional Manager, Hennessey's Tavern, Inc., said the alarm signal connected to the panic hardware would help to ensure that the exit -only back door stays closed; said the sign would be the same in size, color, and neon, mounted on the existing base on the roof; and they appealed to the Council as they would like to keep the sign for its historical value; Joseph Di Monda - 610 Ninth Street, Planning Com- mission, said the Planning Commission voted to allow the C.U.P. and keep the sign, but it was denied by a previous Council; said there was a safety issue with substandard exiting, both in terms of a corridor and the door, it did not City Council Minutes 02-23-93 Page 8074 meet the current or previous Uniform Building Codes; asked, as a business decision, who was going to pay in the event there was a catastro- phe, since the City had been put on notice that the exit did not meet the safety codes; Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., questioned why the Fire Department had not inspected the property if maximum occupancy was 117 and there were 140 seats; Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, spoke regarding the sign and the panic door hardware; Richard Sullivan - 824 Third Street, congratulated Hennessey's for mitigating most of his concerns regarding the establishment; said he believed that only the bottom half of the front glass panes had been replaced; felt the top half of the panes were more important to replace; sug- gested the old sign be kept, encased in lucite, and remounted for its historical value; and, Carol Roberts - Regional Manager, Hennessey's Tavern, Inc., said they would like to make the sign safe and keep it for its historical value. The public hearing was closed at 9:26 P.M. Action: To put off any discussion of the sign until after the new sign Ordinance comes before the Council for review, at the next meeting, and consider an excep- tion to the Ordinance for historical signs at that time Motion Edgerton, second Benz. The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of Midstokke and Mayor Wiemans. Proposed Action: To approve the staff recommendation to approve the request for a single door with panic hard- ware instead of double doors at the rear of the building. Motion Essertier, second Edgerton. The motion was amen- ded to include: to refer both issues to the Planning Commission for review and comment prior to Council taking final action, at which time the second was with- drawn. The motion was withdrawn due to the City Attor- ney's opinion that there was no legal requirement for the item to return to the Planning Commission. Final Action: To approve the staff recommendation to approve the request for a single door with panic hard- ware instead of double doors at the rear of the build- ing, with the understanding that the door is not to be used for ingress or egress except in an emergency. Motion Essertier, second Edgerton. The motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes 02-23-93 Page 8075 The meeting recessed at 9:30 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:54 P.M. and resumed the order of the agenda at item no. 1. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 7. STATUS REPORT ON PARKING LOT CONFIGURATION, VICINITY OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN 2ND AND 3RD STREETS. Memorandum from City Manager Frederick R. Ferrin dated February 3, 1993. (Continued from February 9, 1993 meeting.) City Manager Ferrin suggested continuing this item until the meeting with all property owners has taken place and gave a brief report on the status of the current negotiations. He said the two end property owners of the proposed reconfiguration were unwilling to grant the City a ten foot easement over their respective property, thus the City had three options: 1) wall them out; 2) construct the parking lot as a flat U (losing six spaces); or 3) make the lot one-way with angled parking. Action: Mayor Wiemans directed, with the consensus of - the Council, that this item be continued to the meeting of March 9, 1993. 8. MID -YEAR BUDGET REVIEW FY 1992-93. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated February 18, 1993. Supplemental memorandum from City Treasurer Gary Brutsch, dated February 21, 1993. City Manager Ferrin presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. Proposed Action: To study bringing the City Attorney position in-house. Motion Benz, second Edgerton. The motion failed due to the dissenting votes of Essertier, Midstokke, and Mayor Wiemans. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to approve the revisions to estimated revenue, appropriations, bud- get transfers and designations as presented in the "City of Hermosa Beach Budget Summary, 1992-1993 Midyear Re- view"; but,deny the requested use of Fire Flow Funds and the Utility User Tax; and for staff to come back with a plan to make up the shortfall in other areas, such as cutting administrative staff. Motion Midstokke, second Benz. The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of Edgerton and Mayor Wiemans. 9. SCHOOL DISTRICT REQUEST FOR GROUNDS MAINTENANCE PROVIDED BY THE CITY. Memorandum from Community Resources Direc- tor Mary Rooney dated February 12, 1993. City Council Minutes 02-23-93 Page 8076 Community Resources Director Rooney presented the staff report, responded to Council questions, and introduced the new Hermosa School District Superintendent, Gwen Gross. City Manager Ferrin stated that the unencumbered reserve was 1.476 million dollars. Coming forward to address the Council on this item was: Gwen Gross - Superintendent, Hermosa Beach School District, said that the district will have in- creased costs due to the proposed reopening of the Hermosa View school due to increased en- rollment, and would appreciate any assistance the City could give for the children of Hermosa Beach. Action: To approve staff alternative No. 3: to defer consideration of this request until the FY 93-94 budget. review. Motion Edgerton, second Mayor Wiemans. The motion car- ried unanimously. 10. AWARD OF DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS. Memoranda from Public Works Director Charles McDonald dated February 11, 1993. Public Works Director McDonald presented the staff re- port and responded to Council questions, noting that $1,000,000 in liability insurance would be required of any contractor, but no performance bond was required as the contracts were on a 30 day cancellation basis. Coming forward to address the Council on this item was: Helene Frost - Coast Drug owner, Pier Avenue, con- cerned regarding the award of the contracts (for similar service) to two different compa- nies; questioned using a North Hollywood compa- ny when :.the local, Redondo Beach, contractor, who has been performing the service, did a good job; suggested that factors other than cost alone be considered as there was only a $4,500 difference in the bids. A. TO AWARD CONTRACT FOR DOWNTOWN AREA CLEANING TO HYDRO PRESSURE SYSTEMS OF NORTH HOLLYWOOD FOR A 2 YEAR AND 3 MONTH PERIOD AT A COST OF $61,425. Proposed Action: To award the contract to Hydro Pressure Systems of North Hollywood as recommended by staff. Motion Essertier, Second Benz. The motion failed due to the dissenting votes of Edgerton, Midstokke and Mayor Wiemans. City Council Minutes 02-23-93 Page 8077 Proposed Action: To award all three downtown main- tenance contracts to Specialty Maintenance of Redondo Beach. Motion Edgerton. The motion was withdrawn by the maker. Action: To authorize the Mayor to sign a contract for downtown area cleaning with Specialty Maintenance of Redondo Beach, as the lowest responsible bidder, for a two year and three month period beginning April 1, 1993, and ending June 30, 1995, at a cost of $65,771. Motion Edgerton, second Midstokke. The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of Benz and Essertier. B. TO AWARD CONTRACT FOR CLEANING OF DOWNTOWN SIDE- WALKS TO SPECIALTY MAINTENANCE COMPANY, INC. FOR A 2 YEAR AND 3 MONTH PERIOD AT A COST OF $22,925. Proposed Action: To award the contract to Hydro Pres- sure of North Hollywood as the lowest bidder. Motion Essertier, second Benz. The motion failed due to the dissenting votes of Edgerton, Midstokke and Mayor Wiemans. Action: To authorize the Mayor to sign a contract for cleaning of downtown sidewalks with Specialty Main- tenance Co., Inc. for a two year and three month period beginning April 1, 1993, and ending June 30, 1995, at a cost of $22,925. Motion Midstokke, second Wiemans. The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of Benz and Essertier. Coming forward to address the Council on this item was: Jim Lissner - 2715 El Oeste Drive, said the Council had just wasted $6,000, which would pay the salary of a Police Officer for a month. C. TO AWARD CONTRACT FOR MUNICIPAL PIER CLEANING TO ALL POINTS MAINTENANCE COMPANY OF LONG BEACH FOR A 2 YEAR AND 3 MONTH PERIOD AT A COST OF $18,955. Action: To authorize the Mayor to sign a contract for Municipal Pier cleaning with All Points Maintenance Co. of Long Beach, for a two year and three month period beginning April 1, 1993, and ending June 30, 1995, at a cost of $18,955. Motion Midstokke, second Wiemans. The motion carried unanimously. 11. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER - None 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) City Council Committee assignments. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated January 27, 1993. (Continued from February 9, 1993 meeting.) City Council Minutes 02-23-93 Page 8078 Action: To maintain the current assignments, except for the approval of Councilmember Midstokke as alternate to the South Bay Juvenile Diversion Project (Councilmember Edgerton remaind the delegate); and delete the Oil Sub - Committee and the Civil Service Review Sub -Committee. Motion Midstokke, second Mayor Wiemans. So ordered. 13. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Request by Councilmember Edgerton to direct staff to prepare a resolution to forbid the sale of used guns and confiscated guns by the Police Department. Action: By consensus of the Council, this item was con- tinued to the meeting of March 9, 1993. (b) Request by Councilmember Benz for consideration of eliminating of red stripes between parking spaces. (c) Action: By consensus of the Council, this item was con- tinued to the meeting of March 9, 1993. Request by Councilmember Benz for consideration of re- ducing the price of parking tickets in commercial areas. Action: By consensus of the Council, this item was con- tinued to the meeting of March 9, 1993. Coming forward to respond to Council questions regarding downtown enforcement was Public Safety Director Wisniewski. Chief Wis- niewski said he felt the Police Department was doing a good job downtown and refuted remarks made by previous speakers. CITIZEN COMMENTS Coming forward to address the Council at this time were: B.J. Mitchell - 31st Street, submitted information; requested that the Council not continue with the conversion of the Strand from a pedestrian walkway to a dedicated bicycle path by the use of funds specifically for that purpose; ques- tioned the City Attorney's opinion regarding bicycle useby quoting from various Encyclope- dias from the turn of the century defining bicycle use as a major sport, including racing teams and multi -person cycles; said the deed restrictions on "conveyance" was probably used to prohibit bicycles; said a path under the Pier would be precluded because of the pipes and drains; Shirley Cassell -.611 Monterey Blvd., said the City Council had talked of financial problems and the probability of cutting personnel, but had City Council Minutes 02-23-93 Page 8079 not asked the Chamber for more money for the Fiestas; asked the Council to reconsider and charge for the use of the downtown area and the beach; and, Robert McAlinden - owner of "Besties", said that 22 employees, some employed for 14 years, would lose their jobs if "Besties" goes out of busi- ness; said he has to sell the business, but asked the Council's support in order to keep the business open for the sake of the employees. ADJOURNMENT - The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Wednesday, February 24, 1993, at the hour of 12:35 A.M. to a closed session for the purpose of discussion of potential litigation: pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b); and, for discussion of Per- sonnel matters. The closed session adjourned at 1:55 A.M. to the Regular Meeting of Tuesday, March 09, 1993, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. Deputy City Clerk City Council Minutes 02-23-93 Page 8080 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: City Clerk DATE: March 3, 1993 SUBJECT: Changes to minutes_ of meeting of February 9, 1993, as directed at meeting of February 23, 1993 At its meeting of February 23, 1993, Council approved the minutes of February 9, 1993, with the amendment requested by Council - member Midstokke to include in the final motion of agenda item #5 (public hearing on parking on public right-of-way along Beach Drive) the wording of the items excluded from the motion rather than referencing them as items 7(a), (b) and (c). That amendment has been made on page 8062 of the minutes (see attached). The motion to approve also included direction to the City Clerk to amend the minutes pursuant to the comments made earlier in the meeting (during Public Participation) by Wilma Burt. Mrs. Burt's first comment with regard to the 2-9-93 minutes concerned her public hearing testimony under Item 5 (parking on public right-of-way along Beach Drive). The minutes read that she "said she believed that the City did own the property right-of-way." Mrs. Burt requested a correction to her statement, saying "I always say 'according to the grant deed of 1901.'" A verbatim of the 2-9-93 meeting tape shows that she did make reference to a 1901 grant deed. The minutes, therefore, have been amended (on page 8060) to add to the end of her statement "and made reference to a 1901 grant deed." (See attached.) Her next comment with regard to the 2-9-93 minutes concerned the last speaker under Citizen Comments at the end of the meeting. The minutes read that Jerry Compton "repeated his previous comment about legislation without representation and stated that he was making a symbolic gesture as he tossed a handful of teabags on the table in front of the Council dais." Mrs. Burt said the minutes were not what was said at the time, that "when Jerry Compton came up, he said, "'Sam, from Boston, here are your teabags,' as if we didn't all know our history of Boston and the teabags, but he did not say 'representative,' and that was in maybe one of his other statements, but not at this time." A verbatim from the 2-9-93 meeting tape of Mr. Compton's statement is as follows: "In the spirit of my earlier comments related to legislation without representation, and in honor of, uh -- Sam, I believe you're from Boston, aren't you? I just brought you guys some teabags. Thanks." While this conflicts with Mrs. Burt's recollection of what was said, it does show that SUPPLEMENTAL :.: <.INFORMATION .or Mr. Compton did not state he was making a symbolic gesture, as the minutes reflected. The minutes,therefore, have been amended (on page 8065) to read that Mr. Compton "asked Councilmember Edgerton if he was from Boston, and stated that in the spirit of his earlier comments related to legislation without representation, he brought Council some teabags, and he tossed a handful of teabags on the table in front of the Council dais." (See attached.) The other comments by Mrs. Burt pertained to the already -approved minutes of the meeting of January 26, 1993, which were presented to Council at the previous meeting (2-9-93). If Council desires any changes to those minutes, the appropriate action would be a motion for reconsideration of the item. The minutes would then be agendized and brought back for reconsideration by Council at the next meeting. The following two paragraphs address the issues raised by. Mrs. Burt concerning those minutes. With regard to Written Communications Item 4(b) (letter from B.J. Mitchell), the 1-26-93 minutes read that Mrs. Burt "disagreed with statements made by Ms. Mitchell; presented her recollection of Hermosa history; stated there should be no vehicles on the sand or on the Strand.". In her comments at the last meeting concerning those minutes, Mrs. Burt said 'my recollections go back far longer than hers, but on the other hand I did say 'according to the deed restriction of 1901,' and I want it stated that way." A verbatim of the 1-26-93 meeting tape shows that she did make reference to a deed dated August 31, 1901. With regard to the comments under Public Participation, the 1-26-93 minutes read that Mrs. Burt "commented on statements made by Ms. Williams; said the recall attempt was not proper." In her comments at the last meeting concerning those minutes, Mrs. Burt said "I did not say 'it was not proper,' I said 'it was not conducted in a manner proper."' A verbatim from the 1-26-93 meeting tape shows her comments as follows: "Well, seeing as how I've been around longer than June, our former Councilperson, who likes to be called a Council Mayor, I might say that the .. estimates of listening to her every ...(indistinct word, sounds like month)... probably has cost the City more than the $35,000. But, on the other hand, a Council recall is not really proper. I think what we should have done is recall her committee who voted, violating the Brown Act, when they voted for a hotel on the beach without a public hearing. Let's get it straight, June, all of the wanna-bes wanna-be." As noted above, these last two items pertain to the already - approved minutes of the meeting of January 26, 1993, and any changes to those minutes would require a motion and vote for reconsideration, with the item coming back at a future meeting. Elaine Doerflin•, CitClerk 5 REAUs E- concerned with the non -enforcement of the cur- rent parking laws; Gene Dreher - 1222 Seventh Place, said that aes- thetics should not be the subject of legis- lation; parking is.. -the functional matter that should be addressed; Pat Corwin - 31 Eighth Street, said that there has been an increase in the number of cars parking on the right-of-way since parking enforcement has been suspended; asked if it was legal for anyone to park on the City right-of-way on the east and west side of Beach Drive; said he did believe in aesthetics; questioned the liability to the City; said there should not be a dif- ference between the east and the west side of Beach Drive and the issue must be decided; Madonna English - 2240 The Strand, submitted photo directly to the Council; concerned with the possible loss of parking for her family; June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, said that the removal of parking spaces impacts everyone in the City; said the property was dedicated for street purposes and if it was not envi-- sioned that it would be used for that purpose it should be vacated and regulated through zoning laws; Steve Yeager - 18 19th Street, said he lived on the east side of Beach Drive and had paid a premium for his home because of the two parking spaces; questioned the terms "front yard" for those on the east side of Beach Drive and "side yard" for the Strand, as many of the homes on the Strand have their front doors facing the walk streets; Julie Oakes - 1934 Ava Avenue, Planning Commission, said that there should be a one million dollar minimum of liability insurance required for encroachment. permits; questioned how the en- croachment would be enforced; asked if the pro- posed $300 fee would be one-time or annually, for property or per car space; said she felt the sub -committee report needed clarification; Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, said she believed ---- that the City did own the property right-of-way and made reference to a 1901 Grant Deed; Steven Suard - 3436 The Strand, Planning Commis- sion, read from a written statement that was also submitted to Council: asked the Council to reconsider the Planning Commission recommenda- tions as being closer to the vote of the people regarding the "bulk" advisory vote; Chuck Sheldon - 1800 The Strand, disagreed with comments made by Mr. Suard and Mr.. Di Monda; felt the Council's position should be one that satisfies all sides and avoids litigation; said City Council Minutes 02-09-93 Page 8060 to the dissenting votes of Benz, Edgerton, and Essertier. Proposed Action: To approve the Planning Commission recommendations with the removal of the 15 year amor- tization period in item 7 and limiting the proposal to just the west side of Beach Drive, with fees to be set later. Motion Wiemans, second Benz. The motion failed dueto the dissenting votes of Edgerton, Essertier, and Midstokke. Proposed Action: To approve the Council sub -committee recommendations with the inclusion that fees would be set by the Council at a future time. Motion Edgerton, second Essertier. The motion was with- drawn by the maker. Action: To approve the Planning Commission recommenda- tions with the exclusion of items: 7(a) the priviledge to park will expire 15 years after the issuance of the permit, 7(b) the priviledge to park will expire upon ap- plication to renovate the property, and 7(c) the priviledge to park will expire upon sale or transfer of title of the property; with fees to be set by the Council at a later time; and with the exclusion of the property on the east side of Beach Drive. Motion Edgerton, second Benz. The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of Midstokke and Essertier. City Attorney Vose said that staff would bring back an Ordinance which establishes the provisions that were part of the motion, The meeting recessed at 10:20 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 10:33 P.M., and, at this time a majori- ty of the Council returned the order of the agenda to item no. 1. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 6. AWARD OF BID FOR THE STRAND BIKEWAY AND PEDESTRIAN PATH. Memorandum from Public Works Director Charles McDonald dated February 2, 1993. Supplemental letters from B.J. Mitchell, P.O. Box 865, Hermosa Beach, dated January 29, 1993, and, Patricia A. Egerer, 1142 Manhattan Avenue, #282, Manhattan Beach, dated February 1, 1993. Sup- plemental memorandum from City Attorney Vose, dated February 9, 1993. (Heard at 11:10 P.M.) Public Works Director McDonald presented the staff re- port and responded to Council questions. Mr. McDonald said that the funds have been received by the City and the City must execute a contract by June 30, 1993. City Council Minutes 02-09-93 Page 8062 Action: To continue this item to the meeting of February 23, 1993, by Council consensus. 10. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL - None CITIZEN COMMENTS Coming forward to address the Council at this time were: B.J. Mitchell - P.O. Box 865, Hermosa Beach, re- quested that the Council direct staff to report back on alternatives to address the safety is- sues on the Strand and the means to separate pedestrians from bicycles; suggested the pos- sibility of an additional boardwalk on the west side of the Strand; Patty Egerer - 1142 Manhattan Avenue, #282, Manhat- tan Beach, requested that the Council at least explore the idea of texturizing the surface of the Strand to slow bicycle speed; Gene Dreher 1222 Seventh Place, suggested that pedestrians also pose a safety hazard to bicyclists, and that everyone should work together; Parker Herriott - 224 Twenty-fourth Street, spoke on the possibility of potential personal liability to the Council for negligence regard- ing safety measures on the Strand; and. ,('EVISeZ Jerry Compton - 1200 Artesia Blvd., asked Council - member Edgerton if he was from Boston, and stated that in the spirit of his earlier com- ments related to legislation without represen- tation, he brought Council some teabags, and he tossed a handful of teabags on thetable in front of the Council dais. Councilmember Edgerton said that he was offended by the disregard for the dignity of the Council forum and asked that in the future the Mayor call the sergeant -at -arms to deal with actions of this type summarily. ADJOURNMENT - The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Wednesday, February 10, 1993, at the hour of 12:08 A.M. to a closed session for the purpose of Personnel. The closed session adjourned at 12:30 A.M. to the Regular Meeting of Tuesday, February 23, 1993, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. Deputy City Clerk City Council Minutes 02-09-93 Page 8065 J FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 09:17:20 -- PAY —VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY 0F.HERMOSA DEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/23/93 VND N ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN 41 AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ 44 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PAGE 0001 DATE 02/24/93 ,J INV/RAF PO 41 CHK 41 N AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP ; 1r �,n L.z� H A.P. ELECTRONICS 04165 001-400-4204-4321 00707 • $79.95 06050 43250 � REP/STRAND LITES/FOGHORN 02/18/93 BLDG MAINT /BUILDING SAFETY/SECURIT $0.00 02/23/93 A . ! — 9 *** VENDOR TOTAL ***** ***************** *******+r************ **gra********a*********• .• $79. 95 :1 H ROGER E.*BACON 05052 115-400-8179-4201 00002 • $7,277.56 06071 43253 14 _ - _ -REIMB COSTS PER AGREEMNT 02/23/93 CIP 90-179 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 02/23/93 6 1 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** -:. $7,277.56 e ,L 19 20 17I H COLEN & LEE AS AGENT FOR 04928 705-300-0000-3401 00066 $17.07CR 05550 43246 22 0 LIAB CHKG ACCT INTEREST 02/16/93 /INTEREST INCOME $0.00 02/23/93 =. in: H COLEN & LEE AS AGENT FOR '04928 :. 705-400-1209-4201 00355 $10,107.50 05550 43246 26 21, LIAB CLAIMS/JAN 93 02/16/93 LIABILITY INS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 02/23/93 2A 29 H . COLEN & LEE AS AGENT FOR • 04928 705-400-1209-4324 00372 $6,315.06 05550 43246 J0 %4• LIAB CLAIMS/JAN 93 02/16/93. LIABILITY INS /CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS $0_00 02/23/93 �• 21SETTLEMENT/GRILLO 32 33 3. H COLEN & LEE AS AGENT FOR 04928 705-400-1209-4324 00373 $4,000.00 05550 43246 02/16/93 LIABILITY INS •'' /CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS $0.00 02./23/93.T 30 35 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $20,405.49 "' '• .11 32 ” Ni 41 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT 00243 • 001-202-0000-2030 00531 $211,348.00' 43140 i 'PAYROLL/1-16 TO 1-31-93 02/03/93 /ACCRUED PAYROLL $0.00 3s '6 02/23/93_ __.. 1 H I HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT 00243 001-202-0000-2030 00532 $285,287.73 '43248 7,I PAYROLL/2-1 TO 2-15-93 02/16/93 /ACCRUED PAYROLL $0.00 02/23/93 48 37 38 w 4'1 H HERMOSA DEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT 00243 105-202-0000-2030 00301 " $8,056.08 43140 PAYROLL/1-16 TO 1-31-93 02/03/93 /ACCRUED PAYROLL $0.00 02/23/93 r, 41 42 - r� H HERMOSA DEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT 00243 109-202-0000-2030 00100 $1,195.78 43140 54 58 • PAYROLL/1-16 TO 1-31-93 02/03/93 /ACCRUED PAYROLL $0.00 4l M 4•• 02/23/93 58 _ i, H ' HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT 00243 110-202-0000-2030 00305 $41,045.75 43140 ., PAYROLL/1-16 TO 1-31-93 02/03/93 /ACCRUED PAYROLL $0.00 4. 47 M 02/23/93 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT 00243 115-202-0000-2030 00156- $3,624.49 43140 �,. ' PAYROLL/1-16 TO 1-31-93 02/03/93 /ACCRUED PAYROLL $0.00 02/23/93 49 SI .. 64 6! ,2 - 66 ,1 2 % ,: I V 48. J J J J J J J • • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 09:17:20 ,•'-----OAY---VENDOR NAME CITY OF.HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST • FOR 02/23/93 • PAGE 0002 DATE 02/24/93 MMUUNI JW/Fith FL) if CHK * DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ it ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION ` AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP !.,7' • __ ___ ....., .... • . . __ H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT 00243 125-202-0000-2030 00023 • • .4523.18 43140 PAYROLL/1-16 TO 1-31-93 02/03/93 /ACRV_DAY.ROI-A3- ' 40_00_02/23/93 ,i, . _r_- -H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT 00243 ..145-202-0000-2030 00297 : • 4533.94• 43140 PAYROLL/1-16 TO 1-31-93: 02/03/23 LACCRUED_PAYROL , 1 1 40_00._ 02/23/93_22 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT 00243 146-202-0000-2030 00020 41,829.40 43140 PAYROLL/1-16 TO 1-31-93 ' 02/03/93 /ACCRUED PAYROLL - 14 is Lni 40.00 02/23/91. _3_11 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT . 00243 . 150-202-0000-2030 00023 • ..-4196.09 . 43140 PAYROLL/1-16 TO 1-31-93 :.02/03/93.-,. ./ACCRUED_EAYROLL $0.00_ 02/23/93 m 19 2° r. m __ H HERMOSA BEACH_PAYROLL ACCOUNT, • 00243 155-202-0000-2030 00298 ' .44,101.83 43140 PAYROLL/1-16 TO 1-31-93 02/03/93 21 22 23 /ACCRUED_PWOLL $0 002.2202/23/.932.2:^ , • , H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT .00243 ',. 160-202-0000-2030 .• ' 00295 '410,587:60 • 43140 • , :-. PAYROLL/1-16 TO 1-31-93- 02/03/93 - . --- 24 .12 _..j.ACCRUED.PAYROLL___ • $0- 02 /23 / 93___ '8 1.3 i .00. _...L. . H ..HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT 00243 170-02-0000-2030 00152 .428,583.94 43140 •PAYROLL/1-16 TO 1-31-93 02/03/93 /ACCRUED . 31 3 , '2 _EAYROLI $0 00_02/23/93 H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT ':;-.1',-. 00243 *,' 705-202-0000-2030 . 00259 44,575.26 ' 43140 PAYROLL/1-16 TO 1-31-93 • • ' m--... 02L03L43 /ACCRUED_EAIROLL 402002_202(23/932_, 38 VENDOR TOTAL *** *********** **** ****** * **** ****** ***** ***************** ******* **** ' 4601.489.07 . P 413 32 3, 41 • 42 H PUI3 EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS 00026 :: 001-400-1213-4180 . 00646 .$97,155.18 . . .43249 .43 RETIREMENT ADVANCE/JAN93 - ..'-''--'..• 021.14L9aj_ 34 : _REIIREMENT /REIIREMERI. $0 00_:_02/23/93_____t1 15 m .,.., 46 *** VENDOR TOTAL ********** * **************** * ************* 497,155.18 0 I r, m 1 so H SEATTLE FIRST NATIONAL BANK . 03263 126-400-8514-6900 00034 4113,138.15 -. 00064 43245 5, RROW LEASE PMT/FEB 93 ;2.. 02/11/93 •CIE 09_=,114 /LEA5E_EAYMENI5 $0 00 02/231.93.__ 42 ..;., *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************* ***** * * * * * *** *********** ***** ********* ******* **** 4113,138.15 • ss. ss 4. 4s .., m, . ..:. • . H SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT . • -' 00400 • 110-300-0000-3302 • 49926 .. - 48134.00 . • 05192 43247 so . CITATION COURT BAIL 02/164.93L__ 46 0/COURLEINESLEARKING 40 00___02/23/..93_21 0 4,1 GI 62 H SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 0 00400 110-300-0000-3302 49927,: 4102.00 . 05195 43252 s3 CITATION COURT BAIL . 02/23/93 /COURT FINESLEAMING .,, 40-00 021_23L/3 .,' • . , 51 . t • . • (.1 oc, ..4 .. • * 71 . • 72 55 • . • • ,. • 56 . . • • , - , -,.:, , • -, ..,„. ,. , M , .;.•. . . 7 ., • 00) Olb 41• 41. %lb 1 FINANCE—SFA340 :1• TIME 09:17:20 LI -1H I . 1-I PAY ---VENDOR-NAME— DESCRIPTION -VENDOR-NAME— DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/23/93 VND W ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PAGE 0003 DATE 02/24/93 INV/REF PO * CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************+r*****a*+r*r*►***********+r*********w*********a*r**** * * * $986. 00 H TRANSPORTATION CHARTER SERV. 05018 145-400-3409-4201 00047 $651.00 BUS/BIG BEAR EXCURSION 02/22/93 REC TRANSPTN /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $651.00 *** PAY CODE TOTAL****************************************************************** * * * * * * $841,182.40 E TROPHIES M1SC CHARGES/FEB 93 11479 02/11/93. CITY COUNCIL •/SPECIAL EVENTS 02744 001-400-1101-4319 00151 $21.07 VENDOR TOTAL $21. 07 r. 06325 43251 $0. 00 02/23/93 3 4 IS 15 10 19 20 41 22 23 24 25 316 27 26 2) 31 12 ,5 _ 36 37 7243 00025 . 43258 l; $0.00 02/23/93 11479 00022 43256 $0.00 02/23/93 R ADAMSON INDUSTRIES . 00138. 001-400-2101-4309 00593 '$99.00 MISC CHARGES/JAN 93 8832 01/13/93 POLICE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 8832 00023 VENDOR TOTAL**************************.****************************************** $99. 00 43257 *0.00 02/23/93 AMERICAN STYLE FOODS MISC CHARGES/FEB 93 4r •1�. tl • '. • or °6 * * * 00857 001-400-2101-4306 01324 $31.50 7243 02/02/93 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R ARATEX/RED STAR INDUSTRIAL I UTILITY RAG RENT/JAN 93 $31. 50 00152 • 001-400-2201-4309 01437 01/31/93 FIRE1 3.1 40 41 R R ARATEX/RED STAR INDUSTRIAL.::'.' 00152 UTILITY RAG RENT/JAN 93 01/31/93 001-400-3104-4309 01021 TRAFFIC SAFETY ARATEX/RED STAR INDUSTRIAL • 00152 UTILITY RAG RENT/JAN 93 01/31/93 41 45 $62.00 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $53.23 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00017 43259 $0.00 02/23/93 00017 43259 001-400-4204-4309 02569 BLDG MAINT R ARATEX/RED STAR. INDUSTRIAL UTILITY RAG RENT/JAN 93 4C M R ARATEX/RED STAR INDUSTRIAL UTILITY RAG RENT/JAN 93 $216. 25 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00152 001-400-4205-4309 00702 01/31/93 ____ __EQUIP SERVICE 00152 110-400-3302-4309 00895 01/31/93 PARKING ENF 4 $151.16 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $8.87 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0. Q0 Q2/23(9.3 00017 43259 $0.00 02/23/93 00017 43259 41 44 45 40 a7 as 51 52 54 55 68 09 $0. 00 02/23/93 Co 6t 00017 43259 $0.00 02/23/93 62 6) in CC 67 62 54 44 70 72 e J .411 e 44/ 611. r r r5GI FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 09:17:20 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/23/93 PAGE 0004 DATE 02/24/93 V..'...Uf 1'MMI'Ic VND M ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN S ' ',.AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK Si DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ'M ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION. AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP •*** VENDOR. TOTAL #491.51 1' 1 R' DEAR MOUNTAIN, LTD. 03670 001-400-4601-4201 01677. #1,015.00• • 06328 • 43260 1' TICKETS/COMM RES TRIP 02/23/43.__--__-_.__C.OMM._RESOURCES._LCONIREGLSERV.ICE/PRIVAT_....___.._-.._._. $0.00 02/23/93 !? ... HI *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1.015:00 1,2! .5 5 .4R ELAINE A. *DERTLER 43261e 05041 001-210-0000-2110 05224 °.$50.00 ::53155 05477• ! ANIMAL TRAP REFUND 53155 '' 02/11/93': lDEPOSITS/WORK—GUARANTEE_____-.__-.. $0.00.__.02/23/9' 19 z' 15: I ..-.. • R ELAINE A.*DERTLER' 05041 001-300-0000-3895 00059 $7.70CR 53155 05477 43261 .6: ANIMAL TRAP USE FEES 53155 . 02/11/93 /ANLCIALIRAE FEF $0_00_02/23/93—=' 21 22 23 - ', *** VENDOR TOTAL #42.30 25 27 2" 39 R OFI MEDICAL WASTE SYSTEMS 04540 001-400'-2101-4201 01209 $31.90 00075 43262 31 2n1 MED WASTE DISPOSAL/JAN43 01/31/43 POLICE /rIINTRACT SEBVICF/PRIVAT {32 $O_QO-02123L9? 3 z,:I*** 3.3VENDOR TOTAL #31:90 3.: z,� x, • 3, 33 i R BLACKTOP MATERIALS CO. 04352 001-400-3103-4309 01477 $60.62 40738 00019 43263 39 "' MISC CHARGES/JAN 93 40738 01/27/93 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCJMATERIALS $.Q.QQ_02/23./_93 "" 32 *** VENDOR TOTAL #60.62 43 33 - 4 W j :r; R • BROWNING FERRIS INDUSTRIES 00158 001-400-3103-4201 00454 $3,019.92 00004 '43264 4 31i DUMP -CHARGES/JAN 93 01/31/93 ST MAINTENANCE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $Q 00 02/23/93 ~^ 3" *** VENDOR TOTAL*************************+r.****************************************** '$3.019.92• 5, 39 ' • an .. ., 54 41 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER' 02016' 001-400-1121-4305 00235 #60.86 03891 43266 42 PETTY CASH/1-15 TO 2-4 '02/04/93 CITY CLERK /OFFICE QPER SUPPLIES $0..0.Q_-0.21.23/93 `-6 'n ^^. R . GARY*QRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER . 02016 001-400-1201-4305 00247 ' $30.31 03892 43266 69 4n . PETTY CASH/2-4 TO 2-17 ' 02/16L9.3 CITY MANAGER—_LOF_ELCE OPER_SUP_ELIES_ _ _____-.:$0.00._..-.._02/23/.93._'_' K. 41 42 "] R GARY*QRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER ' 02016 001-400-1202-4316 00444 $5.0003891 43266• .1 • "^ PETTY CASH/1—15 TO 2-4 02/04/93 FINANCE/TRAINING $0 00_ 02/23/92 "' _MAIN 50 .. .. .51 01 51 71 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 09:17:20 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OFMERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/23/93 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRW * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION • • • • PACE 0005 DATE 02/24/93 INV/REF PO * CHK AMOUNT UNENC ' DATE EXP ; • . vul-4uu-i:101-4187 00518 ' 43.29 03891 43266 ,t PETTY CASH/1-15 TO 2-4 02/04/93 POLICE /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE $0.00 02/23/93 • i R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 . 001-400-2101-4305 01930 - : 415.37 03891 '43266 , t , • PETTY CASH/1-15 TO 2-4 02/04/93 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES _ $0.00_ 02/23/93_, -; R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-2101-4305 01931 ' 430.95 03892 43266 t t PETTYCASH/2-4 TO 2-17 ' 02/16/93 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0._0002/23/93_ R GARY*BRUTSCH. CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-2101-4316 00991 ., - 435.78 03891 43266 . _ __________ 11.1 PETTY CASH/1-15 TO 2-4 :, 02/04/93 POLICE ' /TRAINING $0.00._ 02/23/93_2. R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-2201-4305 00601 • •44.33 03891 43266 ;.J , - PETTY CASH/1-15 TO 2-4 02/04/93 FIRE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES F2.,' '7-40.00 02/23/93 I ] 2, R GARY*B. RUTSCH. CITY TREASURER , 02016 001-400-4101-4305 00669 45.00 : 03891 . 43266 PETTY CASH/1-15 TO 2-4 ' 02/04/93 ' PLANNING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES' ' 40.00_02/23/.91. 2. R .. GARY*BRUTSCH. CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-4204-4309 02567 . 423.87 03891 43266 :.._ PETTY CASH/1-15 TO 2-4 02/04/93 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 40.00 02/23/93 ru N R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER ..............02016 .001-400-4204-4309 02568 t: .. 495.10 03892 43266 -,, 27 PETTY CASH/2-4 TO 2-17 02/16/93 BLDG MAINT '/MAINTENANCE MATERIAL5 26 40.00_____02ew93 al GARY*BRUTSCH. CITY TREASURER • 02016 001-400-4601-4305 01124 . 423.91 03892 43266 39 10 PETTY CASH/2-4 TO 2-17 02/16/93 COMM RESOURCES /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 11 . (?.?./2p/93 40 • 41 32 R GARY*BRUTSCH. CITY TREASURER . 02016 001-400-6101-4309 01382 -.• 416.24 03891. 43266 ..2 17 'PETTY CASH/1-15 TO 2-4 02/04/93 PARKS ',MAINTENANCE MATERIALS ' 31 40.00 02/23/93_.4 35 R [ GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-6101-4309 01383 443.30 03892 43266 47 PETTY CASH/2-4 TO 2-17 02/16/93 PARKS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 40.00 02/23/93 37 0, 49 m R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER ..02016 160-400-3102-4309 00775 ' 443.05 03891• 43266 Z: PETTY CASH/1-15 TO 2-4 02/04/93 SEWER/ST DRAIN /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 41 $0.00 02/23/93 52 • ....1 .11 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER • 02016 705-400-1209-4324 00374 47.70 03891 43266 E.. 55 .2 PETTY CASH/1-15 TO 2-4 02/04/93 LIABILITY INS /CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS 40.00 02/23/93 sts 43 . 7 r VENDOR TOTAL . 59 41: ',: 4444.06 .. - . ' ..• ,-59 75 60 _ . - CZ. 47 R C.A.P.E. TRAINING INSTITUTE -', 05044 001-400-2101-4316 00990 4125.00 TR415 00415 43267 63 46 ' SEMINAR REG/T. JOHNSON TR415 ' 02/16/93 POLICE /TRAINING 40.00 48 02/23/93 ... . .•;- 50 66 51 67 S2 W lc, 71 , !.2. I4 IS 1 2 3 4 7 44 .3 .01 4.1 414 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 09: 17: 20 PAY VENDOR NAME CITY OF'HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/23/93 PAGE 0006 DATE 02/24/93 • • r_n r/v 8 Mr1uvr41 11Vv/KMr NK R rU if C I�I'i DESCRIPTION DATE ^INVC PROD'#"�rc2 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 5 I'`� *** VENDOR TOTAL e j1 $125.00 , /. .. ; 9- C: . . ,. , - R CALIF D. A. R. E. OFCRS ASSOC. 03856 001-400-2101-4317 00207 • .$100.00 TR414 00414 43268 I. •Ci___ .-_,-, REG'/T. THOMPSON , TR414 02/04/93 210004 POLLCE /CDNFERENCE_EXPENSE $0 00.__.02/23/.93_1 u I'! *** VENDOR TOTAL $100.00 15 16 I1 R THE*CALIF PARK & REC. SOCIETY . 00602 . 001-400-4601-4315 !00119... . $110.00 . 06308 43269 u ANNUAL DUES/M. ROONEY.:1------------ - - 02/11/93 COMM RESDVRS:ES lMEMBEASljIP $0 00.-__..02323!9.3 J0 21 *** VENDOR TOTAL 22 1'51 • $110.00 25 - 24 R JEANNE*CARUSO25• %`:::'''03293 001-400-2101-4316 00992 ;'` > $76.32 . . 06150 43270 27 REIMB MATERIALS/SPR 93 L—...—._•_.__.-. --------- - ------.--._02/11/j3 ' POLICE /TRAINING '0 23 24 *0 00_02/23/93 *** VENDOR TOTAL 30 *76.32 31 32 •� .'I .. 33 RCINTAS CORPORATION 00153 001-400-4202-4187 00224 $482.70 00002 43271 35 UNIFORM RENT/JAN 93 01/31/93 PVA_WKS ADMIN /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE $0.....00...._.:04/23/93J5 R CINTAS CORPORATION' 01/31 110-400-3302-4187 00395• *42.00 00002 ' 43271 , UNIFORM RENT/JAN 93 01/31/93 PARKING ENF /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE $0.0 02323 *** VENDOR TOTAL 42 *524.70 13 35 .15 R 1 CLAREMONT CONSTRUCTION 46 05039 001-300-0000-3815 00591 *100.00 50944 06057 43272 4/ REFUND PUB WORKS FEES 50944 02/11/93 /PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES 40.04 OS/ 3/S;1.-'°' *** VENDOR TOTAL A „ $100.00..` 51 42 e 41 RCOAST GLASS COMPANY 54 00325 001-400-4204-4309 02572 • *14.61 8156 00116 43273 55 42 MISC CHARGES/JAN 93 8156 01/31/93- • BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0:'00 02/23/93 '-" 4, "' *** VENDOR TOTAL 45 $14.61 .,, - -61 ^' R COLEN AND LEEC2 04715 705-400-1209-4201 00356 $1,470.00 00042 43274 63 •LIAR ADMIN/MARCH 93 '. 02/15/93 LIABILITY INS /CONTRACT SERVIC[/PRIVAT $0.00 02/23/93 6i 46 41 .. 5, 67 6i 53 71 x• 71 /563 .. I ' /4 T,7 ,. > _ "I. J FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 09:17:20 PAY --VENDOR NAME CITY DEHERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/23/93 VND $ ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN $ AMOUNT DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ $ ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL **************************************r*******r***********+r******** R COM SYSTEMS, INC 00017 001-400-1121-4304 00603 LONG DISTANCE/JAN 93 01/31/93 CITY CLERK /TELEPHONE PAGE 0007 DATE 02/24/93 INV/REF PO k CHK tk AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $1,470.00 $5.10 R COM SYSTEMS, INC LONG DISTANCE/JAN 93 00017 01/31/93 R COM SYSTEMS. INC LONG DISTANCE/JAN 93 • R COM SYSTEMS, INC LONG DISTANCE/JAN 93 00017 01/31/93 001-400-1131-4304 00440 ' • $1.36 CITY ATTORNEY /TELEPHONE 001-400-1141-4304 00622 00017 01/31/93 $14.34 CITY TREASURER /TELEPHONE 001-400-1201-4304 00673 CITY. MANAGER R COM SYSTEMS, INC LONG DISTANCE/JAN 93 R . COM SYSTEMS, INC LONG DISTANCE/JAN 93 $9.27 /TELEPHONE 00017 001-400-1202-4304 00675 $21.22 01/31/93 " FINANCE ADMIN /TELEPHONE .00017 001-400-1203-4304 00685 01/31/93 PERSONNEL $25.51 /TELEPHONE -r' R COM SYSTEMS, INC LONG DISTANCE/JAN 93 00017 01/31/93 COM SYSTEMS, INC LONG DISTANCE/JAN 93 001-400-1206-4304 00603 DATA PROCESSING 00017 01/31/93 R COM SYSTEMS, INC LONG DISTANCE/JAN 93 • $15.05 /TELEPHONE 001-400-1207-4304 00476 BUS LICENSE $14.48 /TELEPHONE 00017 001-400-2101-4304 0.1179 01/31/93 POLICE R 1 COM SYSTEMS, INC LONG DISTANCE/JAN 77 R $348.32 /TELEPHONE 00017 001-400-4101-4304 00678 93 01/31/93 PLANNING $23.70 /TELEPHONE 00117 43276 $0.00 _02/23/93_ 00117 43276 $0.00 ___02/23/93 2 6 a 9- 10 11 12 u 14 15 00117 43276 10 $0.0002/23/93 M 22 23 24 00117 _., . 43276 26 n �+ $0. 00 02/23/93_ 26 ev 00117 43276 x n $0 00 02/23/93 32 33 00117 43276 . .+ $0.00 02/23/93 ..6, 00117 $0.00 43276 02/23/93 00117 ' 43276 *0. 00'02/23/93 4.4 41 42 00117, 43276 43 $0. 0,0 _...._02/23/93„46J 4v .N 00117 '. 43276 COM SYSTEMS, INC LONG DISTANCE/JAN 93 00017 01/31/93 001-400-4201-4304 00606 BUILDING *75.81 /TELEPHONE' COM SYSTEMS, INC LONG DISTANCE/JAN 93 COM SYSTEMS, INC LONG DISTANCE/JAN 93 00017 01/31/93 001-400-4202-4304 00735 PUB WKS ADMIN $21.31 /TELEPHONE • 00017 01/31/93 COM SYSTEMS, INC . 00017 LONG DISTANCE/JAN 93 01/31/93 001-400-4601-4304 00786 COMM RESOURCES $44.06 /TELEPHONE 105-400-2601-4304 00226 STREET LIGHTING $7.39 /TELEPHONE $0.00 02/23/93 00117. 43276 *0.00__ 02/23/93 00117 43276 $0.00 02/23/93 00117 43276 $0.00 02/23/93 00117 43276 $0.00 02/23/93 46 x 5, 52 5.4 55 56 61 62 6, 64 67 'I1 70 I1 72 • 15 Il J vel :l S FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 09:17:20 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/23/93 PAGE 0008 DATE 02/24/93 PAY VENDOR NAME VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT INV/REF • PO it CHK 3 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP' •7 z 3 4 R COM SYSTEMS, INC 00017 110-400-1204-4304 00001 312.06 00117 43276 LONG DISTANCE/JAN 93 01/31/93 FINANCE CASHIER /TELEPHONE ___02/23/93__L 7 R COM SYSTEMS, INC 00017 110-400-3302-4304 00693 • $12.26 00117 43276 LONG DISTANCE/JAN 93 .+ 01/31/93PARKING_ENF_—!"T_ELEP.HONE $0. 00 02/23/93 __'L. •1 x'11 *** VENDOR TOTAL $651.24 13 15 r.. '. R DANIEL FREEMAN LAX MED. CLINIC 02390 001-400-1203-4320 00447 . $258.00. 004971-00 05549 43277 EMPLOYEE PHYSICALS/JAN93 71-00 . 01/31/93 PERSONNEL. /PRE—EMFJ„QYMENT EXAMS_—________.$0.00 _02/23/93_2' 17 19 *** VENDOR TOTAL$258.00 •. 21 22 23 :4 1•' R DATA SAFE '00156 001-400-1206-4201 01094 • • $189.50 71242 00015 43278 ' TAPE STOR/2-11 TO 3-11 71242 02/12/93 • DATA !ROCESSINQ_L,C-ONTRACT SERVICE/"P"RLVAT_____." $Q. 00 02/23/93 2y 27 20 .__ .._ _", • *** VENDOR TOTAL**************************4**********************************4444*** $189.50 .11 32 " R DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL CARE &.. .00154 001-400-2401-4251 00210 $94.79 00014 43279 '7 :SHELTER COST/JAN 93 .: - 02/10/93 ANIMAL—C.ONTRUL_—LCONIRACI—SER.YI.CE/GO.V_T--- 40.00__ 022.3/93_4 11 14 Is **$ VENDOR TOTAL. *************************************4444***********************4444 $94.79 w .0 R THE *DEVELOPMENT 00147 001-400-2101-4305 ' 01933" $57.91 00120 43280 MISC--- CHARGES/JAN 93 01/3t/13 POL,LCE.40.00.._02/23/53._ 4. 14 44 ______ —____LOEF.LCE_OPER_.SUPPI_IES R THE *DEVELOPMENT 00147 001-400-2101-4306 01323 ' $13.56 00120 43280 4. 1 ,i MISC CHARGES/JAN 93 01/31/93 POLICE /PRISONER_MAINIENANCE $0.94.___02L23L93 '•_ 33 *** VENDOR TOTAL ************************************444444*4444**4444*4**4***4******" 371.47 i1 41 - R DIGITAL EDUIPMENT CORPORATION • 00269 001-400-2101-4201 01206 • $913.32 342115693 00007 43281 :. N COMPUTER MAINT/FEB 93 15693 02/15/93 POLICE /CONTRACT SEPVICE/PRLVAT 40.10.0 r .___02/23/93 44 R DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION.00269 001-400-2201-4201 00368. $608.87 342115693 00007 43281 �,1 45 COMPUTER MAINT/FED 93 15693____Q2/_.1.5/Y,1_ /CONTRACI_SERVICE/P_RIVAT $0 00 02/-23[.93__! __EIRE_ 44 rz , *** VENDOR.. TOTAL 444**4***44*444***4444*4444******4444****4* $1,522.19 c1 47 GI R DOTY BROS. 00799 . 001-210-0000-2110 05218 $1,600.00 32882 05480 43262 .7 , -WORK GUARANTVE REFJ. ND 32882" " 02L16L93 /DE20SITS/WORK—GUARANTEE---_—.$0. 00._.--02/23/-.93_— T. 5. ,1 ,4 J FINANCE-SFA340• TIME 09:17:20 CITY OF'HERMOSA BEACH`' ';"; •DEMAND LIST FOR 02/23/93 PAGE 0009 DATE 02/24/93 • reer VCINUUM nnne +-VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN 4 2 DESCRIPTION .; `»�� AMOUNT INV/REF PO li CHK * 3 t1t� 11 DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION EN DATE EXP :' AMOUNT UNENC � • s ••• VENDOR TOTAL *1.600. 00 6 • 5 7 ° R OFCR TOM*ECKERT +; , F N+,:01958 'G :0017400-2101-4312 ,; 02083 ,*40.00' v i�t�ww�i'4. y i am,..: 05928 43283 "' ;' MEALS/P. 0. S. T: sJ:,a. g 02/08/93 ..". ... POLICE:-`' s/TRAVEL:EXPENSE • :.POST .r•. ':'t $0-00 -:'04W23/93',:: e 11 or 1 ••• VENDOR TOTAL '" *40.00 ". 2 .. ..15 +2 13 " 13 .. ..: .: • EMERG:MED SERV PERSONNEL FUND' ie 03372 0 1 400 2201"".4316'' 00353 *85 00=, 03483 's y.: 001-400-2201-4314' 43284 FEES/J.. CRAWFORD a 02/09/93 FIRE /TRAINING$00O O2/23/ 16 e• 93 17 ••• VENDOR TOTAL 185 00' 0,e 21 ,•.., ... .. :, . t... .S ,"" at -F r�_-s•+' k's`t 2. �. ..,,� ,2i . 20 ;'": R EMERO, ;'• MED,SERV PERSONNEL FUND r t' 03371 - '` :2001 4002201.4316 i;' 00352 t 3 " ,.f8536 •.+.. , '" 03482 4328.7 " 21 . RECERT FEES/M." WILLIAMS:. " `'02/09/93, > FIRE ......`,.„ C0 r fwn g s : "-` `' /TRAINING �= O : 02/23/43 i0 0 n 2r 23 ••• VENDOR TOTAL. ..: ''` ze z9 so ^3J'' ,�,v zd . ri R ,, ,',. EMPLOYMENT r .. t DEVELOPMENT :• DEPT , 01397, 903 400=1213-4186 :"'.00111 < d '`:' " *4. "453 00 93270339-6 ci "05646 43286 ' 27 ' UNEMP CLAIMS/OCT-DEC 92 ' 339-6 ,_„> 01/28/93 ";, 'UNEMPLOYMENT."i"',`%UNEMPLOYMENT: BENEFITS $0.00-':"""02/23/93;.:.: >z 33 3' 2d ••• VENDOR TOTAL 3 0 ..• cHf4. 45 O 37 3e >a a • 32 cy R `EQUITABLE" INSURANCE C0` -:OF>' IOWA 0083 .,174097121'2-4188, ,; f .~t; s ": rs 0:. _` 00.02635 !$t .,; ?fi ',EU04851 : 05348c t 4328 ` r .::y,r kt 3tt' i ''.d � y f4+ 159.00 � Ew � � 7 ` �`: "� INS PREMIUM/E. ;. DILLER x•`:04851 , ,r 02/08/93 t '% -,' EMP BENEFITS a .�:/EMPLOYEE` BENEFITS c= ,. .. ' f0 "00 '.'02/23/93 40 Q � ,l " 3s :: ••• VENDOR "TOTAL. k..^.*4•'154. 00 `;; 4 '. 1/ 15 /6 k G.xs'" uCJ' 3e •ar•_ :- R , ..: EXECUTIVE -SUITE 'SERVICE ' N 'Mr"., s .., -w $ I C € �;01294.:,; „ 001=40674204-4i01,,,,00566 .; ` *1.325 00',f 1 , �: ��<3�. '� 00039 ` d "4328 8 . +.< 00 /23/935..:. - JANITOR SERVICE/JAN 93.`. s ,.':01/31/93;_..'- BLDQ':MAINT r's. /CONTRACTSERVICE/PRIVATh: ,' ••••-.''f0 3VQ2 Ie ,° so s1 sz d /1 :, :',.:. ••• VENDOR : TOTAL ,.;.,ts>.,_ y,;1. $ 53 e1 43L"a 4^ { � t P :,r .Fr. f..,,t 1 f s `1 t 04303; ' 001 400-2101-431 ' ^ ✓ 1<; exl s ` ti 3� <, ,,. #}►,;.:, 2 °'";"02081; - ', f77 25 i 414, R a ' FREDERICK :R.*FERRIN s + a ,'T02/11%93 ,s,,s„•. <:n.:: , MEALS/P.:0. S. T'':<':CLAS$ 5 ;;d �r t, .KrYb :? a, ., :- r ; a r 05924: ;" : 43289 Y 02/11/93 �,,, :POLICv- .•/TRAVE %EXPENsvi<:POST.,h f0 se 37 s. 5D 3. ,, t.. -:: 00 t':'02/23/93>` a •.' ' ••• VENDOR . TOTAL 1fx t'$77.25 1 i �' e2 . ..; e/ � r ..1. P •.",>' :.. 4}�' f,-� t'^r'i t SES * F.:�, :`.'i".a?J it .< 5+ ;., e tr «'ru"t Z" I t� 60 so.iy5•�+a.,...R: MAR ;;. t' r ,.< y... ,r �.,. tr�t,>: r, ;t.•. �., ,a -,...e -.If, , ¢ jp ,_ ;> 4t, 105040,-* t 001=-210-000072110 t X08225 : " •- �::,'*230. 00 ;- : 51819 .''05478 ' + ' .., =-, DAMAGE DEPOSIT' REFUND •"' -151819. '02/11/93.'. .,<:N � • 43230 ;r:. /DEPOSI S/WOR •GUAR • N s:' *• " • •" -' a ar . : •2 3 9 u 1_�11 or ` te- k: ryyp r V(r. p .; ]t / 66 07.`x' .,Y,t`.•.11.h::l�IS'i'.:Y t. n1 ✓";^. `47� :4'i�. K•{�tiL#F�1�'(.1° 7.TM'7j !r{' f'A;�.1!; riw T�-"'y !•'1 wrt`�''. w r d'r•,, .1'" NI';tt�� "•LCI' ,f '�• 71 .•^1x a,.5 J•» "{•i.l ,% .-, - 1rY.,..;.1..i ..h+- .... .. •v.•^ }� "�1E�.h,� •ai.�1 `•`' 'f� ..ft v!- ,�. :.':;- t r' n 8 v r. f i :tY YA ,.rG y si +:' .f . r.J •'�y�{ <,i•.sY•b�Y V;> .. Y F.-,rr :.Ns !+�F 'tnp i e a,.s.:.. A du.' •:; � ..- -A r . rJaV17` .. ,.. r:: .a*•, .;' ... Fr; �. .,.,y-. ; ,e,.4•t .Xx sok,. }•.. X ± �,Y �•: . •. :., i ..:... -s. r ',r,:r' :4-< s {;�. ,5 .,.. . �' a7 . oi. i. nt...t. .d. +/, 1. yry} 'O,v<k.. riC. `„+' r,...... e•''", 3:° f', r , "...", : i z. •� ��y" 1 '7'^` - �� ',� '.'i, e ":'% q � ,,.i : S'W' yt � Y••: .51• y5,' •�yy}qd�,,1 i)qye // A.: 'ail 4.,.+'' �f13.. , %:f+e "Y,, k J =w /w •" �T t :ae 73 'i'' .t1�!>:: y.a- C li•t. 'f"F"« 7� ,..L if�i ..'� ...._�7,. 'r 74 ..}.5. .:e"n. yi: ,f.r kre ..i^ d + e :� `. Y' ., 1H... k ' k r ,� i.f'?t. �'IL': F . n k k b Fy r. ✓I,.', { �iM"}� is •"-1.4 Kad,.� l; Ts,. .. sfG �y '7'•6 '..k�Yr •. t'.^-�k'ffiG'a :' t+11, 7k'$I• Ye4pa''. \/ J -' J r 00 a`+ G. FINANCE—SFA340 . • TIME 09:17:20 CITY OF`-HERMOSA, BEACH DEMAND LIST - • —FOR 02/23/93 PAGE 0010 DATE 02/24/93!.. 11 PAY VENDOR NAMEVND M' ACCOUNT 'NUMDER TRN N <. ' AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK * '. DESCRIPTION DATE; INVC r PROD * ACCOUNT:DESCRIPTION , lis Iz f { AMOUNT. UNENC . ' DATE EXP ; s *re VENDOR TOTAL '4250.00 ` 1 7 52<�$1400.: _ --A : : GREG$GRINNELLI 7}r 5d#x'•4.- , 0505 i !A I,,,2.10.000,0;.-!-144 ..., 634 50908 05487 43291 WORK GUARANTEE`REFU D.Y9rr• _ r?,�; r . . ,, pnn02/23/93 z 1. ++ z • rrr VENDOR TOTAL. r $1.600.00 s le 13 1Ie -..: ..'':: i ':(: 4 j z l '•J z i - i• c Y . 2 '� j=!"r < r:..,,� `'� .. ur z _ ' •..�. : .. .. ,. ., GTE. CALIFORNIA. INCORPORA-TE>,g l� • slffT'`�a<:.< 0.001s 8' 1 40-` 1101:i... t4304rh�r 00535 4 en318 0200 x.00231 43293 :DIRECT DIALCHGS/JAN—FED:020002/237 , . � m': ,.��.�;� . .,__ . , i�:,. . • • 4F,:i • - 17 w 20 + R' GTE •CALIFORNIA.. INCORPORATED r `00015: }x.001-400-1121-4304- 00602 ;, •$38,29'. 318-0200 00231 43293 ; DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JAN—FEB —0200 ` • `O2/23/93;: ' • • CIT .. R • . • ► • • • • z. z' I .. iR '' G , Y 3 .. : , .. # b: S}, •:,Sf. ` i z^3 :. 'F'l 1... 'Sv�" X11 / - b :'. 4 i ,,. Y .. ,� $.. :t^: ..b.!s GTE `'CAL IFORNIA";74INCORPORA .; "• • — .. , +3er: , ,3 r, .7 µ TED s k 00015, , € ,s 001 400 (1131 :4304 ;� - 00439 > ;- �s =.620,x10 o3 f C 318 0200 ; 00231.. 43293 a;:; ei'a >,. DIRECT DIAL ::CHG / ' ,— : ;,_• • • m4• . . a. , „. z5 z7' R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED',..00013 ;001-400-1141-4304 00621 • .$38.29 .: 318-0200 00231 43293 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JAN—FEB —0200 ' `'•' 02/2 ... • •. •• sl y._....; .:.,�4°f ...ti.i :,�,.• �-t---s `.'•i .: ,:..n• OTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED r 00015:_ 01.."4001201-4304 `00672 �< ,.<:a32 24 sF 318-0200 ::F00231 > 43293 <11n ' DIRECT PIA .,.• - .►— .,r,.^,• tf<..:: .. :.•K.� :� �� 4� .,k„ afu•,..;� .:FFG '. • •• - •_ '34 R GTE CALIFORNIA,' INCORPORATED 00015 -001-400-1202-4304 00674 $116,88.; '318-0200 00231 43293 ' "+='' ` DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JAN—FEB —0200 :'^• •2 .•. • •. . 03 • •• •41 3• p ! da• � n 3^.t. :- :5:1 ,� %-'_. tI:.W� - _ � f 5...;:.�` r ... ..•r; '� „�.�:' i. isz,a ' . :� jf s: R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED ±eoy r 3.t .; _ ; 3 , eS, v x.:: _;3.. — rt€ 00015.r X001 400 1203 4304 .,.. 00684 € i48 37 ,r 318 0200 ..:00231, 43293 DIRECT D AL G-• •. v ? ..— ... $r .:.. .. .. - ... . a7 « R •,f GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED.'' "`00015 •001-400-1206-4304 00602 ' $38,44.: '"'318-0200 "..00231 43293 �1 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JAN—FED —0200 02/23/-3 P. 'i, L. ... •-' 9 •. • 0 m GTE' CALIFORNIA. INCORPO A E '"fir" L : 01440044207-4304 3 fl ' 338 29 � fh , � < .� - R T D. : t '� ,77�'.00015, 0� ' 00475 9<"'c "' -=r � � 318 ,0200 � 00231 Y , 43293 � ' � ._. -�: k DIRECT D AL CH—• • s, ,2„ ,i38 2L Y GS J:N— EB _ 20 �r�a. ` ' • F.G::- .. ` c . .. .,s. ax .. , , .:, � .> . a...-, .,.. , r,...:,.. • • • • -46 . ; s, ss '+ R- 'GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED - 00015 ,001-400-1208-4304 00278 *204 ' 318-0200 00231 43293 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JAN—FEB —0200>.. '02/23/93• •' GEN •--C•- •: _,•, • •• • - ss se V .b Y- .µ 1' i'•l(4 1 YV i j,: 1 i, .. .. 1. . # j ,�..• �.;,. �1... N i.... x•� -.'.'4 V ^>•..kA . `S ,• 1 .'d' ( <. : �a^ z ,,,.:, R ' GTE .`CALIFORNIA, r INCORPORATED % Vi 0001 Y,y, — ' ° > G �� +' FK.�''•x , ( $d�� r 5 001 400-21014304,, 01178 �, �.,;,:_ilr 414 00,�,'�i <� ff, ,, 840200::400231 � ` 43293 ' a� :,, a. ,1�: ... .IRE DIA G- :.—F %-. •. • *:-;. - . . ,: . s , =- •. -A °A: 57 5• w eo e R :.- GTE CALIFORNIA,. INCORPORATED '" 00015 ' 001-400-2201-4304 :: ;';'.00319:.; . ' a' $20 15 ; T >'" 318-0200 00231 43293 • ` DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JAN—FEB —•2• • - - !'.' • - • L ' .. • • • • - s e• • 31 . .}( .i'N�.�v, p ;.){,s,.,f. i 4•.•.ks' . }.).'...YEM.t '.; t.. r-;.•- •�.. :1 �;'*.�yfs.'J. K.:` . y1'. t`.....< ,.( <. �.y.:',Y-�: i jS::.2,.: , C�.. ,'l:-: "..,; , .. _:Y F,..,vtY.R S.-��y";s G'..''-. -` . - ,k;r,?.T+..y..Y"w.'l' ]".S�X.+.-.Sn:. :g.'..��,)1,'\. . .7 {-' .V-d�,'t."�>.♦,{4�.'' . aF,E#,„.:. '1' =R'1�..N.�'"-�h PL-- .4l-...i��y!.!�Ic)•i'ai C+. ^•�E1,(•. CnvRi:•'i .,?:Ma` 'S.:,":--+r1fl.,XkGy. fo:,.'• }i<:,sp .'.- �, ,i,t•. •�. ..< �pL , ,. �..^$"?^ 44 . U ,+. .. K , i'-'' � n,,,s•.- ,„....s,f, F . . 5s e7Z •• •>� �r, . - r. \ 4 Cr -�`; .. i. '9i•c .rCNAr.• 1,. Aw.,Y.•�?'�'Y•�5:;. Yr ••"S: hi17.... LY•::� F'v' `i r.., M{: '...11, 1`' •k•. ',. 'N . Iii: �r'..,...Zi" ,i: " i. /'a. �:f •¢' 'I...:Y :..,1...,; _S7 .�.- �: •,,yy,,.. t: `..'� li4e,• �'if":l 1,,•/-. :.. ., .f':.«t{•. ..*l '`1• ... .. .•'C:. .. .. . ....>.%r `.'l:. "'J�.... `.-Y!i •;Jn� .�,.qK�{r : '.%'. .`�'.. _��' ; :s :�"��f �,. . ••j'�.�... ,-(w'.r�.:Y `..tf' io 72 .,H.y :Y. i9r ti ..:,. .i'4.. J ✓ , e ;y. .Y :. {yam^' { ,} 1F �;#i'+,.. � .C'i•:. • � .:y .. f'•4 ?.(iK .K, - 'F. ..I ' !r� Y ^ L ^., t cr ,. f1+t . .,,. � •t x. �.1� c�, %:' f -,.'•.,, y.,. ;�Yv .!..yf t' `�u3 ^�•. '� .�. ,if • ; •� � r 4' ;�4 >r y�;.. ': r y ;vr;'tC . �:': .x tg' A 1 ' �' 1 5 •4 +:t • " 7 �' K i alai (?f'Y' Y 3agk• . ( .xi t k1n:, >, ."" v �y75 .:e y. ' �' ,� (. `�'^'.- x r ::,y:-'+ ,,y.7 ;!t +i?d� i '•-. ,z>y 3# yieT- rA . OO'��.< ti x16r, _q.r. T. w<vs,,. .+ IA;:-: Ysl o5�4,..,.Vt.'si,�dh�.t4ri. '. - ,' y,+i+>uHv ht,: .' n:J• 7Q...�> Q,': � f. .. w .. �/.1 `. ' �5 '•> .IY lit .:rT..`:Gin .i<r: ,-•'N ii `. ;..! 73 7• 7. _.�w l yr� w•. faI ,am•s�!.•Mt��,MtuY.':►��Rpo ..�t I v'•4t v' iIndoMP, eT.,Mten--/R�s.w; o: tt�• eliot�,�••,,�`�+•rIR�.,t1;l,� �p1(� rd f pYIw,,ww4t0 . f FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 09: 17:20 . '', CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH~; ` DEMAND LIST FOR 02/23/93• PAGE 0011', DATE 02/24/93 a •' 1•1 I`• •U1T NUMBER .'" RN M -`' -.AMOUNT INV/REF :• PO * CHK * DESCRIPTION `� t F J� "ay+� DATE INVC PR OJ M : ACCOUNT. DESCRIPTION ' /r AMOUNT. UNENC ..DATE EXP. ` '3 `., .' ., `.:. >i t.,i,}'.•Y { .sr4 vrF ?#4 k°flr-Y,,+^i ,..�..` uf�_�1 is .. t i.�::,:f; < "Cr. ` : 4 s R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED ' 00015 5.001-400-2401-4304 00524 •� ' *28.21. .318-0200 00231 43293 ..): 6 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JAN-FEB -0200'''•;'5'"02/23/93: ANIMAL CONTROL "/TELEPHONE $0.00 02/23/93 ; • • 1O 'e 1. n S N 7 n .,.:', . ,.a,yj��• � wJ` .t .•. ;a .s 6 v: M •rc .: R nyE. GTE . CALIFORNIA 10 15:7.7h �r�j.< ;00,1, 400 4101-4304 w -r 00677 `u;j +fir ,y:�*96 73:x;+• e , ,;_318-020,"+' ;. € O ;`00231 43293 :r a 00 9 ' DIRECT DIAL CHOS/JAN-FEB' -0200x ' X02/23/93': t: PLANNINQ • JTF EPHONE $0- 02L23/23., +1 R GTE CALIFORNIA,: INCORPORATED �� :00015 14 001-400-4201-4304 `00605 *.155.17 ` 318-0200: 00231 43293 . DIRECT DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JAN-FEB -0200 02/23/93 ' BUILDING /TELEPHONEp # 00 02/23/93 15 +6 + R GTE'. CALIFORNIA. %-INCORPORATED,^ h »j000154001 -4O0 -4202-43o4 ; ; 00734 F , :*213 bl a":y F 318-0200 ' : 00231 , 15 ,: ,'•,-; DIRECT• DIAL'. CHCS/JAN-FEB`,>-0200 .a°`, :"`)02/23/93 , .<_.=g PUB ^WKSDMIN�.,,' .L:TELEPHONQ „x, ,:: �` ;'?£>F. ,. „_: *Q.140 -02/23/ •.:. �. < 02/23/93 : `• ,• m . 17 R k' . GTE CAL IPORN IA, .%. INCORPORATED, t. 74001-400-4601-4304 ' 00785 s .1 *58 44. 318-0200 00231 43293 . 16 DIRECT DIAL CHCS/JAN-FEB 0200 02/23/93 .-`' COMM RESOURCES '•/TELEPHONE . $0.00 02/23/9 ,',, 24 23 zs n 19 p R r"GTE CAL IFORNIA.'r;''INCORPORATED •-00015 : ">.:_.100.4101.-439$4y n } i { € 00 4.i 00482 � i20 15 r; ;%� r } 318,-0206 ': 00231 �:: 43293 3+".." •' - •,".DIRECT DI AL'' CHOS/JAN-FEB%^0200 x „I .:._02/23/93 �. ' ._.: i'� PARKS ' ` /T HO E t ;. �:,FE ` "+,-.,: `" O, QQ z u . n :. R' '..: GTE CALIFORNIA, ., INCORPORATED , h `:.00015 r 110-400-3302-4304 f ' 00692 :1,..' :4. *241.83.....' >'318-0200 00231 43293 24 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/JAN-FED -0200''`:'''''`02/23/93.''. PARKING ENF '"/TELEPHONE • ,"31 m 3e •.. ...:, ., .: . , , .26v ; **. VENDOR-: TOTAL. ***************a****a►******* rax**** ►******r*.***** .**********•�*******ii x �. , *2, 673 5 C.-"1 .:. . ; i, 3'. 76 3S.tt3� b s'.,,. '.� ?r ... ,... - ... ^. :lr' y • �•:r: „£ ... �;� <, " 3 .. .. ,. ,,� �siilS .. .. ''':A'.4,:!:.,,,,: "`('"e? v."): Y _.. ' �• ;3e 3, 3s 7837 m • . R KURT*GUNDERLOCK ,' xs .+ca h ,= 01919' ,:'•C: 001-210-0000-2110 .`.. 05222 *1, 600.00 .. " 50956 05483 43294 30 . ;>,•: WORK GUARANTEE REFUND f: '' 50956 - 02/16/93 . SI O S/W RK GUARANTEE $0.00 02/23/9 • 30 44 32 .:. , ***.;.VENDOR ;TOTALS' ***u**************+r*********..***a****•r*************** ,, �`x" *1:600 00•. ,:sr € .;i / £ �.. v':. t- i.. `' � � .,. -<.. . ".. » ,• a.. ,:5.:. ,. �•?t $$-�`.� 's>'A£ �: S� .4A t tS E 4 � 41 az 43 M 3s ._ , R :tr. HARBOR CITY ENTERPRISES. INC.•c.*.,w . 03571' �i.:4! 001-400-2101-4311 *`01592 ^> ,'*211, 39 ''� ,•:. .. 26500 _ 00134` 43295 .': 36 '. MISC CHARGES/JAN 93 26500 01/31/93' POLICE'''• / UTO MAINTENANCE . -#O 00 02/23/93 „. 36 r� ***VENDOR;,.TOTAL:.************************************49 a************a********+i******* r*,. „z... ter,' 2 ,; �,;, .., . .. . . �M :�,:�i��,:#211 39 �x �zcr + r h g: qq sgr s � c � 39 '..thY; 1 .. ,:,... -'' A :';.( :..:• :.'.?Y•:� :,,. i ,"4 x h f ��@f f r1� / , f? 4kF:'+ ..: _. .. .. .:.: ..:a .. ..- t . . .,3`:_ r' ixi ,. h:.vi; 5 , 2;�F:;:':`" so , u 46 41 :... R ; ,ti•• HERMOSA CAR WASH :..t .:t g . '3i,} 0065• 001-400-2101-4311 .-4 01591 A e , •,' '' *69.00 ' '•• ' *�.;,� ' - - 2777 ' 00136' 43296 ' MISC CHARGES/JAN 93 4 2777 ' 01/31/93 - POLICE ''• '•-/AUTO MAINTENANCE'•"' '� i0 00 02/23/93 m 5� . 43 - " . .; T' ...J s..ri + :: L.F . I`q y .Jt r ...d 'S, :; ..L t ✓ ! _ a.' 44 ;•-' R ,-, HERMOSA CAR:. WASH':: w ;�*� �k x� %00065: -001+7,1004201-4311. t:y . -,t . rs•°a 7r z, .; "s•rrs,.: ye,;_ , �, .... � x..,, r. `s't '. - � •^:...: ,� 00336 srJ � :.#48 00 ��:;� 1 �s r �� . � of � � , •,* t ;:• .:-:. �~ '2777 00136': 43296 6 "`.,tx �: ! MISC..CHARGES/JAN 93 ,; `°:2777 y OO1/31/93 •::;= ...";Li :..`:BUILDING s;,:.:.,." A TO.'MAI ENANCE + s ks tf>' ,,. .. t / UT NT #O 00 02/23/93 ±.. 57 � 5° ao .6 '. . •' '• . '•_•. •. 47 ;": ' R �• HERMOSA CAR WASH �tt.',r' -'' Z/j '. 00065' f* 110 400-3302-4311 �'+}" 00859 te't. - 7:•••*4. 00' 2777 00136. 43296 46 ' MISC CHARGES/JAN 93 s 2777 01/31/93 PARKING ENF /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 • 02/23/93 61 42 �, 64 r r: �!.; a.r' ,j,?... Y'.: s Yt s �.:. '� L r '',,.• Y. Fr" .k ea 'r t > . r 1. ' •,Y' f .2V. i } l i ;.'y ':: E%. .. ;: ,. ,.,., ::.. x. ,•.. .zu, .,j its _.S 50 A .. Y .,. , .. 7. A.., pp f.. f..:' •P i 4 4 A ..cYP.., ,aye ...,L� ` ..9' .S..AS j, nr •?'' a..s , m.::'... f . } � 5, -! f .`:"S'... a: •.i?a/(, +o. .� k...,r .�..3, S`w�' t`rl .t Cr .s•�:•t r✓ �ski•✓'�: F i..•.,,�1-t , t ,J , ,. c*, y' „. ,.. hi ,,( ;tr .. .•. ^.• r. .1. t. {� W ,,yam '1' yam. a'.. I M3'�i . .C,: fn 7,,: .,.F df..: n. k �t (. <t 1 ('.:� . p . -'( ,R e, : ;r,T v N � . Z. i! ,. t. y.� .Y'^f . I'i. i�` 3i >' 'Y.. ..f "K'�,� .�'iL �'n�, r. t1^<. �. .•f a^+�, 'T'W.-Ki'+ A.. f$ 3 'Y •''in:: �( �f, , �/ •♦'ir:. � .., 6: '..:^ : r.'. . ; .,... Jr .. ♦ >.. ,l!tG ,.,. ,...• ..Y <°J ;' 'L•c,:. 'V -+'�f 1 . .'.' K' .r r�„�..5 t5. �, `f 7 is� 65 66 67 1.�,.��. /Y ♦ i+5,•: �' 7 'y$�1 i... Ct 7th jy3"�• ..,t F, a:t i.l _ i \I! �.5 F4 �o'N ftn.yj :VJ 1� {l, . ', � h7.?•iF Y.�. .•x!' '.i�nX .�'1 �!j/4.,Y 1t•�..,y.,4. „'y\_ ♦ ,r : !�. T', p.. ./:.'.' (t,,•,tiiT S`:. i \.' _ 71.. M +. ... le , 4 e- . ., •c.._ ", :� ,I,., ,n:r .L, -S;l '}- wi.: ,...k• t;, .k1 t. ..'i> •k, 41_ j'Le,t1.'i. .e{ :• •L „ m 58 .04, •r. X.b:,le 'C:? �t ,4 .. rl ! °`1 .Y'{{,,�� ':(' .it" .h'.d �.r •.; S. it v y ,1y jj.! (...%'- F`+.'r1' t^) . '/3 'I' ..vb',' 7j v. ? :M '✓ro i'%:•:. ./ •Y'' •K t /. .� S...., � /'(J t.� T '.NL V..,,A.i,., N ! ��/• ,,,¢ ,..r• ':%.J'th, r•.a k4.f s'4 w 7 . '� :4 ! �. �'r> f : ,', 'e ... t•£r.: .rY' N':�. ...f;.. .,xx.. ^i: .F•4. �i i/ -...a ; ''i:, gyp, ,.j-"it:;� $� •�J,f ��'w � •.:'�: . •.moi-!+ .M 7•-` (v. �4:' .� .fj' .fi 1'+E;r: .1 4✓: i''i. 74 �» ' a., ...d ..+ .. ...... � (,.,. •, ,6 ,» -. ✓ . _ i ':r, jam}` 1 n14;g n.;...F ..�:: A. ♦ .'. e:.�i4 ,.�»tr e� ;fY.7';ptr o, j('yfy_� .e: l :��fy-�: ,,,.., ';ti4.. '•: , J :j,�Y �• .r ;i"�,< A t.K �?.�'.1. :4x.gY"�••h.,`. ✓ .t ;¢S.;r�',%V.?: ', t,,.a J .a -i/. '?'� : ';Y 'M1'§., ,i(• SrS :.• ,:Y xM•" v�w. ,;.Y•..y..t. Y - 3 r _F. 75 YJu b,. k'�" a:. ,fit „ ±�+' , ;,... ...r's, , K . ?+ .�',j �, F:rr,"; 3, '�7^ , ,,.T�f ":.-ii i•`'.A•,•.r7.;. + .-.�:•»".Ja`3'�6..-r.'�'.i� w'^iY A.,y, .94..tn... 7t.. L .RP..:..4i f .,�L':' L t t ,.'iJ.�y i„.:bf '�./f '[a.% J%t +•• '3+� � ie, 't Sy,�i ..E i ; yj r'r :..'1... . ,. ••. J J J J 1 2 i • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 09:17:20 :CITY'OF,HERMOSA.BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/23/93 PAGE 0012 DATE 02/24/93 PAY VENDOR NAME y VNDcy,*-:, ACCOUNT NUMBER ;.>TRN * 2: :' AMOUNT' INV/REF PO * CHK * 2 DESCRIPTION 'z c4 t �` DATE ,INVC . PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION '.. '. AMOUNT UNENC -DATE EXP s 3 ! 5 R HERMOSA CAR WASH •,,.-�,''>"�' • . 00065 -'-'170-400-2103-4311 00095'':: '$12.00 ' 2777 00136 6 MISC CHARGES/JAN 93 2777 `01/31/93 -' SPEC INVESTGTNS /AUTO -MAINTENANCE $0 00• 43296 02/23/91 • 7 • 12 e a*a' VENDOR'TOTAL.*****a***4ra,t•ai•••aaa*�•u,t►+►*#*•►�•xaw*way►*a••**********4***a+►v�' w ' $133 00 :, �' 'a .�r . 11 R TEREA*JOHNSON :: 7 00444 ;:'001-400-2101-4316 00988 " "Y $64. 30 TR413' 00413 12 MEALS/PROP/EVID SEMINAR ' TR415 ''�•.• :02/16/93 POLICE /TRAINING $0. 00 43297 02/23/93 13 I4 I! 1e r.:•V;1.•,_<.tt .N*.*64.' *** VENDOR TOTAL' **M*a*****w*+***+**r*************+** *a fb4 .•,.:.•.,� Cx f:fi:/ ix ,st w ,iz J�.\?u$si.J`.,,...a,.�. .? 17 20 16 •. A Il R WILLIAM*KIM, MD '''x" a"'"Y r 04821'' ,: 001-400-2101-4201 -.`01205 $95, 00 '1007114 06149 le PRISONER EMERG SERVICES" 07114 01/28/93-: -•L • •♦ _' 9 99 43298 - 9 22 23 24 -.' 1 .. ' a 20 *** VENDORTOTAL'.********************************************************** **1 5 , .,. ._. .... tz .s .. �� .s r�... Y*°. .*.:* *•,y* :, ,: ,: ) t a,z�r '., ::>ZuEfi,.. 25 26 27 2e 22 ... 23 R • LANE BUILDING DESIGN r' f''' " "•°`'' 05047 ''2' 001-210-0000-2110 ';i 05217 $1,600.00' 50902 05486 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 50902 02/16/93 lDEPQSITS/WQRK oUARANTEF sn nn 4329931 Aa/23/9n ,;Y :34 ,. 29 30 '. 32 35 36 2s r ' •.. .. :•' tL.`•,..-e;';01::.0%,h ,. •:rt€ 7 .i4 'r'Xr5' A '.s:r £)f. ! 1 ;a' *** VENDORS:TOTAL"**********************************a*********************************` *1,600 00 ':-I4 �' `` 27 Ye.. ', . C - >,w l , r a .,,,a r>., ..< 2 .:' .. .- < .:,. ... ,.. ..'¢.., 1 < , .. ... >. �.: 1 < 3..? /.fs: ��;£'s'.< :':;.: %.:: :: i •i> .e� ak > ,f':. .:,. �i" 91 ��: 20 .. _ • 29 ' R . •' SHERR I A*LAWRENCE J. t '• � ._ �' r � 03044 `1 •'. ;` 001-400-1207-4316 ' •00121. t : • . � ' Y ' $42:76" : ' 04335 30 `- • REIMS BOOKS/SPRING-93 . • ''...... '''"� • 02/10/93 BUS LICENSE '•. /TRAINING �• , $0,00 -- ' 43300 02/23/93 a ti . = .� . sexy, .:'V ., .. .. '' 7 37 38 39 4D 41 42 . 31 ,. : ..a b -6' f3> Lx:A Md rr .... .. �;. :% r , Y'? . ,. - t.,..-; > p., : t t>..>� ^ �- .."'i. ^.. s ..� 1 A.?a x s.. �'S, 32 ;,...,***. VENDOR' TOTAL"•.********************aa**************,>•*****iWli•********a******a******* .,x..;, ,�}:*42: 76 r: ,, f ,?max ,7 2�-: ", � ' >,'Y i e. 7 4� l t' :l S U Y d 13 •said ..•,., .• , .,:.. ;>x way.- ';' - - S ... ..... ... ,..,, .. .. .,. �'Gxs.•itv',.? ,..a r ... . 3st.y'.-a'r•:.::.•:=:.:;.._ -,7 .. _ '� R c� LEARNED LUMBER �' .. ...... ...... ... 00167 �' ' 001-400 6101-4303 i;;'' 01934 `;`� : °' i16. Zb 00138 3e • ' MISC CHARGES/JAN 93 01/31/93 210004 POLICE /OFFIE OPER SUPPLIES„_ $0 00 43301 02/23/93 45 47' -', s a. 1 a ` a a 1•: $2591L 43301' , 2S{ 98...Y. 00138Fb °,'i,{•a.. Jyy.'�• LEARNED LUMBERH.4. 00167-s OT ,=4,<00= 4204-4309 • e. L 02573 39 MISCCHARGES/JAN; • Mj''"' c • Y: 1=: u Ali Ji 4:, V 10 14 - /1 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 1s FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 09:17:20 PAY VENDOR NAME:: :DESCRIPTION R LOUIS THE TAILOR, INC. MISC CHARGES/JAN 93 *** VENDOR,, TOTAL. R LUTZ DEVELOPMENT WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 50919 '. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,. DEMAND LIST FOR 02/23/93 VND M ' ACCOUNT NUMBER:: :`TRN M l AMOUNT:: DATE.:.INVC PROJ M ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION i 00079 01/31/93 • 001 400-2201-4187 00350 '" %$281.44 /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE.' PAGE 0013 DATE 02/24/93 INV/REF PO M CHK M ,.. AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP FIRE 00142 $0.00 2 3 4 5 43303 7 02/23/93 ,e LUTZ DEVELOPMENT: WORK. GUARANTEE REFUND 1q ***.VENDOR TOTAL 13 03397 :;,.001-210-0000-2110" 02/16/93 03397' y 32848 i 02/16/93 001..210-000072110. 05221 i I i17 600.00 50913/50919 05482 43304 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE *0.00 02/23/93' *600 00,?: /DEPOSITS /WORK '.GUARANTEE 9 10 11 13 14 15 n 43304 ,o 05484 16 $0 00 02/23/93 '26 22 23 24 25 26 MANDALAY BEACH „RESORT` HOTEL/R. FERRIN *** VENDOR TOTAL 26r 29 • 30 3 32 33 3I 35 36 36 MANDALAY BEACH RESORT'. HOTEL/S..:WISNIEWSKI *** VENDOR TOTAL. * CITY OF*MANHATTAN•BEACH ",. MEDIAN MAINT/12-91/11-92 10284 *** VENDOR TOTAL 05042` 02/11/93 ". 05043`s 02/11/93: 00183`F. L02/11/9 1400=230P1OLI4312CE:' 71 • ;$300.84 /.TRAVE4 `;EXPENSE r ''P08T • 21 22 23 24 05925 "43305 ;.;x:26 $0. 00 's' 02/23/91 `' 26 001.400-2101-4312: POLICE" 9Q1.740072101';;4251: MEDIANS "10300.84 /TRAVEL. EXPENSE •• POST. 05927 *0 43306 02/2: 3J93 .$869:24, a; /CONTRACT` SERVICE/GOVT $869.24 06039 $Q 43307. 02/23/7;1 MANHATTAN FORD?. MISC CHARGES/JAW93: 41 :i : . R' MANHATTAN FORD. 42 MISC CHARGES/JAN 93. “,0605* - 01/31/93 00605 ;:'i:705-400-1210-4324 00113 .' $90. 00 01/31/93 "" AUTO/PROP/BONDS /CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS 01.400-3101-4311 MEDIANS $36.91 AUTO;'MAINTENANCE ?' 00146 $Q, 00 00146 ' $0x00 •43308 Q?/23/9;1 30 31 32 33 34 36 43 44 45 46 47 46 49 50 52 z3 43308 se 02/23/93 56 / M ***'VENDOR ;TOTAL**************************************************************a*****. KENNETH A.*MEERSAND LEGAL SERVICES/JAN 93 • ) 04138 ' .. .•.001-400-1132-4201 00132 ; "ti;. • $5.787. 50 ' 02/07/93', CTY PROSECUTOR' /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *0.00 02/23/93 xi x 57 56 59 60 61 62 63 64 69 70 71 72 .40 -40 J J J 1.(a ,• tl.� 't' yr1rT'7 .j .: }A 1�. y7 -y. ti -y �r� rf .�ir; r �� '.Q..f�:[.tj��x , a..^+F. ! ��7,�' � Yr �`. 4.7+L €3 y T ._�.I rM,f.�,4q1.:.� ,T +CF 7` - G Q7 •{h _ . "fNJ �L'f'1fir 1wj4, yr t�4•>Y%.fAa-3.-WiIS`I+ er .�y,i��1is �' 'v 't N+4�' iNfi'etilv11l11lVN+K�t14411:14+0. ct h 4eM':iR yy' 'M1'_ ,►r,1...: )''N'u-�'1, 7ih7 'y'..,'-t�, k�.111�.1�r frt�i�t`•'i7{R�•.'•i�[;lu..ai :� F INANCE-SFA340 TIME 09: 17: 20 • • 1 , . • . • • . , . CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH. ,.'. DEMAND LIST • • . FOR 02/23/93 PAGE 0014 DATE 02/24/93. 2 .• 3 .PAY . VENDOR NAME .;:. :'e ;‘; ,'? VND" * '".:,ACCOUNT NUMBER • ,;',4'• TRN 11.,'; ' ..-,....,Lii:/4'.''''TL': AMOUNT -i'.'-'' ' INV/REF . , PO * CHK * :! '• •• • DESCRIPTION ''..::41:'''"- «. .:, -' -;:. , • ::•:. ----..* ' DATE-,'INVC.,...... L:;:."'..:: PROJ *..' • ; ,;-::.',...:;r.''. ACCOUNT .'...• DESCRIPTION ,.'..,..A,, : , '. • AMOUNT. UNENC • DATE EXP .2:%:.•?.. • '::: ,fS•'.:...,„ ..i\ - a 4 . 5 (1 • • • . ..L.• • ..• • *** VENDOR TOTAL. t• .. : :::..:'- ,' ' *5. 787. 50 .. • • .. • .. . i 5 4 1 e 8 , .. • - ' - • ' ..- . , , . ... , • ".• ...4',,..1,-."..J ,•,•,r,"., -,..,L,',.:,,-:. :,..::‘,.;,: .,:s:'.; -,:....,,,-L.,:-4;,. :- ,, : ,!:, :... :. :... ,,...,.:::. . . . . . , ' • . '-',.."!.'-i.',''',,::::- • • i:: .,:,;,..., ,,,.. :. ; .. '‘t.-. • ..•:: : R ,::.:..Yf.• TOMAS*MERCADC3.&:::,....4' 04169 -•,:z/1 1210.00002110 • .03226,;; *250 00. . ,,i?:, 51853 . i'r.: 05485 -.N';;;.. 43310 • • • DAMAGE DEPOS I T 7 REFUND 4.!...';' :31833 02/ 16/93.''-:. "-.....4',.::::;',i...'g'.:-.4.q..:-.ig:...;‘,.:!.:::,..:y,?,:. :,.......,,•,....g:.::.,.. , . . s - , MANTFF• Y.- ' • - :.'-' tr: nn '.'''''t -o2 i2-1/93 .',. • - o to '2 13 14 m 16 11 12 . . • . • - • . .. • *** VENDOR • TOTAL . ... , . *250 00 • . . . .. 71"... , 14 .5 , - ,.. , • '.,•-..• • • . - . - .t.:;' -',f•.:•,',..••. VP: •••'..'!..14f'a '-'..:'.;.*::'f,"i'V'''.,1...:,W'.:.,.V:4.:Ii'.-:iC4'4.•V,Vi; :, ::' ' :,' ;,,.. ••••,p., -.•• " .•• ' • ,-, "-- DR I AN*M I TCHELL43311 ...e''•:'•:`::., i• . .., 't ;J";';'.':::`,,,:,:'n.''x;!- ,.; 0.30484,- *3.,,.400.-8-.313r420 V.e00004 *83 62 : 06319 SUPP/SO SCHPAR(PLA _ '. '..'i_-•,',.:; ,.• g i b • :9 z1,9,, , 17 - .. • • • .* ..., ' ..• *** VENDOR . TOTAL • - • ....,...:,:.,• • . .. , . . . .. . . ,k4,,,„..,:.4183.62 • • '. ...• .,. • . . • , . . 21 22 23 24 19 ' 2, 22 24 . • ' ''` " ' ' .,!•:143%.•,'„,I ''' 4-4''''t -N11..,,o*w.,,V,W4giQ*'1;'4 AW7orwWW • .;•';, •) .:•at,.q.‘t• --..P.1..•?.;'" • , 'sekv"4"MM ... 00149 '',;::‘;=:1::. 43312 ."''' , ,......,,,,,,r... misc CHARGES/JAN (.9 ,:..,,,,i.,.,,,,z.1„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,t,„,,,,,..._2_ ,,,,41/4 , ,,v,,,,,.,y,_,,.,,:,,e,,,,„2c.,,i..-- . : .R...k..i,--:, MONARCH BRoott,5,..i,g,:0- fx,.,„;,r,...•ft!:,,00.os4p,1,3o-,i,vzgi•.o•4Eitto,f.o..,s4,204.2w,,,...4r,,,,,p,,...,,,,,,,.,: . ..:;, :, ST fl 00 '7/9 . . . •. • . . • • VENDOR TOTAL ***** • ....i s';:: g '.'.... $920. 12 :.'.;. • .. :•••:•.' ..: : . . • • / • '. .':‘. . . • • , • ' • • . •-. n 27 29,-,-,,,i,i: 29 W 31 333235 I 2217' :41e'1i,'.0,P413.2;.'4,4:0::;.:.'M.,4'.:4%M.. ikilkli .,..V4,Y,Ofta• ..N''4'„,•k,,6 •:c';,''f.0.:.;i:?11t ,.gi';,;i:;g`',44t',,i'5:,.`,P'-,,',''..'.':-, ' .T.'...,z.':1t;1:.t.4 t • ' " %.C'.1.1:1-',,1..1...-.-• _ "S , ,t,,t,t'V . '..iP.„;;WVt7.t kf",'•V''*''7 , 0liiO,R> DEPOT14th01;4007460f-43010112349231a1 00183`• 43313 MISC CHARGES/JAN I II ..s. ' ..,"':• 9 0 00 0 _ ...,.• •• 210 ' 29 30 . • . - - - ' ,.:.• , • . .• • , • .. . • ' ' *** VENDOR TOTAL ' • *79 31 '. • - • . • . . , • . ••• .. .., . • ' ' 37 M 39 40 • M .,:-..,fr,,,..".;',:,...:g• '‘'1-,,;;;:. Y ' ''''''':::">;V•:'''..ti. ,:- . '' ' .•'''. '''.•;R:f..,' l'' •:' .' '.• ': •-'''. ' ,..."..` PACIFIC: EIELL:::TECEP TELEPHONE .L;00321:4 -J, Q1.t.40072101-74304 18 i30;730; .000360,'.: •' '.43314 , ••• ..,.. COM UTE 00, ". : " . • 6 '' .. '',........".,.„:,.:".-'...,•::s"..„....... - i ' .Sg i ;.,?.: y? - • , ,g.'',',/‘•V • 9 99, 9 - •• 42 '4 34 MA.:•• . , • • " t . ' ••• *** VENDOR TOTAL" '...:-‘:'.. 11150: 381 'e.. , . . . . . . . • -....,' . . . t • • , .. .... ,. • 45 44 47 46 39 1 . V:','1: P. A' GEN. ET. ^ 1,••,V,A.'.'A,,,ee-0248'''•7:: .„,.t,k '.. , , r ''....,•.IF ',.-'l '?,{.'t;:,%:..;as;'•0;!...t :it',,•'?::!.:;7 1:_t...,„i• V' • , 1.:.,',, . .7 4,,7 .',"", .' "it' .00049 -'•;11:::'.',43315".5"..4;;::'..' ,. ,•••• 014004I 20 I ......4201:4; 00162ii 1 4 . . t,.., ...,. -....,,,, „ , , -AGING SER E/F_: - . ,•0J.,Igt,-„,,,,,.,•-•:,.4:•,..;, . „ , ; ,;'•.,::1''' . . : : - ; : ' . • 4 • 8 "(C ''• 51 SZ • •n ... . ' :'• ,•:'' . ..t." . • ' • ••••.. R ! . PA GENET . ..., ..., . ;•,•-• 02487 • :-..: 001-400-1203-4201 01009 Jit:'. I."' .: ' .:: $11 . 00 ' - •, ' • ' ..• ....1 j,.:.:•.•,:.',..... 00049 ::.',-- 43313 - . ., ...„ ,,,. ••• - - PAGING SERVICE/FEB 93 -'' '•• 02/01/93' • . PERSONNEL ' '''/CONTRaCT SEBY/CE/PRIVAT-212.9132-.5i... 53 54 ss 43 44 16:.1.:?:,", -1.,...., '''.. • . , •;.i.,',1,;..,,:i,.,:;.,: ...,-; 4.1;•:: ,• ..: ,, .,..•.,:.,:,,,,..::.,.:,;,•.,-::,-,....,,.3:.,.•z,;:,,,...,:,.:.. A.;.;,..,... ;. ,„:„...,,,,,,•:.:...k:,•!1'..'• ' ':;.0...,:m .w...;.;,,,s'..f..,:t• ' ,.'..:.`,....,;•:•...:.‘,).'. ::;;'':'.'3.• ';.r.s.- 7:Voy:.., . . ....:::::,,,,,..r.,,i,,:..1 '. .. „.. :'......c n....A.A.,..I..U.<44- - ''' - . • • • • :•,;c0.. - --, :i•::-, ' • .:.;:',.. ,-• : ":i• • - - ''..,,':•:',4:,,.•';?:-.',",, •,,,1!<'.i`T: ''''''''' F.`' :' C•••r•'.,,I, ' ,..... -.1 . . . ' i"41'''.34' T.::.T,O,';: " PAGENET ••••,..-,•;.f::',g, 'LL'..<:.: -.44p., 02487 ik"°4,''''. 001"4002101 - 42 0 l'Xt'n 01208 • ?1.4'1;•.$199;:.001:-MiX 4, 00049 -;:,•%;;.z,,, 43313 -, i ;•••.1 t . • 'O,,••'t' - • 1. i :'''' - ''.'l 0 . 0 - 4,:ttO ••,,'.k.,,1 t..Z't. - • . 4k ii,:•.: s , ' ‘•-• • - • • - ,. , flOO IV! na / an i 9-4 •:''-' ,i, 59 6° MO, • . • . ' . .1 , t...• 1.. , • • • •• • ' • ' • - • , ',.f!•iti, . . R -....; PAGENET . ' ' • ...r - . • "-...c.: 02487 ...' ' .-....... 001-400-240174201 ;.: 00373 .:.ft.' .:: ' ' • '. 1:11.00 • 'j. -. 00049 • 43315 - t: .... .... ,,..., . •.'7.1 . . • - -• ' PAGING SERVI : - - • • - 3 '' ANIMAL CONTROL T_SERV ICE/PR /3/AT,...„4,,,,;.;1111a...........9212..1L2 6,1 62 63 ' 67 66 W 91 ... , .... , .... , ... . v.:••;. • .! .1 ,',,,JCOR,TRAC %••:•Itt 1.y.--• '' '''Z',1.,! ' `''' , •' '" • ' ' . • :• -t: .,,‘I.4.s., ..,: .: • ..-'..i- •,,-1;ii.:,, ,;•:!,:::,, -;,N".):3'..i.‹.. '.j •i.. • . F.-ik.i . 4:..4:i'f'61;', ' ' .. •.- - '. :f: - . -. - ' '. ', . :-•:>. ''''' ''•;:'''Z•A's•MXt'•''•4''4•'tt....i•4'''•V .' ''' ' • ,'5f 1:-.';;.''',,,, *•:''., n ,.....', , •*tt- •,,,, - .r.' s t2k):•'4TA-: 'it ' "..•:. •I'v,;:!=: AN't,:"•, • '`,1*-. ' ' '." . '`*.:• Pi• 1' St-'. .N te. 7 - ....... : "9"r,,•:, `,..." ,t.' ..' ''''. ' . ..9t iei...%4Si. 1.* • ;'''' t 4.' ' .t.t. ,. . .... . . ,. ..• . , • ." ' • •. ,..• .;.' t, • :A. ' ..f: l'...;;•;,,i::t"; , i.,••5 49 ... t. • ..^.• .p;,f c,:-.. , • , .4 v'..; 1:-..,...s.;,.,;A....:;..z.,',„. ,....,,':;:y: : . ' • v. ' ' . ,. P.444-okv.f.f4,,,.4.;,i1,1,e.-- • ' • • :1-." ,......,.."", 447N•....,-..,'" V9.9%* ‘- . , , /' - , f , 4 tir) ,..,i'AlltY,--tr, : :P. • ''''''' 4 1 t.,4 " - ' iT tao let 9. 9. to, 4, /1. t4triik444;3‘.v.atii4i..yicit*,;L:t-,24, 4.•”.t04.**.:t • " `, a. • - 04dtkaihaladAkgatiliniVgiaNikkilaMt :11-. • A:V.11747:: .1 t • . _ • • :7) 42) L:3 V /1 2 3 5 6 7 9 12 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 09:17:20 PAY:. VENDOR NAME • DESCRIPTION R PAGENET PAGING SERVICE/FEB 93 • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/23/93 7.5 PAGE 0015• DATE 02/24/93 ;•'VND M ACCOUNT NUMBER .'':TRN * • AMOUNT INV/REF . PO * CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP DATE INVC• :'PRO./ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION • 02487' ' 001-400-4202-4201 00398 *110.00 02/01/93 PUB WKS ADMIN PAGENET PAGING SERVICE/FEB 9 *w* VENDOR TOTAL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 02487 < 001.-40074601-4201 01678 $22.00 =02/01 /93 " _ . COMM RESOURCES `li1CONTRAC.T SERVICE/PR I VAT $364. 00 00049 43313 $0.00 02/23/93 00049 43313 $000 02/23/93 •` FRANCES*PARKER "` ANIMAL TRAP REFUND '53146 :04573 02/11/93 001.-210 0000-211 05223 150 00,': /DEPOSITS/WORKGUARANTEE 53146 ; 05476 " 43316 $0.00 02/23/93'' R FRANCES*PARKER., ' .n '''04573 •• +`001-300-0000-3895 0:x.;00058 . ` $6. 70CR 53146 05476 43316 ANIMAL TRAP USE FEE 53146":"'' 02/11/93 /ANIMAL TRAP FEE $0.00 02/23/93 VENDOR TOTAL.**********************************a**#**44* **►**444*****�r*aw*,waw*** 's ":$43 30 ' .� . ..� ; ,.. ;'•. .;..r.�, ..,'AA<,.r. ;. s..1: ;>. .., .....<; . s.,n� 2{!; u�,,sd%� f. 22... _. . n R PEP BOYS t '* its00608 t=001-400-2101-4311Jr' 01593 " $46.84 00156 43317 2 MISC CHARGES/JAN 93': '01/31/93 ` POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 02/23/93 19 20 21 * * * 25 26 27 PEP. BOYS ` MISC CHARGES/JAN 93` 00608 0017400-'3103-431f .` 00854 `"< $91.93 >` 01/31/93 :;ST MAINTENANCE t.</AUTO 'MA INTENANCE 2 ww* VENDOR TOTAL. :.' *138.79 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 2 2 23 24 25 2267 26 00156 `43317 X00 02/23/93 29 33°1 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 31 32 3 * * * � ,�. .`J PHOENIX 'GROUP i z �"' ywr q' 02530 x,110 400.3302-4201 ' 00386'$727. 50 6437 00 00063 OUT-OF-STATE CITES/JAN93 ;37-00 ' ..Gs:<O1/31/93 ,,:.' PARKING<ENF 1s`: -/CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIYAT $0 00 VENDOR TOTAL $727.50 :43318 02/23/93 -" POSTAGE ON CALL xs;.. r. 1 v,K x04091 001-4001208-4305,. 01181 $26008.00 51697214_08078: 43319 RESET POSTAGE METER ,.,, ::97214 02/23/96:2 ; GEN APPROP :1/OFFICEOPER' SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL*aa****w****************aa*******a******a*a***w*a****w****a******a**i $2,008.00 PROF. COMMUNICATIONS INSTALLERS ,1704002103-4310 •"•!•.00096 • fi53` $500 00 MISC 'CHARGES/JAN 93 ` f.. ;;;0'1/31/93 . 4 SPEC.2. INVESTGTN8-f/AUTOIHAINTENANCE7',.21, • ***,VENDOR TOTAL.:*********aaa***********a**a******a****aw*w**aa*w**w**aa*4*a*aaaa*w** �•.r.. �. RADIO SHACK MISC CHARGES/JAN&FEB 93; rs7.%4:("u'-02/15/93!s`_ CITY CLERK ,, '01429 7 ' ; 001-'400 1121-4305 00236 . , $34.739 ::00157 $0-00' 43320 02/23/93 52 53 54 66 56 41 42 44 45 A6 47 46 49 50 52 53 54 n 56 38,9 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 66 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 J J J J J S'r J J J J L•• fa] FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 09: 17: 20 PAGE 0016 • • • r DATE 02/24/93 'r:e A ,..? . • . • , - • -.. .. • •• ' • ' ' •• • • • , 777.7N ., • • PAY . • VENDOR NAME ;.;;' .1 • •-••• t•:.::!.. VND *;•••::',"`• ••!„•••2ACCOUNT NUMBER ;I.:4 TRN • *•,...,f••': ' .."'••••••••••': •••••...".-.AMOUNT"....,,,•:)...,•••: INV/REF • PO * CHK 2 ': • : , .. DESCRIPTION ••••:•:•••••••- -7.. ...,• !;'-• DATE INVC'•i.-•'•,• „" PROJ * • •• •:•;'1•NACCOUNt'DESCRIPTION •:•:; ;.• • ,••• , AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP... •i:',Iio.1',..1:'. •:: ;r "r.. ..,• ;,f;1.:.;• :„.'11;::.'4,t'''.•.:: • • '''!: '!..••••'':•1:1• ••:-: • :4 • • . - • " . ? S • .. • ... • • • f • • R RADIO SHACK " • • ' ' • --'-..j-•"':'•'-:".• :.:. 01429'''.•••• 001-400-1206-4309 00180 -::- • ' $32.72 00258 43321 MISC CHARGES/JAN&FEB 93 -:':.:..• 02/15/93. DATA PROCESSING /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS_- $0 0002z23l32÷, 5 0 :7 1 2 9 •,., ft iz . • ..., , . • .. . .. • ,-. ,••,. 5. :7 X ,',.5::i ;7 i e% • ..• • ... ,.. - .. 4 321 • • ,;;1•••• 45: : -5•55 5:': .•:•..` ' '4'''''•5 '''' ':• 45!- '5 5'•it;•:01429 ,...,,,0001:4.41.0.3-2101-4305::7.i.:•451932=;..Ct!,',t2'...':-7-•..:Z.-• $6•66 ' .' :-.1' ' - ::,:•:•,3••6 ••.;!••;:.• ,-.7,::.::',,.., 00258 ...;,. • 3 ::.:y... •-• • '' '.. ' : ' '';'. ' MISC CHAR GES/JAN&FEe 9 C..i.;:•'.-,i1V.V.-;1•::•';',4V.,:VII: - '-t•Ti.k."•.i.1:•1:,::•„"•fiL, .,',,_ W.-:i,f•.i;*'• T.•••:.if•••••!.• •••:" • :',•4;;''"••••*.r" l•-',•••-• '••• : 0_�n - n2/23/03- t- , . , ..., . . , , . .. .. . ; .. ..., , ..., . • , .., :, . , . .. . .. • R RADIO SHACK ' • ' ' . • . •'•'..i,r!••••-•='•••••••':••• 01429 • ••:•:::.001.-400-4204-4309 • 02571•-•:::-•'•:. ; " $7.52 • 00258 43321 MISC CHARGES/JAN&FEB 93 .'•'.•':•......'"••••••.'-• •••: 02/15/93 ' '•• • BLDG MAINT '• /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 Q2/23/93 • 13 14 is 1S . : q . .. - . . , . ...... . . , . : • • : '!", • '••:,!,?;•:::...7-",-.P•:'•••9?'.:1::!1‘.,g ,;,'.•:•'. • ';:','•••12i ,;.i''1.•.'•:fe'4:1::::k.:;::' •':•1'4;.' • ` . r-::;1"' 4 ''.:: :'-:cii.iii.-76;U3•,.F ..7:;• !....Z:f...,,,.C.::-,:.;•':-• -'..,, • "•••f.l'''', , . *** VENDOR TOTAL *************** ••••*****4•4*••••• * 7.••••••••Fli•4•1•44:1••••••$*••••••••41! ** * ••••*••••••••••!.•.**.,•!••••ii4.41.1-.,:::egy.•• *81c 49,i"?y,:W..1,,,i. ,:•,,',•,;:i,:,,,•;•;,•;•,;•-,1•:••;•4,,,' • • •- • • • ..- ' •• ••••••••'‘••••••: • • ''••• •••••,:•••••''‘•,:•''',...i-';'.....•i••••4'•'42,••••,e.i•-,';•'f.•"••••••,:4,.••'.1'..3....4.4.'•••:,•;•,,&3•••W•;,;•N•Z':•••••••,•,0•."..!:;. ,..''.0;.•:•••4;••>,;-';:'••••••;;•••,:,5•'•,?A•••••,..eq-.••:.1.•,,,••:,...3t2),',WiF•p:0,•5';.„•1••,.;.•:-.:•.:-.•.,, 20 le, It-. . ,•-•,,,-.4,,::-. • • ..• • • • -.. • . . '• .:.:-....,.;,:, .:',..:::;:.. ::%-',‘,;,,:. . ' ' :. . '::::!.:;',';::.?. • • .' • . ' • .' ';',' - . ..:;•;:::':',v::i.';;:.'. • :. ,... ... . .. ,.., : • ...',,, ..1 . R •••••••: RED LION HOTEL -1- • '.-;-.'..t:st'::, -i....';•- ' •••••••''.' •'...,:::.••••••••••;i•r: 03918 ' .....q.3001-'40072101-4316:!::: 00989 ::•::••`': ••• :' ' ••• . $260.70. i: - ••-:- • • - TR415 00415 ' 43322_ • .'.;:f.:7••••,•;• -•,•,,P. • •••••n;-.•. • HOTEL/T. JOHNSON .. : • -',.'• .' 7TR415.7: ••••• ' 02/16/- '..f"••• • • -' .' • • •••" - 21 22.32: i• 20 21 • • •• • .,•• ,, •:= ., .;:. • . , • ...••,..: ..• • • ...;, :,....4•1:•r.4'ii.',•:•.•:•;•1i•;:,,,,.0.:,;,:',,,'...;.,'"M.:4•6!.49&;.V•••#A.P']',•,•••!•,„"•.•.!;•,•;,:.;,;:?•!,.}i--•.•.,...i..,1„:P',:c....5:-••'1•'•:&' ",;-"•• •••••(:•••,'.1 i.il• ••;;;.•;:.t•Z *** ';• VENDOR .:•J TOTALX* *** ***** * * * ******4***,***!$$**, •*,*,*•$;*:$;****,******.”,..•,l',.1!.,!t!-I.V!,.t!,1!..,e, •.$260•70 „ V 127 •••,k, .1.%•:••••;1;"': •' • .. •1!'••••,::. :-:••• : '''',' :2.. :•-'.':''.:••n:-.:;111••:;1;•.•••::'•!•i4ni*.:0•A;M.•!Z•r41ZA'.4!::Y.,C.;::.;:-.:;-41:i..1'i-::,•1:;MS2:g1it'li:-..e41N;,:''.Ii'A.*a:14 '4'3', ' 4-.:,-,-.2...:41:• 25 . 22 .„ '-f" , • : • ' . ,.,.,• .,. "' ... R • :' •• RAY*R I BAR '• ' : : •: :••••e.•;...,..... . . 05045 .• • -:`•.•:, 001-210-0000-2110. •••• . 05220 ..!::• ' ••.:- • • $1.000.00 • • • 32864 05481 43323 ....... WORK GUARANTEE • REFUND ..-.- 32864 ;'-' ' ...‘•-02/16/93 ' •,..... .. • • • • - n 30 so' 32 34 2,777,77;:.,. ; ' 7 . „ . .i : ., .. . .. „.... - ,,....!..TTF7,17II/.. !4nRK,, .ptm7AnitF. ...: ,..,.vF,::g3it.:,.:,. , ..,,:..;:;?...;;;.y:•;.f,1:i '''';.:: atg1.7;:g0, '5§4::;•.02.y..5,0)::6M5:05,40P ;5S;'NOA'45,:aW,:-..i .5-'.'l:':;,,::"i.• V.`. '•:.5.',..5,Ski:i.•P- ...'4..i,'.4.*'..'r.VENDOR.:TOTAL.* * * .$16O0 OO ,... ' ' . .'.; '. ',. .-: ;;:::: - . ,.••,.,;•:••• ',..,..:•,•4 ..,''.4.,,••,4.::.1-'•.....A,'•i•4'•••'•.-kr.'•%•';••&••5:' •I'••',•i•i•S*••.•,4.12,,•:,••:, 0& •,-,•••••••••4T-••••,•.*••-i.•••'•?i,:',,,4••i•.'!,:.••!f•f•-,...,4,:•,.„;??,. • ,•,;....,v;.;:,•,,•••k,,,...„A• &,. 28 v 29 30 ;. ' 32 33'':'• '" • . ...; " : . - ' ' • - : 4 .• : : : R ••••' SYLVIA*ROOT, • • • ••••••••••'::::7,••• .'?.•''. • • • :•t ..,,•••,-:•••!::',-;•:•1:••• 04061' • ..1•••': 001-400-4102-4201 • • • 00397 *249 . : •.:: *249.25 • • : • ' • .- • - 202 05815 43324 • • SEC SERVICE/2-2-93 ' . • • :. • 202 ' - •• 02/10/93 PLANNING COMM -,:/CONTRACT,.,SERV.,/,CE/ 30 00 02/73/93% '' ';' 37 30 mi ao .." p.R/UAT, "'''''• ''i ' ' . ' '. • ': • . • .." : -'i - ''t'i''.:''''•'•'•.-fr :. j" ''''',.''''' '• •' . :':•• :. •‘`‘`:,....'.•Y'..'A4ir: •il<;..1:":., •'/-,04%i'::;;....;:i:]....4W'...n°Y,4f4V;;#4'4....?:.:...,-• •-'. •:::,,t,:ii,;: ';';'•+,.. , *: ,. VENDOR -', TOTAC4* ** IF ** •iii;i44;ipii:iiipiifi4,***444i:4:ifii4.444***444444:14444****4*****444.********.A%,.14.;T:.., *249 25). .,„ ,„..,.. ..„. ,,...,,,,„,,,,....,,.,..„.„„.,,,,,,,,.,,,,,.„.; "..7•'' • ' :•- ' J:''• : ••:' '''' ': ': '' '•'' •:‘:::'''''''' . ';' ';;: • :•' • 1.41 • ,'''''''.' 1!'" • 1 (;''':2•1: :•';';',''' ', ''. • .-' .•'"•-'-',';`,ili l'•••••".'% i-::i:41',,,..'•,,i,i;;•*P.tP;Ati'V51'.-. -':•••.2.••••,-,i.,.OffWrV.:.:'ih.,•1',','t:%•k'....'' az 43 44 35 35 ... , .. ._ ..i. •,• ..• ..., .. ,.. . ... . . :'..'• ::. •••• " ' R • .. ••••I; ED*ROZAK & ASSOCIATES'•-:•- • • . • ' :•-•:•....V:',.... 01578 ••••• '••• ',.' 001-400-3104-4201 ,••••••••• 00146 •„.'' '.".•:*••'••• $705.00 '••'%•:...;;•:-,.:': '..i.:;•.:.;"4-93101':•: 06049 ••:'•• • : 43325 • • ENG SERVICE/DEC 92 .•• 93101 ''••' 01/01q3 • TRAFF/Q SAFETY /CONTRACT SERVICE/PR/VAT:. 30 00 ii,1;,3,.::. ' 47 :8 92 51 52 37 39 •••;•••1,--4.1•-•,'•.,.:.•;'••:•:...- •..,..; f,",, . : .... .... , ,... „1.02/.23/93 ,. • ' ". - , • , • '. •,•72.;•", .1..i..,!. . - , ..1, ., 1,,, 1,.1 ' '., •':.. ',1 . • , ' , : ''.:!:: - .... . ...:i*•••.:•,:11 "': •;:;.•;1....,,.:'•':•:%:!.•:•••''.1; ' '';,'(.: • i'!..••:41:WV04.!'•''.•:"(,.:!'.i?'%gq5.'",..",' '••,',:::;.;:!Ili.'',': : !:i:•:•.'•''..:!"'.;.:: • • ,,. . ::..:•'.' • . , :. .• ..!1•••;.:1,'. •c'':::.:'.3'.! ::' . '.. .....,.., :4,•:!..'. : . ..... ; l':';'• „.•,!;,. :-.'.:.. ,. :•.,'.-'! '. : ., .:,.!.,.. , . . .• ::.,.. .,. ..,,, ••( ",:' - >>.... S::4.40:S.M^':`,2.04,0W4,14:44:4'4:K.,4:'aV0k,:61ife,1Aeg,r, *0* VENDOR TOTAL *** ****** ** *i**. * ****1••••!*******f!**11,!,4•!#**•*it * fl.*!•-•• ** "!...1""t 4! fl•!.”4!!!'i."1.f.:..r.",4.4, PA•74;?;• lie476306M ..3„.•.,',A;... • •,.,'• ,-.• ...i.- ••••:t..ill. t•d*,:.„.',....,..i....1;::,,::,:if,:t.‘4,.v........:::.:,-b.-5.- k•-,,..-3,-,--y,',44.,,,,,i,„6.s.,....:2,,,.i!,:A.„;,;•A.,1:!„..,,,,.;::,.,•,,,,:....,:.„ ,z.„„uf,,;,,.. ,..., ,..; •,,,,,,„,,p,,,,,p,-„,.,:„,:,gr,,:;.;,,-.,,,,,,,,*,,,,,...t.. , ...,,,,,,r.,,,,,„...i,,,,:,.....„7:7,.:-.,,:,,t:,.....4„,„7,4:.. 'i•.1.4Ks•-•-, ,•!;,,••• •4A444iiiig•g'.',Mi.'4'4',0•14,'Af4,Vg,4•440WqiatiasEg 41 :;;; ' • R *: THE*SAN DIEGO MARRIOTT. MISSION H.,•••••,:'. 05049 •••'•-•• 001-400-2101-4317 • ':f*•00206'''. 3:?. '••••"•• $356: 00 ' • " ••:'!;•'.-,..,'...:,.; TR414 .•: 00414 yr... • :':•• • ' • • HOTEL/TOM THOMPSON • TR414 '''•‘••'".: 2/0 •••••• •:Lit.kt. •': ••'•••,.. EXPENSE. - 30.00 02/23/93 5. 43 " •:;; 45 ' ,. , „.1,„,-..„; ...CbNFERENCE .. , ,,,,..,,,;,,,.....,,,,;.... . - • • ' c.,••••:,•s,"i'•••i,:•••'.,Y,•'.'?;•A''.•:1,-•••!;•••;', •'•=•• • 4__ :,`'. ".: ''5, :' : 1-.:.!•'•:4;!..•1'•••,.•i:.' ,.. .''q'rk::.::j.': '4,..-•!'!•';C:.:;•! •!:',':' '''...',''.::• 1.. .:'•45i1.0.:14,54g0,1..IV:t:11h•i:, f:.4.4':.V .•":4'•:.,?1. .0.:44:11Nanigitdai.t...44;:k•AL4.0ai.if' •?::1.•$'4114 ***;• VENDOR' 'TOTAL". • . **-it**,*********************************.*litoky414356.,-99„.ovA:p:dczOmt.,,,A0,,.,...,,,,. -.'.-. '..-'•":': '''.''''....'''','*•''-a',',',':',,,,.'-'"'-''''-,-.;',,•.''' -4'44-14'••••'•-i:-•:•,;,..,••r44,0•:'4v:+s-wvs;:u•„•:?•-•,15:4,.t••••.,,•.- ':•*'i:1.1`P'.: •••'•••;°Z.,,:, •:- -','',..-...f ••j';•••:•-••••r..:5'.;•••';•-...,1'.'4:;".g•;•.:',;i•,/kg';',9-:',,',;•••1.,S,'.:,n•••.,.r:s-2....,:s•'•:,-•,••X•:.,..,•,••••.;*".•;„.,'•,.-- f ••••,••••••,•.!••••'s, ••••,-,1••,--,•';„••-,-, 51 51 : 4•0 ast.:1;:%.::•: -1••••„:„,v,,,••••-,-••••-•-•,,-,' •,••• • •. ,,..., - „ .. . . ....,.. ••••,.,,.•• ,.....• i. .. ... .. . ., _. .... ... .. .1'..'1.,,,...!. :•.•.;.;',•.“:•'.. R *•:::.....3•.• • DEBORAH*SEABERG.: ' '..••:....`''•;•-;••;:;•;'•'•.• . -!'•:•••••'::1....:•i•!,•• 05030 -.' ••••',..7001--300-0000-.3894 ::.., !. ....v. 00162 -!-- • . .... • .....-. $90.00 • • - 4:.',. 47875 : • • ::.: ' " ' . FALL PROGRAM REFUN • • • 47875.2.n. '‘•:•,. 02/99/73 • • • . ' • /OTHER ECREAT/ ON PROGRMR so 00 02/73/9 3 ., se •••*; ,.,... ..... .... i '1'"i'.•::•:.?t". - ••••' - • ',,-.7 ?".:;',,,‘P.i.-4. f4 ':` ..,:i;:4;:5,4Tti . ' ' ' •'', 1;4;?..,'',.5i*.,4;.4%:J';?.:,',.:.`..1,.%•‘-''l ,,,, • ''.' • • '-''',:A.,,W,"•'''''''' ...?,. `,7s. •(,.!' 1 &,.. ,..7,I A. -74. k5•;:g.,'.41; ' : ,. iii5:,„ '''''.' : .. A •' ,, . 93 04 • . - ... . .. • • • , , .., .. . - rZ•:.::.;*'.i• •;.' Y , ;1:.•'• .1.. 01,11;k:„.. ... P • .. '1.'7. ....' .r.•11...: •,.. l'.0.,.../..;,........!,'.:.e: 1•1,:'....":"::,.1 ., 1., 11":0'!'• C'ti:. •1l. 3 . Is .•i) .t. :1, '8'!' !..:1,,• (-4 : ',:; - , ss 72 2i 7V 1.'1,,:A.:1::12ii4;1; '2 ' t.,. %.-." "' 'f!:ir,.:14'. '17 "" , , ''' • ' .i4.:11711.,..t:1, ";., •S 4&; ,.1::` '•%:,./,it..1.;;;;‘!.•1'.... -!:-. • ; 1•.:47,t8, '4.' , . .',' ' ...? '• . -, 3 • • 8. ' 4 •,: ' 11 ., 1.3e .4: , -A •• 3, .4 . . , . ..„ ... 4, , 4 '..; * Z3.. 70 .; . .- : , , „, ,. „ ; .k.; . '3/4. - . ... , , . . • ' '' ' ' • .. .. c '' ". - ' ik** 474,060,:,4.!::PiAlQaiK1444104464,013,440A-4Viti4r4gASiAg., F4:449'.:411S-10A.410.4*iiir4kitit;111Mq1i:1s.i". , 1 ; r • z.; t..; ** ** FINANCE—SFA34O ' TIME 09: 17: 20 • PAGE 0017 .',. ••••• • • DATE 02/24/93 • - • • I ER . . ' 1 • . , ,'•- , ::4 '4`"-4,-%t.'.4.: *,','..•'.; ,"... ,;.I ,• .•,: ;A..Y,.;C C:y...OUNT NUMB ER .:ii;*' ' TR N 0 Y .:.: :: '1:...AMOUNT.',..INV/RF:. PO * CHK *DESCRIPTION INVCPROJ 0 ACCOUNT'DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP:. ,:.:;‘..,'..•-.. : : ;, : ,:::.,',"I ..'.:'.:,:4'.',, ., .: .?.., ;:":''; .' l': , .:, '. '• :,:. : . !AL: ,'::,•: , - .:: :;•,,,'F,•:!:, *** - , - , . . .. • :'... VENDOR • TOTAL 1* ********* ******* ********** **** ***** ******* * *la ** * ************* ****** !?•••... : 7':::.. *90.00 ' ...',. • • -. ' • " '`., ' • . .. - - • ,. , , '..,, - :.: :,..: :. , . : , :.: • • ' : • ',7i•4!-.;.•,.•:,:.:::::: •"Y.'...-,''',:".:,"•-:.,•;.-:. :. ' • ,,''.•• ' ':'' S I NCLA IR PA INT'CO..,V,, ::.•:',. 01 39: 9: • •:•r:,,,;'`•:,;::.::;'; 0:•0'-' 1' .74 • 00 .'—:'-4' 2'' 04—4309*•0257l' 0' n:::''q':•-,,.. *73.0.. 7 , 2' • 5-91 0186. 00161 ' , . • 43328MISC CHARGES/JAN 93,k090186*01/31/914BLDG HINT Y INT Rti ANC ' MAT - • - ,: :' : : , •• :• • a a •::::: : a *** 1 , . . • ...... , , ... .: ... .• .. VENDOR . TOTAL '. . , . - ,',',.":1i'...''',Y :•• • . ' . R, • -K, . , -, .,,,... ',. .'',,,-:'. .,Z.g4•,g0",•"".,V:',',,:''.:':!:!'.::•!'",:j1:'.`i,;•'•'-"•:"S•:'•:'::.'4;:''' ;':',V''': ''''•:'•''''''''''-10i,•:...' , ':" ''''''-';''' ''' l'q::'!"' '1'..•:',:::•,.."j: ' : • '',:i:',"!'''• -,:.'.',•,•:.:.,-T. -. W. M. aaS /NES '':'•-:",f‘,':', ';:k..',:, '' 1; •P:' „O 5046:11;,ifc.'P0.1t..21079000721 10 :?if:0921!:',:',:, , :.!,'...%,.. *1600. 00.F' ' :,.'?. ,::::' . :‘,. 50903 ;. 05479 ":' ': ' 43329 l'; WORK GUAR ANTEe".REFONV i;50905 V ,-;;',,:',0:1$2/ 16/93 g.,:1351''crA;...',Z,.:::::,:g.i:i;i::,:,',W,,',,,;:.:':-'E,,,,!,:;,V6..t...,.. .Sr.:''/DEP OS I TS/WORK '.:GUARANTE ' ' " •:, ' '' 4', *0.10 ,:',•• ' 0 /23/ - :'<'", i• , ..,.. VENDOR', TOTAL: -;:',.4:::.;'.;= *1,600.00 ...... • ' .:•". •-' ':' :, t : . -.;.•---, ••': ' , .' . :- - ' ' - ' • ' . ':", • ' ' , • .,:: . -. , ... .. ,. .: '!.. • 2 ...... ,..:, .. :': 1' .: :.,.:'1:II'''.4.:%:,:!,.:..:,I.,...4;4.',71' I;".I`VI,..,,',I;;.(4I%:,.,I-a'g, ''':,:.:•2.‹)--,N:.:',;::,.,'7;.".1:,qfili'.;.,,,,..P.Ngt::::'.34,,01:10ii"0:..,".....?::::::, R ?:;,,;;,:',-0-i SMART ; & FINAL -II 0 I fiidiihriAiii.ttMo„, ''''0Of 1 4!';°.:Z;''''''"it.00 i4iici,c; 1 61436.!;Kg '"to 16 ;;5`.'''''''''' 4.:'';''''). *94 ' 203'5?-•'':•'i'l': 7496920 00162 00162 .,,.,•,iil,',.i 43330: •,:,' "''',,-!'g: '''-.•;'•' .:•,' M !SC CHARGES/JAN 93.;,•1::'::!:1::96920,:.'1fe 01 /28/931L1:,'- giV•:',:':'.,.:!.•,:,'.::P OL.: I CEi'-'01''',i'''fR'',-:";".,i,g:',4/PR I 6 • I;;IER MA I TENANCE •-''.' - '... .' ' A ' $ • 430';,P'''a0 3/ - 4•••.." ' • ' . . . a ' . . . VENDOR TOTAL ii.!'.'.,::-...,. :1- *99.20 •:: . . ' • '' . . .. . 3 -';',':;;":',&;',-....;'y '':'I''. ' .''''.`..(':.1‘ ''' ' '''':':?'''',•'::'..,;':;'"%: '''..:'6:,;,r,4:.,•:,.. '.{!‘;'''."-1,41VIVii ''' '•'?,..:..„.:.;;,' ':i',.., : ::H: -:: ;; ,;.:,:i...:, -,,, i : ! •; • .:: ; ,...: ,.... 3 '.,,: "%k,,,::. SI100 ' EXPRESS ' '',' .,!::',;.':',. ".'5i• 1 :" ''•>1'''''• . , 4. 04987:::.,,.,;., 001-400-2 101-4311 01,-Gi,P.0.i*, .V.,1111 -19:195.1.:::;t':.". .i. 45. ,f)02*.::::i".': 00282 ii,.:4',:ii:',1;.'.,''':' 43331:: „..„ ',',];:•'•;7A,?'.. M I SC . • : CHARGES/FEB "!:93 K l'16024%4A 0..02/15/93,':*0;:,W .;.,,.1.•.,:;...:A',','.;,f,:.,P01.:ICE'Pti'i,A;41:::':X.'a0/AOTO''.;'"14A I NTENANC E•i',,„ • '' ' , '',':: ij.' -,,'•'::-li•l,.. $ a '0„,'...., '.' a / / . •-• • , ' . R _ - : . -:'• ' •-, '.: - „ .1- ;I... • SMOG EXPRESS . • ' 2,•,,,,-; -,,,?;:,i ' •• ' ;f':!",3ti'' 04987 ' ''-''1!. f 001-400-4205-4311 ' • • 00295 '.!-j: '''''.• '... ' • *19.95 ' 4,?!7"• • .. :5995/6024 00282 43331 ' MISC. CHARGES/FEB • 93 -i•--!•• • /6024 '-'''' 02/15/93 ' EQUIP SERVICE -,''” /AUTO MAINTENANCE - *0.00 02/23/93 6, "Ii:t•k.,•,.. '' ' " : l'i ' • ' ' l.: ' '" ''•":','.,.:::!::.!:',.','•.',:: '• : - -.:, :,;,14.:::•:if4;!:,.`::': '•,;' '''':.-.".. :'.'.''''' ::.' fc'-':k.g.'::':.:‘-' .-:,'..-.]•;":;::',:.:',:i•!i' ',:','. ' .:',: '•,-. ;••.‘:. .' :','''', :: ,...,:',..":1'.,t,'...,::i '', :,,:v.,,,,...:, ' : ;,..,„ . :. a VENDOR•,• : TOTAL.:,* ** at * *******************************************.*********!*****aala*aala,W 5.z,99 :t.',4•1?'-,,....., !,..::-.',:::, .....:.:..........' --.,......-..:.J"M.....,...:.,....!:0tA-04.*2.-:::,:',";'0:S*4";..14:iAt4W.MfW&A'1*.O'WA:4:irOMWOfea'40,b , .i:.'...:,- . .,.. . - - .. R : ,;-- :-. SOUTH BAY HOSPITALV.*:,:. i .-i':i.'.,-•i',1-1,1 'S-1'.,' 00107 :::" '' '''?.!,.':001-202-0000-2021-!'•N•003544.*;, '-"' *158.30 ' : • • '' '"."...'',:::.•,i•-X,•,;•;i:'..- . -, ' 06148- • 43332 4' ' ! 1 . DISCOUNT OFFERED •:• • ..."•'-'.:' ''•-:•:*-:. 02/03 /93-f" . • • ' .:."'.'!! :?,:',..):. DISCOUNTS OFFEREDI.:''';--.): •''''.•'•''" ".'H . so. 00 02/23/93 6i ,..1••••'•••.,', :::i.- ..,: '•`:' : • ' ' ' ' -1,i-;$.•ek4,". .•;:::t'',','''',4' - ;3'-: • ' ,sq,.,, ..:, •': '''?' :',:'::::, .....:1:.:'''', :::. '-':;:.:,-..;":''',154:,:i'.q.:: '': r.,.::,:!'"',7,: -.,'y.,,,3:- ,-, • -":,2,':','')IM.1 ...:: ' '•:4,.•••;,:;,,..',•,:;,.,:'y " ,...,,, 5, ,:i . SOUTH BAY HOSP I TAL.Vi 00107 '<..T.,.::?,ti 99.;:-2024..0099.29?114,995p,... ,,,* 4,,;!06'•';`'VO;',!',.., , '. '4',. 061 413 qli:Wil 43332 DISCOUNT OFFERED ''.",•••,•$I5''.". -,N ;',', 02 / 01 /93:.,,S, .n."-1:'',':,:'•:::,,' ''...::'::::::,,::::,::0,.,....,,,,....,,4..,„.,;,,tiO•',..:.‘,':S:::,i;.k I SCOUNTS.:.?!.OFFEREM.: "-':': $. . - • • R ... !.-.**. .. . . . . ... . ... 6. ,- :4:9 SOUTH DAY HO SP I TAL'!,f14!'.!' „.., -,;(.,.....,,i: 00107 ' •• 'f..:T 001-2027000072022:r.; 00352 "4.''''': ''• ' - ' - ' • *158.30CR .'.!•,•';:, ',..•`":!....,`:.•;:,..:: ' '..• .06148 ., • •:.••••• :, 43332 ' DISCOUNT TAKEN -•-••' : '' -•:, -": •:•:.:. 02/03/93 '• : •• ' - • -- /DISCOUNTS TAKEN '.' '''''••l'••••'-'.' :••••"'''''; *0.00 . 02/23/93 56 ,. R • .,, -- - ' • • ' :" ''.... „•ir-,ii,V.Y'..',4•,-1,:4-•.';'''. ':';-: ::' ' :' :'..'''..... ' .*:.•'''' ..,':•'' ' ,. :-: ••'. '....t4,:',: .`1'.:' !,''','..3:•-• ' ii-, •::t.',••• SOUTH : BAY : HO SP I TAL:11 4. p., 00107 ,1,:!.,',:crc#,-.:00.1.7202-7000072022:t1t0033O.?;;!,,4c0,;,::,:, *145., CR ::',..=?' Nv g 06143 43332 43332 1:: DISCOUNT :TAKEN02 / 01 /93'',3:,'?.:L ?‘:-.'', , '',..,7.:,,:-:-.i:. : ::..:1.-:,,,,:•..'•; :':::-..V&&::',',.'j,r;,.7,-4*. D IliCOUNT , :,,. . E '1, ;''''''' 40 00 02/23/93 it;L:i. •:-,.. • '.. 6o •:,::::.,...i , ,_ . os -, : ':., . .: .. . . SOUTH BAY HOSPITAL 1--1!..:::',:i1;:i-V1.", 1..2: 00107 •-•;'•••-1,"001.400-2101-4201! 01203 ';'r.t."4 l':',4668. 45--L . '. k . .. ' ' .j*;:., :' 06148 - ,, . 43332 :32 BLOOD ALCOHOL TESTING ' ..7..'` r :!' ''.:' .": 02/03/93 • POLICE ' ' • '' /CONTRACT SERVICE/PR IVAT "': ": :' *0.00 02/23/93 6. .41., '..,:.:'',' :,',::, , ,C. • ' ,. ' : .:. W '... .., ,. Z . . ,;.,-1,i341.1:110'.., '' ' '''''' '' . 1;4;:,',0:;;;,'S. t."-., .4.A.I. ../.*CIF,t4;4% (*.ii•;i::!!..::' ,..'..•:.',.::,'''. •:% '•':'.. ' ....,1,,, ;I...Li:: :.: ...,:;;;..:,::.1 .... : /I..... :'..1.,'.. • :.. '' : : 70 -1,- .' 4.147,'..r,?,:k..!,4.....,:..* ,,ft,,i1.:' ii.n.ilrir: ''., .::.-..1..i -.•%cf„ 1,--: ,....-1...'.:.:..,..:::...:..,. :...1.Y.A 4 ,..,...,: .' ..::' . r' 4: .:':., -. .• .:,:-..: . ., . 7,.; ' ',4;:0V1i.tp..1., . „. ';''tr t (' " . f - - '''''' ,,,„ e . .. •,.,,,', ,• 4 , .4 ',...$•?4, ' , ,..-,..' , ,,: . ' • - *," ,,,i,,...i, ,, . ... , ... 9 2 2/ 2 3C 3 37 39 61 41 43 45 •••. -;'--k• • ;?.' :I .1 5. 4.044-;• '4Itt ;$4 4 10 12 4 6 6 4 6 a 0 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 09:17:20 CITY OF:HERMOSA'BEACH: DEMAND LIST ..-. FOR 02/23/93 PAGE 0018 DATE 02/24/93 •' 2 2 ` ? PAY VENDOR NAME VND N ACCOUNT'NUMBER TRN N AMOUNT `' INV/REF PO * CHK * DESCRIPTION t R sr '• AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP .,. ,` 1 2 �. DATE:INVC,x• . PROD * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION. • " • i$0 • R SOUTH BAY HOSPITAL 00107 001-400-2101-4201°•..'01204'.' "'.."..$269.44 BLOOD ALCOHOL TESTING 02/01/93' -. • 06143 00 .43332 02/21/93 • 7 ', •** VENDOR.:TOTAL.**************rr4*• 44444444 ****4**3'444****414*ate *w wr*u+►**4ira* *Mw* �h • o • 12 i3 •• R SOUTH BAY NOTICING AND v: i3: ',:i. ' '" '" 03882 • • .'; 001-400-4101-4201 001821:'. , 93HER02A&D/018 PUBLIC NOTICING/FEB 93 '8/018: ' `- 02/20/93'` PLANNING •'/CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 00264 40.00 00165 • 43333 02/23/93 43334 13 is is '" 17 • 19 p 22 23 14VENDOR 15 , .. .. ••...• VENDOR TOTAL r*•v.+... w***•*******•**rr*•*** 4* r**+* *****4****w***i►4 *i*+*re**aa*r 4***9.:.£0 3' .asvs y*c=,tJ+dSAT 17 ' R .'SOUTH BAY WELDERS ° ' '" `' .00018 ' }'001-400-2201-4309,;;;, 01438 '' ' *21.1 . . 6590 MI SC CHARGES/JAN 93 6590 01/31/93;:- " ***. ENDORTOTAL******•**x*******a************•*******,**4***46*:7** ****** >**)1�21'i. ,-.t.h .f,t4.K gF: ,: fiF�"F:: r ,.3 Y ..}' . 231• 26 7 2• 23 24 R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON < CO.?:=:' 00442 ' “05-400-2601-4303' ' 00420 ` ' ' -$12:458.30 ' `° -` ST LITE BILLS/JAN 93 •" ••' • - - 00012 .0 06 43335 6, - 31 32 25 .' 2" " *** VENDORTOTAL*************►4****+*** 4*****+*a**`**44*+*******4****3********G1,'458.27n . .<': : '-'t' ::ii: : v.a.ev< % -•'%;&4 :1:.;,,: w'a•za S,^t3"... :'-::. .,..b �..... . ..: . .. ��F.. :,..'.,�3_,:,:';;. *,..**..:, a�.4 a7 :' .'.+•'..: _....:,%. fn�.�S ..r�'•,• . 33 34 36 28 <2• 3° R SPECIALTY MAINTENANCE CO )' 00115 001-400-3103-4201 00453 41.918.00 2912 • t SWEEP_SERV/JAN 93 2912 01/31/93 ST MAINTENANCE CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 00027 40'00 43336 02/23/93 37 3• 39 40 �.«-� 33 \ S 'o of sq RE f, `' F'E ...3 S S' t:.':'1.:y:.4...,:- ... ,. � .e.�''l xw F'�• ~�-i. K•1`': e: }:`,� is r > -.4,^.. \ t -:ix. i >,, R SPECIALTY' MAINTENANCE'C0� i.a ss+`,z 00115 �` °- 1 - b „ r'L055.00' 7„ i» "h 6 r•�,,y ''�;3SWEEP SERV/JAN 9 �:: t ., .,:;��., �;'� � .7`m�F `� �=� � ' ; � .,09 400 3301< 4201 p„ 00177cri<:,, _� 43.`-��:� x\:_2912 E 00027 L _ . f� � X43336 �a': 41 42 u 35 *** VENDOR TOTAL ":.447 973.00 / 47 4a 38 � �.ti f f- I.:F'i.R •,:i '"k4 Mt: .:• 4 .sb. i < 1-'` ry A ,rx" .'..} ;,S 5 .:.�. R . < TAK S S .LAWNMOWER :SA I x qs ,;':' „, y. E} . ; 7, ?t} . � : LES Ecf�SERV` ,R00169: 125 400,-58m08-4201 „f. 00034 f36 .72;„ `,z 3475,,*,00172 k+ . MISC CHARGES/JAN:93.. 4 5 d >yR?••1 3 ,:;' _al, - 60 :>". `:ii 43337'.:; - 49 so 3+ 52 4' . *** VENDOR TOTAL ?.'436.72.' 53 5s4s• 5b S• s9' 44 45':1,;4,...4),%,V'. 2 S }.: ,w : ( , k �..�i�l iY •f::. i '•: i',: F , t A \ ¢.i+ p .. > .� tY.t.. .y . c%,; j`f ..Y. x�a is R i.' TEC .,,, its '. . ,, . `i} n5�„h; ON7 INC �Y£Y �i r 03421'; � .00140042101-41201t,,,;(01.207:: ��#,s ,,�t<200 00x'1 r ,;,T.: RE:�0426 : 00069 • .':COMPUTER TUN N A _.: ^ .`, �-43338 "' ,, 42. '' *** VENDOR' TOTAL******************4*****4*******************************************,..:: `:?.:•,:$200:00:.,-- • ..: , �:'::'' :. _. - 61 s2 ea 54 49 so..,. -.: ;..s 'tyt: ... OM* s. wz.,^ "'< .r.i: r`' ..t •° , .. ..:; J �,n. -�-r I' t' ., 3 ? R . T THOMPSO n:g s a .8 �r ay *' 1 -.t 4.i _ Vit: s x s ` . .s :?. ,.r w * ,0 009. b , 001-400 2101-4317 00205. , 477; 23 : ;'; i r as TR414 EAL= • R • r c�" 7 ,«.. .' •.• 00414 '. .. 43339 �s "° 7 :'p� "'i7!:+{. i't.:.1: 4 f . ;., '-SH 3. 'jt C . ar t t'.r ` :x :.tS%, ?,.1 7 1: :. .�, ). :4• 't .'r ,:. 'i' k•w 'i. �;,!!.y )�SHt :� . .rr ' i'" , • r-7)r,r,.7 - . 3:n. , io-.. ': �• y.. .:�:: 7 �, 69 7+ S 4, 7'jj.{yyJ,, n. r:}� ,•.'r. ;1. a, ":..?l• ''3 S. :: -2�f j F :,';.+:d 7 .,r Z -'E; Ls, , ,.. i. :`; • , _.. �!: ... .:: ... ,.,., N: s.. ... h.e ,... ^k9 :k. .. 5:. :., .1 Z.. .u, e ;... :.-.... .,., .t, , o ..• `^ .2 a d'S' Y.. ,•.. ,:kyy! 41 'k ) ..i„#. ,w: °4.> �f'Ura. xex!. ,A. f} + a.s �sr•1 „t ✓t. <:.P- '�'k. 4 •W F. `�1¢y`r�i �.:•-5�yr�t.i.1.'��•'. , ../:.1.�1f+• > .:�.,t ,y.0' i ,a. :,.ktS.A� . .;i:; " 'Y..;,.� .�.•.. �.s^,<.�,..:Yy.'i„..,'.17s,i,�,,f�E,, �<�. {. .-_•w.,.ie.,,J.}a...'7-�.v�' r«..T.,,�, Fez r',f4 .1 .iS ks! �z'.F'" +.:�sl�. }:4•M•P!,��T.:.�.,;�. >;st`51c ��,}Y',>.>.c..5.< ;c'�'�+';ryi{,'fi•. ;;� .}�6 Si . ,'��.LstI;.eaib,:.'y*Vi:,u. .,..i�7l�Y' .1:.•Lyl: ��F' ` a yi. : v . a'..1�xa,�.!a•' i<. .: �`,tl „^�s'L.i `� Fy,e,.>x, , yi,'.♦lS{tit y Y,i:. .. cia.,rto•v:l,yS�,.. v � bt� f ..,t � :,.. �y�'.• T 3 i�',��„ . �. �sy, � z� �,.,.2' . ; -�S S L t..z„tYr 2 � uy 7723 74i. 75r=',°' Ege1A1t.44. 1N ,6 s alt %n1+i7 Q44 ;041.-i k.ig 1 to a51$k ii4tAle. Z`tiir'nv71. ttl 1514:1 +fJ • .MMe�,rrMMn.MUR. . l�K'4.'aMCI'"rM:��''•�,ti��!u'41�1'r jrl; CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/23/93 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 09:17:20 60 DESCRIPTION; DATE ,INVC. COUNT NUMBER •. PROJ 4• ^��r�sl,?H,rr,s+,±ayiu� 4!fra.,rrm,,.:,pHr..�.!uw...r.�.•,.»�•,,.,y�.w!wW;,;�,yM'�,.,� PAGE 0019 DATE 02/24/93 TRN M .. iAMOUNT INV/REF . PO M CHK M .AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP ACCOUNT,DESCRIPTION aaa VENDOR TOTAL aaaaa**aaaaa****a***aa**aa***a***aaa***a**aa*****a***************a**. TODD PIPE &'SUPPLY.r DISCOUNT OFFERED • 00124, 02/15/93 R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY;;':' DISCOUNT TAKEN TODD PIPE &:.SUPPLY MISC CHARGES/FEB 93 TODD PIPE & SUPPLY MISC CHARGES/FEB 93 1 001.-202-0000-2021 00356 $77.25 DISCOUNTS OFFERED 00124 ::001-202-0000-2022.. 02/15/93 00354 • $2. 44CR /DISCOUNTS TAKEN 00273 '43340 _$0.00 .:. 02/2 00273 43340 $0.00 02/23/93 00124 02/15/93 425740078508-4309 00027 ac CIP.'85-508 00124 02/15/93 $21 05 MAINTENANCEMATERIALS 00273 43340 $0.00 .?:.. 02/23/93 160-400-3102-4309 00776'. SEWER/ST DRAIN /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS ***VENDOR.TOTAL***** It* **a***********a*4**iia*****aaa****a**+►a*a*a*a*ami►*aa*a*xa*atr* UPTIME COMPUTER SERVICE 04768 COMPUTER MAINT/MARCH 93 9394:.',' ':02/15/93 00273 43340 $0.00 ' 02/23/93 001-400-1206-4201 01095 $1,080.00 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT ************aa*****i1******a***a*a***a**a********aa.*a**************aa 9394 00009 43341 $0.00 02/23/93 WELDON WILLIAMS & LICK 00311 110-400-1204-4305.. 00007 $2,779.79' 39927/39926 05167 PARKING PERMIT STICKERS 39926 01/13/93 FINANCE CASHIER /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $2,544.01 VENDOR TOTAL ***********************************************a****a***t********'r'**•� ''$2;179.79' .00141 ' ' -.,,001 -400 -1121 -4201 00080 ' 11558. 84 00178 '01/31/93 CITY CLERK /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT so on • R ' WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY,, MISC CHARGES/JAN 93 *** VENDOR TOTAL a**********aaanwa*********i►*a*******aa*aaaaa****a***a**+r*a**a******* �arx$5 R WESTERN ALLIANCE OF ARTS ADMIN -00313 001-400-4601-4315 00118';T $100.00 ANNUAL DUES/M. ROONEY .02/11/93 COMM RESOURCES"/MEMBERSHIP ***.VENDOR TOTAL a*********aa****a*aaaaa**aaaaa*****aaa as*aaaaa*****aa*a****** • STEVE*WISNIEWSKI - `' MEALS/P. 0. S. T. CLASS 43342 02/23/93 06306 43344 $0.00 02/23/93 '*;, :'01364'"''T 001-400-2101-4312:'A:g02078 `;wt"'`''S` •t'*77:25` "'` `02/11/93 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE . POST 05926 43345 $0.00 02/23/93 ,•h+,:•It ..W.' `r--'�.:t i F r 9; .i :i: '` yri�'i . K"t �: �'s��'• a, .? i;<' is • V: r., 6.1 F INANCE-SFA340 TIME 09: 17: 20 • • PAGE 0020 . DATE 02/24/93 "." A _ 3 , . * CHK * .:..,-, DATE EXP . IN 4 PAY . .. VENDOR NAME • ,.. . . . ., . . .-1.! VND *•-.:,.., . .;. ACCOUNT NUMBER; ::, , • TRN i * :1':.4 '-: .::f:,•-•,, .....,• : .AMOUNT.::.:, - •-• INV/REF PO ... ..,.. , -:. . . . • ,..,,. . . •,- .... . ,.. .... DESCR IP T ION :'?.:•... ..,,'- ..,:-.:.i.... V DATE... INVC,?i'..-.: .:.. PROJ * :: • -.,.'::,. ACCOUNT.. DESCR IP TI ON -...: AMOUNT UNENC .' ., .. :'... '4 '',:' V , .., . s . . , . *** VENDOR TOTAL • ." ' .••••;. • • ' $77 23 - S. 3 0 W :.• . • ' • ,•.': .' ' ....i.....1., • .,:. : !.•.: - - r ' *e* PAY CODE TOTAL ....' ,...:,-; -'‘.1:.'..-.-". i,..•4'...-:,'-: :;.,,..-:?.,;:•*..r,*•,*.'..!;•;,,,;-*: *, • : ....*.*:..,*!*...*.-. *..- **.*: ,*••• :*. *i'..*.. *. *f *- .*. *, ,**; *.,*.•..,. *•., **z,.,, -*,.,•*...,.,,;W• .: ,. , , . . ...::: • . . • ..; -,.... ., - ,,•:;, , ......,.:::,:..,:-,.', ..:,t::). .t..•%!...g,.-,-;y:.;;...::.i..::.-.:c!a,...-;.c;::,,..'.'.:. '1,-:..,,'.;,,.'.;..': :-,!,,:,„•• . ,''A'.','','":; .-. 7.0:3,4-,.':.0•4:ng,;140.3, 9 2 . 112' .",. .:4,:•• • • ... . ....,. • , • , , • . . •** TOTAL WARRANTS *916.416. 44 .. • •-• ' 7:. * 13 14 15 16 W la ‘5 5, " 13 . _ * *** 7,- ' .. •-•,', ',•,‘4?,,,,I1.,„••',, ' > - .,-..,,%;', ,.`..W''..t. , , ,i „.,.z. ,. ...,,,,,,,,,, 4v., .j., ,,,. . ,,.. , .i, ...,. ;•k:.4".:,,.. r .-.,,,,,,,.*...',.14F:40,1%. :',,,,,,,,,,,,,,. ,, .f,.,".:0*OA'..,,W..,:::ilt,'.0 .-'''' ''' ' ,,,:':'.....,,,,.,.,., .,..,, .,.-..', i:f.q:-..' ,.i...J.k: .- 4 -,.'. ',.;'li ;;...i iC:"W'',3:',. "C.::: .I.II*.,'„•,'AIIr:.''''',I'I• &:;'"* ..':,..,.I..;?i'0?,,**.:`,AF17i,'I,I',II*4:,,Z1,):',11,*'''' .' I '`,1'r '•,>,'"•''''''4Y '''''''''':V4'''N'''''''''''''..1,04.44•Vil,AVV''-'44'4V., :-74=''''"-',-n'''''','P'.*IQ,'',I,N-g'g,r'M'Wr,;',Ne,g,,i,,.;:6i,ktt:>.e,:,fq,°..q,'g.pv.',5X.N-oi;.4;rg.f,f:'O,wA,:,„-,;.:...,.•.,..„,_;,.„F,.,-::::2., 16 17 ID • 21 ,r,: ,..,;:;.,:.J;,,,•:1...,„,..,:4:y.,,, 20 , • .. • • • . : • ' :.:1..,:•„: ...•••••:.: '..•., •''...5''''' 7- 5•"*I•I' "....'."1•• .1.: .,:,,: .":44• ,:.:,.4,r.- ...,:....,.;."1.C.:,./'.•' ,,i'...!•,?•:•:.‘,....' -'7‘%-•'.' ,:i.:4‘.,''''.•:".•.''.."' •'• -' , ''' `•• •''t, •-•" •" - "' • . .. • 21 22 n 24 : . ,. • ... .... .„,. ,... -.,...:,:,..- ,,,.+:,.THE WARRANTS LISTED ON PAGES ..L. To ".11411VIIINCC‘iVIUSIVE;11.:F THE..;0--::''' . -, ,,,,,,,I , , e ..., • R•WA RANT_REGISTFR Fejk,',:.;,;,)":.'-'1'•%:-;:. sA:0 ' CCURTE n 22 I3. 25 24 rillYtIS_ARc A.%, ' •• ' . , .- ....,. . , ....,, A,uicsLt PIJIII MI AIL AR: E IN CONFORMANCE ...• • •:,• TO THE 6 GET. . , A.. • • : ti ''...r. .:•'.'.I1 :•.••.C14, -,,•••• 'I',.2*'' , ,,,I.1:1•.• '', 1, : - - • 1 • ,-• A , • • • . • . 29 30 31 ' 32 , , ... ., . , FIRANCE-D-IRE TOR • • .,A, 41•As 4 DATE::L_/ i ge,. :li.;,,c:::7-U1-°:4;.. „ : • : – -- . 34 35 24 31 . ... .. , . . • . ' •' .1 A:A; 7*,•••- ..:.,,,A, ::, ••,„:„'• ' ;'•.•N :t. ''.i ,II•'''...r.'.... -•''• i.•:• I.::7 •-•:. ' ''...''''..•'.::: • . • ... •. .., , " ... - . .. • r • 37 36 4o • .c A2,,, „„ ' .I.A , , „ . ,1, .5,,,I4I7..,,, y., • .'11i* .,7.1",,?.... ',,I?o1PI•,,*VI•';•"1'2'.1'.'*:'','",4*--`1';',? .,.`..V'").7'1' *,1,.,,,,r5,..',/,,,...MA:1,, .4 -"IA' ,,,,,a,-,*'L,1,•,,t%glIq *.'*?;•§I'.4%,1•4•7404;:t4i1',"::',4,A,"..:",:P'S4.:.': ',$.'..4.%!:4-*if:.":44..W4'.0.4%,-.011..k7,4:•'..:i.rZi',,i'.;''.'.?;::',-;%.:(gt,i-4-4*''..'''.f.'7.1,1,F.,:ii.:4,..!;.':'''.,-,:',N...'7.',- 41 42 , 44 I 33 36 37 , . . .' • :"" • .7•'; .I.::,:•,1;,..2, .%' ,........c. • ",', •,' ' 1'2 •,,:•,••••::,:i1„;1:.::;'•j.„!•',$,1:511.,:*I„i..:1r.,•:',,.5.4•,:••s,#,;•;.4.,;:j1,1•1,51*.*,Wii:::,•4:',I4.'"Aiii• • .,,..k1.1,,..4,4. .:', ...i;1,..,,,,!. ,<:. ..,:,,,,• f.3,,,,...:.?.;: i..t; -A 1..:.:'.4:,:f.-,-t:'•:,,,..,,,y:..,:. i••••.,•'..A....c, ii.,, -,, :, ,.• •••• ,- ...t. : -...-•, .:.. • , .•'.- ::. • . • -..-. :. •-• . . 46 30 39 ' ..,` • • P. '-',,` if'Il' •:.41 > A, . . • t 4. —.......,. ,, ..,14,....,. .,,,,-4,..;,,,zt.*-ikkvq.4.1,KAN,C..; . .:;0<, ,:3i4g,i,•;::',?....c.g,„4,,y,i,-.1,,Av<,:g.,,..,54.,,,,,,,;,,,,,,:,4-,,,..3#e-,,,f.P.Y,,,,V,"4-fAiu'.i •>:: ; ,,P.'4,.'',,, . .,„,k,,. , ,,,,, ., , .. , ,.,:1*,,,.,, , .,,,,,, .,-„,,. ,,,,,,,,,,„1, ..,,,;$•;,, ,,,-'..,:,,,,,,.•' .„ ,,,,,,Y,,,,,,,,,ejfit ,,,; ,.14..pAW.g5,,'*.e.'gn''.,,,i140,',,,,,?:.:,..*-1;4.,V,I.3....,•:;g`x,57.4:4,WV•Wr''.47::::7".•.,1%;"'''',,,?• T•41'0,4•A'''''.i.l..:%;%*2,P,iPsIP'44.A4'''`A,10e;',.,(:f,`WO'*3.,4%..'''.'4;3?•L',',44,V.;4';g ''''V'''''',..i"',••••'' /CI ',•,•01".41"•'(:•X.A1.-•,'%,,:V..1'•••1.,,A'Cig,•".1":12,:',*1•17e2.2%I'.*I;14•,•.;!'7 ,,A3-5,'''ff.,.1,124..•.,,g,I.,•*,ngP•7,,,*-115,4t ,•:7•44J1I'' ..',,xii'^:S.17.I.r,Sk•PiI'fa',.,;••,, -,;.,,,,•••:, ;II,71K,,,. .•.iWt1,,,1.7,-,,,:4,1•Ri.:1:07:11.'5.' •,...A s..,4..s.•,,,,:;;A.,-.1.? -.4.7-mi,,,,,...f;/,..",f.,:.0-i;,,,,, ..,,..e.,,...-:, ,4..,...,:1,....T....0.,,,,‘,..• 47 5' 32 4' 4. ,,,,,,1,;.,,,.....,.,..,-...,. ,-,L,...,...,......:, .,-, - ., - •'- • • : .* A •I .. :1'2* .? 32- ';'• '.. ' "I. • • •--..AIA''i ' ...• 4. ':•• •• .4:.• • ...,°"14,1••• '''''zi-' iv.:. ; • 0.....6.-- ,,•-',..444-:/...-4--"T•i'w-1-4432f•*-41.3::*Vi'ku'l.':•.t.xi % ,:•;:i, .:i.- ir:-..1.../,:fpi.li;.: ,.' ::;' '; : '-• :: ::": • ."':... • .... •-, .-.. . - i'. - ' t' : ." . .. • , • • wl 34 " As 5,,,N, x• ,..,/... .i. - • . - ,,,,,k2e, .„ J.1, , ... ,,,..,.. 1.," ....i114.10t4ik.,01,At$A*•,..1.;I:s-ii:2:41e,..1)." - •>,:,.1.4,.:4,:e.4,1., ..J,..;AT.7,,,,:kt..' 4,j,,..;;4110.!.;-,,,,,:;:41:,•%';'%,10,4?:,,,:?1,;..,,':'0,-,:•,•if,WY:';,1 ,,, A,,,., „, ..„.„., . ..etr. ,,, Ay..kix,....,4,,,:..A•.,,... ...II,,C.•411.14.c..,,,,,, ;,,,,..U,,,,f..A.pet,.s.0 --.1,,,,,..,i ,,,,,,d4••,,Z3.4!,,.. ir‘,,,,Zi`ip",.,1,-.. i-. ,,.•,.....`•'',A,..t,,k,&e,v,,f5'4..,..34, ;' ,,,,,e,, -,-„,j, .A.,. +4,;:,,,..i.'.3.y,,,,,, , ty41,,,,,,7 •• ,,,,,,,A5.r.,7 ,-,14.....•0#-'1W„,„,,.•7,,,,•II,4s•-e•,,A,1,21,1 *I11,1*;4.711„':',1?„,:,,,,1„,,,, ',.;:.%'-:',-,1'''''',,,.I.,,,,IVIII•q•71171.',,,..11'*.:,' (... %.,), „ ...,...,1,..d.V.,..,..:,. •N'',..,/,...,,,,,,,, ,P :X, &,,,,', ..q.4',..,,,,,,..,j, , L, t. .1.1A,, ,,ij..],1),V, ..,,,,,,,,y,:...., ,..V.:1,9?",54.4,4k44,141,4,641.61'F,,a.`0`,14.AWR • <A!*:N. ,,,. `,..,,:kg.,.',..,,,,7V,:•N,`,.:,,.:'," ..- AS.,•••?':,•,..;• ,.3,-,'.• ..,.., ",,, ,"--',.%''.•,,-..,,, • .4;,,,,,,1.. '`,.4* --Y.,`, >.0.t'',,,,', ,e ,.. i. "5,-,-. •,•'•:•.., 54 5° ' 60 46 41 . . . . . . ,,,,,,,z,w,=••• ••••• •,,,,,, ,•,- ,, ,••",•• -"---- -,- . - - - - • - • , , , ..,:: , , ,. . . , .. ; •,',;, .. ' .„:';.„.:.,•:* '•:,.•.: ...;::,..,:•,-. ,...,..,i,: .,..,'...;,..'..y...,:......:.•_;•...„.,. ,• 1.'2 '!*:„. „ .1. i•i.,•,,,,;,.... .:, , ••;•.- ... ...':,"..,,,,' ,.. • ..1..,::1*: ..: ...*: -..,,I.II,.- :...-Ii,I,•I '.'.•;,:•,1*.•:,,;.!:•f7I?..*"•;:ii.''''........L.If,FI',•:-,.:';• • • ''•''.,*•',' .*•,,,•';.I;,.....; ..:,..., •'.... • • , .• , . I''' . . ' '' ..I, '*„ ...I. ' ;,1'. I, ..,;„,' „ .; ...",-,. 11 ,1e,1,-. •“-.I.4574:I ', ... 4:- ,Ii!',*, ••••5.111.,..;i4,i):4•.',. A.,....it*-Al.I..'61:1,7'7•45-i'' t;',11S7i5 4:1'i '..,:•)• `AiI,W.4. ' ••••'-'*-**':* ''')- -4 er,k4:-.;,::' .-• . ..L.••••:..: ':-::: : . ' ' : '...' ' • ' • .,': .- ''. : ...... 6, 62 631 64 5° ., f",0-.;.: ... .7, '• -;•',1,1,-r.7. ' ! '4-, ''' 1,., •.",,‘, ,,::: ,,,. '7,, *;,•1 1t *IIII-*Vgi':::*•14.4ircII'sf4.41,1 . ***Tt7t ,:4 74,1444e 414i.*153, , it. Vi 4. - ii' A'N' ,K .43. 4.' i- ,..,.s•x•,.. ....-,d,,,,..,0,-. „ . ,-, 4,,.;•40 .5, , .. .,... •••-, • .7 , ,T` a •c i'Zi.4..S""i?' , '''' .r.'" ,) ' ,. ,'"'" - ,§^ , 45 67 1 33 5', ' '• • . • r , ..!,.....,tel,..,31.ev;:.... +: .4'. '''.. ' :i. :4->i'.'-' ". •;', C. ,'.. '',,.' •' ' ' • . • - • ..5I-34,.! .. ' . 6.9 To T. N 72 ke . . , .*."'•*iI.,* * *** „ , •-:.: ./ 14-'''• ,,, "At • ... .4-.71',, -.vo . ' Mr•VO4/4Aele-*0 111? :-_,./...,,, ,,,,.. .14' „, , ...r.: -, ??, ' ' e#7,11. i 5.......• 76. 1,7 14 ,i,,. T,`,,„ ' 2., . -' ' ,_ . ... . . .. . . ... - • , ‘.. .. ... .. .. . . , ... . _ 74 Ty • ••••'::. • March 1, 1993 Honorable Mayor and For the Meeting of Members of the City Council March 9, 1993 CANCELLATION OF WARRANTS Please consider the following request for cancellation of the warrants listed below. #042880 - 12/24/92 - Comfort Inn - $123.20 - Account Number 001- 400-2101-4312. Employee decided to drive to training instead of staying in a hotel. #43289 - 2/23/93 - Frederick R. Ferrin - $77.25 - Account 001-400- 2101-4312. City Manager determined that attendance should be cancelled. #43305 - 2/23/93 - Mandalay Beach Resort - $300.84 - Account 001- 400-2101-4312. City Manager determined that attendance should be cancelled. #43306 - 2/23/93 - Mandalay Beach Resort - $300.84 - Account 001- 400-2101-4312. City Manager determined that attendance should be cancelled. #43345 - 2/23/93 - Steve Wisniewski - $77.25 - Account 001-400- 2101-4312. City Manager determined that attendance should be cancelled. ` Concur: Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager Gary L. - sch City Treasurer Noted for fiscal impact Viki Copeland Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council March 3, 1993 City Council Meeting of March 9, 1993 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS March 23. 1993 Changes in pedestrian control at 8th St. crossing on Greenbelt Greenbelt landscaping recommendation from Parks & Recreation Comm. Overhanging sidewalks on Longfellow Approval of litigation defense firm list Approve call for bids for Greenbelt tree planting Report on noise ordinance and enforcement Public Hearings Continued CUP hearing on Scotty's restaurant Appeal of P.C. denial for projecting sign at 555 PCH (Art's Auto Center) April 13. 1993 Strand Safety Issues Public Hearings South School conceptual design Final adoption of the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element and Household Hazardous Waste Element in compliance with the State mandated AB939 RUDAT implementation committee report Adoption of Landscape Conservation Ordinance in compliance with state law April 27, 1993 May 11, 1993 Lease renewal for South Bay Free Clinic (Room 7) Public Works Director Community Resources Dir. Public Safety Director Risk Manager_ Public Works Director Public Safety Director Planning Director Planning Director Public Safety Director Community Resources Dir. Building Director Chamber of Commerce Planning Director Community Resources Dir. lc • Lease renewal for Project Touch (Rooms 3 and 11) May 23, 1993 June 8, 1993 Lease renewal for L.A. County Bar Association (Dispute Resolution Service) June 22, 1993 July 13, 1993 July 27, 1993 August 10, 1993 Lease renewal for Hope Chapel (Rooms 5 and 6A) August 24, 1993 September 14, 1993 Lease renewal for Association for Retarded Citizens Lease renewal for Easter Seal Society Lease renewal for South Bay Center for Counseling September 28, 1993 December , 1993 Lease renewal for Project Touch (Room C) Community Resources Community Resources Dir. Community Resources Dir. Community Resources Dir. Community Resources Dir. Community Resources Dir. Community Resources Dir. Dir. ****************************M**s******************************* UPCOMING ITEMS NOT YET CALENDARED Initiated by Party Staff Caltrans utility maintenance agreement Staff Ordinance for new Chapter 19 of HBMC entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic" Council Text amendment to allow tempor- arily oil derrick over 35'height Public Works Dir. Public Works Dir. Planning Director Staff Council Council Staff Staff Staff Staff Council Staff A:FUTURE Text amendment to oil code to redefine grade at finsihed grade of oil storage tank Confirmation of oil development C.U.P. approved by P.C. Planning Director Planning Director Request for Council guidance and prioritization for the development of the Biltmore site park Comm. Review Bldg/Zoning Code changes to improve liveability Revision of HBMC provisions per- taining to construction of public street improvements (Public Hrg) Request for approval of Tenant/ _Users Liability Insurance Program (TULIP) and establishment of an administrative fee for processing TULIP applications Final public hearing for Land Use Element Payroll software selection Firefighters' MOU Approval Report on beach foot patrol Extension of Auditors contract Special study re. standards for small lots Special study of the zoning ordi- nance and enforcement ordinance re. parking in front yard setback Special study and text amendment to Sec. 1160(d) re. driveway grades School District request for Grounds Maintenace provided by the City Resources Dir. Planning Director Public Works Dir. Personnel Director Planning Director Finance Director Negotiating team Public Safety Dir. Finance Director Planning Director Planning Director Planning Director Comm. Resources Dir. TREASURER'S REPORT - JANUARY 1993 FUND GENERAL NUMBER ACCOUNT 1/1/93 CASH ADJUSTMENTS WARRANTS ADJUSTMENTS 1/31/93 BALANCE BALANCE 001 GENERAL $2,788,376.51 $761,386.44 $201,066.96 ($814,102.08) ($194,665.14) $2,742,062.69 105 LIGHTING DISTRICT $1,382,238.05 $18,205.72 $11,574.04 ($10,019.56) ($2,536.48) $1,399,461.77 109 VEHICLE PARKING DIST. $250,396.84 $16,369.31 $35,011.62 ($4,772.17) ($3,304.51) $293,701.09 110 PARKING ($24,001.00) $107,067.98 $14,741.08 ($81,638.79) ($109,090.57) ($92,921.30) 115 STATE GAS TAX $1,605,142.55 $0.00 $13,440.51 ($5,457.60) ($20,166.67) $1,592,958.79 120 COUNTY GAS TAX $8,320.29 $0.00 $69.67 $0.00 $0.00 58,389.96 125 PARK REC.FAC.TAX $347,262.89 $0.00 $2,907.77 ($662.47) $0.00 $349,508.19 126 RAILROAD RT.OF WAY $1,422,964.91 $83,401.02 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,506,365.93 127 6% UTILITY USERS TAX $319,435.00 $119,827.46 $2,674.76 $0.00 ($118,461.50) $323,475.72 145 PROPOSITION A FUND ($9,572.02) $16,309.00 $202.65 ($1,435.38) $0.00 $5,504.25 146 PROPOSITION C FUND $176,263.27 $24,734.00 $1,475.92 ($2,154.65) ($2.52) $200,316.02 150 GRANT FUND $189,574.44 $0.00 $0.00 ($1,778.52) ($15.00) $187,780.92 155 CROSSING GUARD DISTRICT 567,303.29 $5,459.55 $563.56 ($4,140.78) ($747.75) $68,437.87 160 SEWER MAINTENANCE $2,492,150.18 5651.00 $87,534.46 ($12,290.10) ($1,119.50) $2,566,926.04 170 POLICE ASSET SEIZURE $1,236,491.47 $62,701.90 $10,353.65 ($61,973.85) ($21,442.30) $1,226,130.87 180 FIRE PROTECTION FUND $540,015.30 $15,446.00 $4,521.77 $0.00 ($833.33) $559,149.74 305 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT $0.00 50.00 $0.00 50.00 $0.00 $0.00 705 SELF INSURANCE FUND $327,204.22 $15,000.00 $86,292.00 (546,919.33) ($45.15) $381,531.74 $13,119,566.19 $1,246,559.38 $472,430.42 ($1,047,345.28) ($472,430.42) $13,318,780.29 TRUST ACCOUNTS BALANCE RECEIVED, PAID BALANCE $3,675.06 $660,446.11 $660,577.61 $3,543.56 GENERAL 5457,741.53 $11,582,500.00 PAYROLL $3,224.80 INACTIVE DEPOSIT $1,385,003.41 $540,075.24 INACTIVE DEPOSIT HELD BY FISCAL AGENT RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY $191,933.71 INTEREST RECEIVED TO DATE GARY L. BRUTSC JANUARY 21, 1993 TY TREASURER OUTSTANDING CHECKS INACTIVE DEPOSIT $460,966.33 $106,145.89 $354,820.44 $12,967,503.41 BALANCE $13,322,323.85 ld March 1, 1993 Honorable Mayor and For the Meeting of Members of the City Council March 9, 1993 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT OF INACTIVE PUBLIC DEPOSITS FOR HERMOSA BEACH Attachedis the report of all Inactive Public Deposits for the month of February 1993. This is the most current available investment information. Respectfully submitted, Gary L City Treasurer NOTED: Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager INSTITUTION TOTAL INVESTMENT REPORT - FEBRUARY 1993 DATE OF DATE OF INVESTMENT MATURITY ASKING PRICE MARKET VALUE INTEREST LAIF BALANCE 1/1/93 Maturity Maturity Investment BALANCE 1/31/93 LACPIF Railroad Right -of -Way Account BALANCE 1/1/93 Maturity Investment BALANCE 1/31/93 CORPORATE NOTES: Ford Motor Credit Co. Investment U.S. TREASURY BOND Investment Investment Investment INVESTMENT TOTAL SEATTLE 1ST NATL. BANK TRUST BALANCE 1/1/93 Adjustment BALANCE 1/31/93 $8,090,000.00 (350,000.00) (100,000.00) 300,000.00 02/25/93 $7,940,000.00 $1,267,503.34 (113,138.15) 84,080.29 02/24/93 $1,238,445.48 $500,000.00 05/19/88 $1,005,937.50 $989,687.50 1,008,437.50 $12,682,507.98 09/14/90 12/03/92 02/18/93 $527,990.72 57.78 11/30/92 $528,048.50 02/04/93 02/11/93 02/10/93 4.678% 3.61% 05/20/93 $ 500,000.00 $ 502,455.00 9.10% 06/30/94 11/30/97 01/31/98 $1,005,937.50 $1,061,560.00 8.50% S 989,687.50 $ 997,810.00 6.24% 1,008,437.50 998,490.00 5.625% 8.40% CHICAGO TITLE BALANCE 12/01/92 511,921.08 BALANCE 12/31/92 $12,084.52 TRUSTEE TOTAL S540,133.02 GRANO TOTAL Respectfully Submi tted, $13,222,641.00 Gary L. Brutsch City Treasurer "e7v-71,(�93-559a February 8, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council March 9, 1993 A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF A REPORT FOR THE FORMATION OF A HERMOSA BEACH STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT DURING FY 1993-1994 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution ordering the preparation of a report for the formation of the Hermosa Beach Street Lighting District during fiscal year 1993-94. Background: The Street Lighting District provides for the maintenance and operation of the City's Street Lighting program. Analysis: The Street Lighting District must be renewed annually in the same fashion that was utilized in its creation. In approving the attached resolution, the Council authorizes the preparation of a report which will contain plans, specifications, costs and estimated assessments for the Street Lighting District. This report will then be submitted to the City Council at which time the City Council will review the report. Alternatives: Other alternatives available to City Council and considered by staff are: 1. Let the District lapse; thereby, causing a potential increased Lighting Fund obligation of approximately $180,000. 2. Retain the district and modify level of service. Respectfully submitted, / G73gf:-. /Twe Lynn A. Terry, P.E. Deputy City Engineer Concu f arles McDona d, P.E. Director of Public Works AL; Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager Attachments: Resolution Ordering Preparation of Report. pworks/slreport if 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 93- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO PREPARE A REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 4, CHAPTER 1, PART 2, "LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972", BEING DIVISION 15, STREETS AND HIGHWAY CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHTING FIXTURES, APPURTENANCES AND APPURTENANT WORK AND THE MAINTENANCE THEREOF IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 1993 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1994. HERMOSA BEACH STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT 1993-1994 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, proposes to renew the assessment district pursuant to the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Street and Highways Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the said assessment district shall include all parcels of land within the said City and shall be designated as the "HERMOSA BEACH STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1993-1994"; and WHEREAS, it is proposed to install certain lighting fixtures and lighting appurtenances, provide required appurtenant work and improve the existing street lighting system each year as funds become available and as the City Council and City staff designate; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to furnish the energy and to maintain the street lighting system. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the Director of Public Works is hereby ordered to prepare and file a report in accordance with Article - 1 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4, Chapter 1, Part 2, "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, for the installation of certain street lighting fixtures, appurtenances and appurtenant work and the maintenance thereof for the Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 1993 and ending June 30, 1994 all set forth in this resolution. SECTION 2. That a certified copy of this resolution be presented to the said Director of Public Works for his information and guidance. SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall cause the same to be entered among the original resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceeding of the City Council of said City in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 9th day of March, 1993. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: , CITY CLERK (i1_. ,f (/Oz010, , CITY ATTORNEY pworks/slrepres 2 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council 44L 24741 9.3559$ February 8, 1993 Regular Meeting of March 9, 1993 A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF A REPORT FOR THE FORMATION OF A CROSSING GUARDS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT DURING FY 1993-1994 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution ordering the preparation of a report for the formation of the Hermosa Beach Crossing Guards Maintenance District during fiscal year 1993-1994. Background: The Crossing Guards Maintenance District provides for the administration of the City's School Children Crossing Guards program. Analysis: The Crossing Guards Maintenance District must be renewed annually in the same fashion that was utilized in its creation. In approving the attached resolution, the Council authorizes the preparation of a report which will contain the specifications, costs, locations of crossing guards, and estimated assessments for the Crossing Guards Maintenance District. This report will then be submitted to the City Council at which time the City Council will review the report. Alternatives: Other alternatives available to City Council and considered by staff are: 1. Let the District lapse; thereby, causing a potential. increased General Fund obligation of approximately $57,200. 2. Retain the district and modify level of s-rvice. Respec ully submitted, Lynn A. Terry, P.E. Deputy City Engineer /tie es McDo ald, P.E. tor of public Works Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager Attachments: Resolution Ordering Preparation of the Report. pworks/cgreport 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. 93- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO PREPARE A REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 2, CHAPTER 3.5, TITLE 5, OF "THE CROSSING GUARDS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (ACT OF 1974)",BEING DIVISION 2, OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE FORMATION OF A CROSSING GUARDS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 1993 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1994. HERMOSA BEACH CROSSING GUARDS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1993-1994 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, proposes to establish a "Crossing Guards Maintenance District" pursuant to Article 2, Chapter 3.5, Title 5, of the Crossing Guards Maintenance District Act of 1974, being Division 2 of the Government Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the said assessment district shall include all parcels of land within the said City and shall be designated as the "HERMOSA BEACH CROSSING GUARDS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1993-1994"; and WHEREAS, it is proposed to establish a CROSSING GUARDS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT each year as funds become available and as approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to furnish the Crossing Guards Maintenance District services for the said City. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the Director of Public Works is hereby ordered to prepare and file a report in accordance with Article 2, Chapter 3.5, Title 5, of the "CROSSING GUARDS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT ACT OF 1974", being Division 2 of the Government Code of 1 the State of California, for the establishing and formation of a "CROSSING GUARDS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT": in the City of Hermosa Beach, California, for the Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 1993 and ending June 30, 1994. SECTION 2. That a certified copy of this resolution be presented to the said Director of Public Works for his information and guidance. SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall cause the same to be entered among the original resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceeding of the City Council of said City in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 9th day of March, 1993. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: , CITY CLERK i AQ/t/v`_. A. YI,Ce-je , CITY ATTORNEY pworks/cgrepres March 2, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council March 9, 1993 LEASE RENEWAL FOR BEACH CITIES COALITION FOR ALCOHOL AND DRUG FREE YOUTH, INC. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission and staff that Council approve the attached lease agreement between the Beach Cities Coalition for Alcohol and Drug Free Youth, Inc. and the City for the use of Room 4 in the Community Center. It is further recommended that Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached agreement. BACKGROUND The Beach Cities Coalition for Alcohol and Drug Free Youth, Inc. was formed in 1987 to provide a forum and funding for community programs and services to prevent and treat substance abuse in our youth. The Coalition is a free-standing, non-profit organization consisting of representatives from local school districts, police departments, city councils, parent organizations, community agencies, and business and civic organizations. Their service areas are Hermosa, Redondo and Manhattan Beach. ANALYSIS The lease space for Room 4 is 798 square feet with a monthly rental of $670 ($.84 sq. ft.) and increases to $694 as of July 1, 1993. The attached lease conforms to the present square footage rental policy (approved by Council February 9, 1993). Their residency in the Community Center has been of great value in addressing a vital social service function in Hermosa Beach. Fiscal Impact: $8,256 to General Fund for the 12 month period. Respectfully subm' ted, Concur:. Mary -.;. - , Director Com n y Resources Dept. -AA ei4n.t.ei Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager arsa Erns Administrative Aide Community Resources Dept. Noted�for Fiscal Impact: ) Viki Copeland, Director Finance Dept. lh HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER LEASE AGREEMENT This Leasing Agreement is made and entered into on this, the 9th day of March 1993 , by and between the City of Hermosa Beach, a Municipal Corporation (City) and Beach Cities Coalition for Alcohol and Drug Free Youth, Inc. (Lessee). A. RECITALS: 1. The City is the owner of a recreational/civic service facility generally referred to as the Hermosa Beach Com- munity Center (referred to herein as the "facility"). 2. The facility is subject to certain agreements and deed. restrictions entered into on the 28th day of February 1978, between the City and the Hermosa Beach City School District and is further subject to certain provisions imposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment as set forth in a document entitled Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Property and dated the 28th day of February 1978. These documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City and are public documents and by reference are incorporated into this leasing agreement and are referred to herein as the HUD and SCHOOL DISTRICT AGREEMENTS. The Lessee desires to use a portion of the facility on the terms and conditions set out herein. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. TERM. The term of this lease shall be for a period of one year commencing on the 1st day of April ,1993 , and ending on the 31st day of March ,1994 2. DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES. The Lessee is leasing from the City that portion of the facility described as: Room 4 798 sq. ft. 3. RENT. Lessee agrees to pay to the City rent ac cording to the following schedule: April 1 through June 30, 1993: $670/mo ($.84 sq. ft.) July 1, 1993 through March 31, 1994: $694/mo ($.87 sq. ft.) Payable on the first day of the month. If this lease commences on a day other than the first day of the month, then the Lessee shall pay upon the commencement of the lease the rental on a pro rata basis for the remainder of that month and commence a full rental pay- ment on the first day of the following month. 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: House Coalition staff and site for bi-monthly meetings of Executive Committee 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. 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 cancelled or material- ly 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 accion, suit, or legal proceedings as a result hereof. 3 10. RULES, REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES. .The Lessee agrees to comply strictly with all applicable laws and any uniform Com- munity Center rules and regulations adopted by the City Council. 11. TAXES AND CHARGES. Lessee agrees to pay when due any and all taxes, assessments or charges levied by any governmental agency on or to the lease -hold premises. 12. DEFAULT. Should Lessee fail to pay any monies due pur- suant to this lease within three days after written notice from the City or to perform any other obligation required pursuant to the terms of this lease within thirty days after notice from the City, City may immediately cause this lease to be terminated and thereafter take any action and pursue all remedies available under the laws then existent in the State of California. 13. NOTICE. Any notice required to be made or given pur- suant to the provisions of this lease may be either personal- ly served upon the party or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, LESSOR: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY HALL 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 LESSEE: Beach Cities Coalition for Alcohol and Drug Free Youth, Inc. 200 N. Pacific Coast Hwy Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Karen Ledebur, Director Any notices so given pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph will be deemed served twenty-four hours after the deposit thereof in the United States mail. 14. ATTORNEYS FEES. The parties agree that in the event any action is instituted concerning any of the provisions of this lease agreement, the prevailing party may in the discretion of the court be granted as an additional item of damages its attorneys fees. 15. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Lessee may not assign or sublease all or any portion of the premises without the writ- ten consent of the City, which consent may be granted or de- nied at the exclusive and total discretion of the City. 16. SUCCESSORS. Subject to prior provisions, this lease is binding upon the heirs, assigns and successors of interest of the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Hermosa Beach Community Center Lease Agreement at Hermosa,Beach on the day first hereinabove set forth. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a Municipal Corporation, Lessor By CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY DATE: LESSEE: /99=) 5 March 1, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council March 9, 1993 WOMEN'S PRO VOLLEYBALL ASSOCIATION TOURNAMENT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission and staff that Council approve the following request for a professional beach volleyball tournament to be held on the Pier Courts in the Summer, 1993. DATES: June 12 and 13, 1993 GROUP: Women's Professional Volleyball Association (WPVA) TOURNAMENT: Women's Professional SPONSOR: Coors Light FEES: $1,627 per day plus direct costs TOTAL: $8,105 (estimated) It is further recommended that Council approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the attached contract. BACKGROUND The Community Resources Department received a special event permit application from the WPVA for the aforementioned event (please see attached permit application). The WPVA is requesting approval for their annual tournament which has been in Hermosa Beach for four (4) years. In past years, this event was organized by Craig Elledge of CE Sports. In 1990 the WPVA began to organize pro events themselves instead of hiring event marketing firms. This represents their 3rd request to operate an event in Hermosa Beach. ANALYSIS The WPVA has a well established history of successful tournaments in the City of Hermosa Beach. The women's event has been growing each year with attendance figures reaching approximately 5,000 per day, however, the attendance is modest in comparison to the Men's Pro (estimated at 15,000) and has a substantially lower impact on the City and City services. ti 1 This tournament has a history of bringing exciting, professional volleyball to our beach and has had no notable negative incidents. The City's standard terms for a professional volleyball event are contained in the recommended contract. Clearly, this event represents the best of women's volleyball and. keeps Hermosa Beach "on the map" as one of the best venues for beach volleyball in the country. Projected Fiscal Permit Fees: Police Fees: Film Permit: Business License Amplified Sound: Banner Permit: Co-sponsor Fees: Total: ATTACHMENTS: Impact: $3,254.00 $3,120.00 $ 759.25 $ 233.00 $ 38.00 $ 200.75_ $ 500.00 $8,105.00 1. Special Event Permit Application. 2. Volleyball Contract Concur. Agalk -moo Mary ney, Director Com i y Resourc,es Dept. -cv Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager 2 Respectfully submitted, 5)14 Linda J. Essling Recreation Specialist Community Resources Dept. Noted for fiscal impact: (21-4_61-04a.a. Viki Copeland Finance Director City of Hermosa Beach Department of Community Resources 710 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 318-0280 SPECIAL EVENT PERHIT APPLICATION Organization's Name: Profit Non -Profit iN Non-profit Number 9 liaa.393 Organization's Address:!/(} fiPpJf1c Phone Number(s): 3iU- cal 5 Contact Person and Title: Zip Code () a. 3d P U.A ) Contact Person's Address:!}�czUose 5/. L%" iv., :95 /'4 Zip Code 9/le) Daytime Phone Number RO-,2;59 9Evening Phone Number:Sflir-3142-9;72S Brief Description of Event- " r lhLtt?)039LG 775vlz.1 /7-76),71 • Date(s) of Event:SUnp (Sufi j 4 %P41 IQ:"A(--) 5A-1.fi n.Sr uijO,,S Location(s) of Event: I./CO."1465,4 p; -i . ilo -4- 15;de Set-up Time:3L2,n/CLA c //-14)1 6.00ArY1 - 7/y7 Time Event 13 to Commence:S 3G Aryl —, "-6 pry, Number of Participants (Including volunteers): fp/wep - Anticipated Number of Spectators: r/5 -0C.) Number of Vehicles Involved and How Used: I w v'f}{. —rbc :lr.PS �oP, e ct.,•' Q 1v�;t-i- --,;44 , 5 f&L4 m 4 nn end OrP A -c-11 • &J J(i) e1 cfe'l e Description of Set-up for this Event:. -up l7 ;}i 5 -C-}xo uS -v„ onc�,�d TQn s - 5 / g Sf e— e.126 �4 ATG . U SCJ Q r t? eo ucts LA.) ; d/La -Pje; L) T1-0 m I' -:F C'3 u 2i r5 Svc 77p /)/9571 fQ;dR�- F �Ic+ u� �.i &.j Q. Q �cf Fay t� Additional Information or Special Requests: `v- - A5/?14(17S 1 77- Tv� zr Ian -Q f . %'Z1 & 5/ -vn c `.N5 i- {�S . C%Le�2o�1- eD.& r-k�SpLfkY Cwf) 5) Tom) & 9i'ven 4i8 '(„S Fees, Charges and Other Requirements: Police Costs Fire Costs Business License Public Works Costs Processing Fee Other Costs Total Due Refundable Damage Deposit Damage Deposit is due: $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Balance of fees incurred are due: Insurance Required: Yes No Date Received cx 54=L1- D r‘Li- i\R.x IN- C ON\ ('i fang `i T46 o f yc �. we, wLL Send • keS/ o,C 111 Fc). Unless greater or lessor coverage is requested, applicant agrees to furnish the City of Hermosa beach evidence of $1 million comprehensive general liability insurance in the form of a certificate, covering the entire period of this permit, naming the City of Hermosa Beach and its employees as additional insured. Expiration Date andclaims against the City of Hermosa Beach, its officers, agents in any pwayeconnectedes, for ewithes rthedamages exerciseof this ycaused arising out of, or permit. APPLICANT AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS AND TO MAINTAIN IN GOOD CONDITION AND TO RETURN SAID PREMISES IN THE SAME CONDITION AS THEY WERE BEFORE SAID USE. I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS TRUE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. ALL FEES, CHARGES AND OTHER NECESSARY MATERIAL WILL BE PAID AND/OR FURNISHED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY RESOURCES AS MUTUALLY AGREED TO BY BOTH PARTIES. Date Permit to be processed through City Council: Yes No • If YES, Council's decision: Application is invalid without the following signatures: Department of Community Date Resources Police Department Date Authorization Fire Department Date Authorization if Required Life Guard Authorization Date Needed on all Water Events - _r_ -! 11-1_1_1 =1= BEACH AND. WATER o--I-I--•I-I 1 I-- I -f-- i i _#) I— I I I MIMI NMI 10'x10' SAMPLE BOOTIIES * * * * Ii WPVA CONCESSIONS BOOTH 10!x20' BOARDWALK BOARDWALK BOARDWALK JIJNNEHJS 3ZIS C-Al2 "DispInY AREA 9.1N77. NOM ZH`JII HJV3 S Olid CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COMMERCIAL BEACH EVENT(S) CONTRACT This contract is entered into on March 911993, at Hermosa Beach, California by and between Women's Professional Volleyball Association (WPVA) a Sporting Events Promoter, and the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH (CITY), with regard to the WOMEN'S PROFESSIONAL VOLLEYBALL TOURNAMENT ON JUNE 12 and 13, 1993. FEES Event fee shall be $3,254. The $500 deposit will be applied toward the $3,25)4 permit fee and will be refunded only if the permit request is denied by the City. All predetermined costs fees shall be paid two weeks prior to the Tournament. All unanticipated costs incurred by the City on behalf of the event shall be paid within 15 days of receiving an invoice from the City. SECURITY The City of Hermosa Beach shall establish a command post in the immediate vicinity of the Tournament. The command post shall be staffed at all times with one representative of the Hermosa Beach Police Department and one representative of WPVA. WPVA shall provide no less than ten security officers. Said officers shall wear identifiable uniforms that indicate a separate identity from other Tournament staff. A representative of the security staff shall meet with the Hermosa Beach Police Department Watch Commander prior to the Tournament for a pre -event briefing. The private security staff shall be responsible primarily for informing spectators of the City's alcohol ordinance. The City of Hermosa Beach shall provide Officers for the event as follows for each day of Tournament, 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM: 1 Sergeant 2 Officers or as many officers as deemed necessary by Public Safety Director. Cost of officers shall be assumed by WPVA. CLEAN-UP WPVA shall provide a professional maintenance service to clean the following areas each day of the Tournament: . The Beach and Strand, from 8th Street to 15th Street. . Pier. Avenue, from Strand to Monterey Avenue. The maintenance service shall be responsible for hauling the trash collected outside the City each day of the Tournament. All maintenance work is to be concluded by 8:00 PM each evening. WPVA shall provide additional trash receptacles at the following locations: . Beach (impacted area) . Strand (impacted area) . Hermosa Valley Greenbelt (impacted area) or additional trash receptacles as needed. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BEACHES AND HARBORS SERVICES WPVA shall assume all costs for any additional lifeguards each day of Tournament if required by Los Angeles County Lifeguards. INSURANCE WPVA shall, not later than 30 days prior to the event, provide the City a Certificate of Insurance providing personal injury and property damage liability insurance naming the CITY, and County of Los Angeles their officers, employees and agents as additional insured with a minimum coverage of $2 million combined single limit coverage. Said insurance shall not be cancelled or altered without 30 day notice in writing to the City and County. WPVA insurers shall be primarily responsible for any and all liability resulting or arising from the performance of the contract and CITY and County and their insurers shall not be required to contribute. WPVA agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the CITY and County of Los Angeles harmless from and against any and all liability and expense, including defense costs and legal fees, caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of the. event promotion firm/sponsor its agents, officers and employees, including, but not limited to, personal injury, bodily injury, death and property damage. CO-SPONSORS A fee of $100 each shall be charged for all co-sponsors; with each co-sponsor permitted one display booth. All co-sponsors must meet with CITY approval prior to event. ADVERTISING Signage regarding the CITY'S alcohol ordinance shall be required by WPVA. City staff shall determine criteria for size, wording and locations for posting. City of Hermosa Beach shall permit two street banners to be posted for Tournament. Cost of installation shall be the responsibility of WPVA. CITY shall permit WPVA to display two large replicas of their product. City staff shall have final approval of said replicas and determine location. WPVA shall be required to make announcements informing spectators of the CITY'S alcoholic beverage ordinance as deemed necessary by Hermosa Beach Police. All sponsor signs, props, product facsimiles, etc. deemed necessary by WPVA to identify the event, shall be approved as to location and content by CITY. CITY will not unnecessarily deny said approval and will not curtail certain constitutional rights of event promotion firm/sponsor. PARKING WPVA shall be required to make announcements indicating 1) where there is free parking and 2) that the CITY will strictly enforce all traffic and parking regulations. SPECIAL EVENTS The CITY shall review all requests for any special events requested to be held as part of the Tournament. The CITY shall have the right to deny all requests. MISCELLANEOUS CITY RESPONSIBILITIES The CITY shall make any necessary contacts on behalf of the event with the Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors. If WPVA desires any County services, they must process their request through the CITY. Any costs for County services will be borne by WPVA. The CITY shall allow access to Tournament site for setup forty eight (48) hours prior to Tournament. The CITY shall reserve the end of Pier Avenue, Beach Drive to the Strand for Tournament staff and film equipment parking. At no time may event/promotion firm block emergency vehicle access. Parking privileges may be revoked at anytime by the CITY. City staff shall inspect grandstand construction and authorize public access. The CITY shall allow WPVA the opportunity to sell official concession items per certain conditions. No food or beverage concessions shall be permitted. All concession items must be approved by CITY prior to event. THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH RETAINS THE RIGHT TO AMEND, ADD OR DELETE ANY CONDITION(S) OF SAID CONTRACT. MISCELLANEOUS WPVA RESPONSIBILITIES WPVA shall provide as many portable port -a -johns as determined necessary by City staff. WPVA shall designate area for spectators to store alcoholic beverages. WPVA shall be responsible for all prize money, equipment, sound system and personnel necessary for conducting such a Tournament. Event shall be conducted in compliance with City of Hermosa Beach Noise Ordinances. Ordinances on file at the Department of Community Resources. WPVA shall take the necessary steps to encourage participants and require sponsors to utilize recycling bins for appropriate materials. WPVA shall make arrangements to provide such bins. City Attorney Date Mayor Date DEPARTMENT OF COt1IIUNITY RESOURCES Director Date Women's Professional Volleyball Association President Date Hermosa Beach City Clerk Date February 18, 1993 City Council Meeting March 9, 1993 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 92-1083 - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM." Submitted for adoption is Ordinance No. 92-1083, relating to the above subject. At the meeting of February 9, 1993, this ordinance was presented to Council for consideration, and was" introduced by the following vote: AYES: Benz, Edgerton, Essertier, Midstokke, Mayor Wiemans NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Elaine Doerfling, Cit Concur: Jt..dn. Frederick R. Ferrin, City Manager Jerk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 93 - 1083 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCI OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That an amendment to the contract between the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach and the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System i hereby authorized, a copy of said amendment being attached hereto, marked Exhibit, and by such reference made a part hereof as though herein set out in full. Section 2. The President of the City Council and Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to execute said amendment for and on behalf of said Agency. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days o its adoption, and prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from the passage thereof shall be published at least once in the Easy Reader, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 9th day of March, 1993. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: , City Clerk /f gee , City Attorney March 2, 1993 Z4( -70, -/es -0 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council March 9, 1993 VEHICLE PARKING ON PUBLIC STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE WALK STREETS ON THE WEST SIDE OF BEACH DRIVE Recommendation: Approve the attached ordinance in conformance with the City Council action of February 9, 1993. 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. The Planning Commission's recommendations were submitted to the City council in a report for the City council meeting of July 23, 1991. At that meeting the Public Works Department was directed by the City council 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 went to the Planning Commission for their review at the meeting of May 19, 1992. The conditions were reviewed by the Planning Commission at their meeting on May 19, 1992. The item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 2, 1992 for additional review. The item was further 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 below were approved at the August 18, 1992 meeting. The City Council reviewed the Planning Commission's recomendations on September 8, 1992, and established a sub -committee to study the situation. The City Council sub -committee presented their report and proposed ordinance at the City Council meeting of February 23, 1993. The City Council action at that meeting was to approve the Planning Commission recommendations with revisions. The Planning Commission recommendations are provided below. - 1 - 6 Planning Commission Recommendations 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 through the use of a revocable encroachment 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 area will be for a maximum of two cars and parking tags will be issued to the adjacent property owner 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 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. Analysis: The changes and revisions approved by the City Council at the meeting of February 23, 1993 are provided in the new ordinance prepared for this meeting. Item 1 - (for properties east of Beach Drive) has been deleted at this time by the council. Item 2 - has only been applied to the residential properties west of Beach Drive. Item 3A - (to allow parking west of Beach Drive) has been included in the proposed Ordinance. Item 3B (to establish the special conditions that will apply to the encroachment permit) is included in the proposed ordinance with the exceptions of sub -items 7a, 7b and 7c which were deleted by City Council action. Item 3C, 3D, and 3E to be determined at a later time. The proposed maximum number of recommended parking spaces to be allowed on the west side of Beach Drive is 64 spaces. The City has 3 existing encroachment permits on the west side of Beach Drive which do not allow parking at this time. The proposed ordinance would allow those 3 properties to request parking. There are approximately 18 vehicles presently parking on the west side of Beach Drive that do not comply with the proposed 64 3 spaces to be allocated for parking. These 18 vehicles will have to be parked somewhere else other than along the walk streets. Respectfully submitted, Lynn A. Terry P.E. Deputy City Engineer ty/beach Charles McD Director of nald P.E. ublic Works 4 Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE 93 - 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 THE WALK STREETS ON THE WEST SIDE OF BEACH DRIVE WHEREAS, the City Council has endeavored to research, investigate, and review matters pertaining to the parking of vehicles on the public street right-of-way adjacent to residential properties along the walk streets on the west side of Beach Drive, and WHEREAS, the City Council has received and reviewed numerous voluminous reports from staff, the Planning Commission, and a special City Council/Citizen Subcommittee created by the City Council, and WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to encourage and accomplish beautification of the Strand corridor and to resolve the parking of vehicles on the public street right-of-way along the walk streets on the west side of Beach Drive, and WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The public street right-of-way along the walk streets, outside of the center 16 feet of paved walking area, adjacent to the private residential properties west of Beach Drive and east of the Strand have been historically used and maintained as side yards by the adjacent private properties; and. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. The improvements made by the adjacent property owners to the aforementioned public street right-of-way areas, which have been maintained as side yards, have generally constituted a benefit to the adjacent residential property. owners. The City wishes to encourage future maintenance and accomplish additional beautification of such public street right-of-way areas maintained as side yards by the adjacent property owners; and 3. Parking of vehicles has occurred on the aforementioned public street right-of-way areas maintained as side yards between Beach Drive and the Strand for many decades; and 4. The parking of high numbers of vehicles that cover the entire public street right-of-way area maintained as a side yard area, up to and adjacent to the Strand, constitutes an unacceptable blight upon the Strand corridor; and 5. The elimination of all parking on the subject public street right-of-way areas maintained as side yard areas would cause a hardship to the adjacent property owners who have developed, improved, and maintained said side yard areas, including parking, over the years; and 6. An action to eliminate all parking on subject areas would cause hardship on the entire neighborhood by the elimination of existing and utilized parking spaces, thereby increasing the overburdened demand on the 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 limited number of parking spaces needed along Hermosa Avenue and other nearby streets; and 7. Many problems and disputes arise from uncontrolled parking on the subject public street right-of-way areas maintained as side yard areas. Thus, the City has determined an action which addresses the parking interests and concerns of the City as well as the parking interests of the adjacent residents; and 8. The City finds that it has not abandoned or compromised its legal interest in the subject areas in any manner. The City also finds that the adjacent property owners have not acquired any cognizable property rights as a result of their historical use and maintenance. However, the City seeks a resolution of current problems and an elimination of the unacceptable blight. It is intended that the Ordinance set forth herein below will accomplish a resolution and clarification of the situation. Specifically, by this Ordinance, the City will allow the adjacent property owners to participate in the encroachment permit process contemplated herein below. The City finds that it has the power and legal authority to require such revocable encroachment permits. and that the City has the right to execute dominion and control over the subject public street right-of-way areas. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN THAT: 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 SECTION 1. Section 29-38(2) is hereby amended to add the following subsections: e. The public street right-of-way along the walk streets on the west side of Beach Drive, outside of the center 16 foot wide paved walking area, may be used for private side yard use by the adjacent residential property owner through the use of an encroachment permit; f. The adjacent residential properties along the walk streets, west of Beach Drive and east of the Strand, may be allowed to have approved parking of vehicles on the public street right-of-way if they apply for a revocable encroachment permit requesting that parking. The parking shall only be approved through the use of an encroachment permit and the permit shall be applied for within 60 days of the passage of this ordinance. Also, the adjacent property owner shall fulfill all the conditions of the encroachment permit within 120 days after the issuance of the permit; g• The special conditions for a residential encroachment permit, on the public street right-of-way area west of Beach Drive and east of the Strand, are as follows: 1. The adjacent residential property owner to whom the encroachment permit is granted shall purchase and maintain a public liability insurance policy applicable to the encroachment area with a policy. limit of not less than $500,000.00. The City of - 4 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Hermosa Beach shall be named and maintained as an "additional insured" in regard to the encroachment area. Such adjacent private property owner to whom the encroachment permit is granted shall at all times maintain on file with the City of Hermosa Beach current proof of such insurance coverage. . Parking shall be allowed only within a distance of 30 feet west of Beach Drive. A maximum of two cars shall be allowed within the approved parking area. Parking tags will be issued by the City. 3. A minimum of 1/3 of the encroachment area shall be landscaped and maintained by the adjacent residential property owner. 4. The required landscaping shall be in place within 120 days after the issuance of the encroachment permit. The subject encroachment area shall be kept neat, clean, and in good order. The landscaping and good order shall be maintained at all times by the adjacent residential property owner. 5. Where no parking is currently taking place, the landscaping shall be in place prior to the use of the encroachment area for any parking. Where parking is currently taking place, parking will be allowed to continue as, long as the adjacent residential property owner has applied for an encroachment permit. 6. All landscaping shall be limited to a maximum height of 36 inches above the adjacent sidewalk level unless shown otherwise on the approved landscaping plan. 7. A permanent barrier shall be installed and maintained between the approved parking area and the remainder of the encroachment area. 8. All vehicular access to the encroachment area shall be from Beach Drive only. 9. The parking permitted herein shall be limited to passenger vehicles only. Trucks (excepting non-commercial passenger type pick-ups), motorhomes, campers, boats, trailers, etc., are prohibited. 10. The parking of passenger vehicles permitted herein does not allow for the storage of disabled or unused vehicles. Parking of a passenger vehicle shall not exceed 72 continuous hours. 11. An adjacent property owner who applies for an encroachment permit as contemplated herein shall pay a permit fee to the City to cover the actual costs of processing the application and issuing the encroachment permit. 12. Both the site development plan and the landscaping plan for the encroachment area shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the 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 issuance of the encroachment permit by the Public Works Department. 13. All fence or wall heights within the encroachment area shall be limited to a maximum of 36 inches. 14. Parking fees shall be determined and set by City council Resolution. 15. The privilege of parking on public street right-of-way along the walk street on the west side of Beach Drive shall terminate upon violation of the Conditions within the encroachment permit. h. The commercial properties along Beach Drive are excluded from the conditions above which only apply to the residential properties along the walk streets. i. Properties that have existing garages fronting onto a walk street, as their only. access, f � . (L <' � er ,i 4( SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full (30 force and effect from and after passage and adoption. ) days of its final SECTION 3. That the City Council does hereby designate the City Attorney to prepare a summary of this Ordinance to be published pursuant to the 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 7 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 the 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 , 1993 PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach ATTEST: , CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ty/ordbeach , CITY ATTORNEY 8 B.J. Mitchell P.O. Box 865 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 2/16/93 3 -l3 RECEIVED FEB 1 8 1993 CITY MGR. OFFICE Hermosa Beach City Council: At its meeting of 2/9/93, the Council awarded the contract for construction of a new wall and Strand using Title 3 grant funds for bicycle paths. This was upon advice of the City Attorney that there is legal support for "a determination by the City Council to consider the construction of a bicycle pathway to be consistent with 'a public pleasure ground' and not in conflict with the prohibition against the use of 'vehicles, teams, horses, wagons, carriages and automobiles and every kind of conveyance, including cars of every kind.'" There are at least two major problems with the above quote from the City Attorney's opinion: (1) there is no mention of "teams" in the deeds; the reference is to "trains,"not "teams". This calls into question the relevancy of the citation to Abbott Kinney Company v. City of Los Angeles. (2) the term "conveyance" was clearly understood in 1901 and 1907 to include bicycles: The Century Dictionary. an Encyclopedic Lexicon of the English Language, a ten volume reference work published from 1889 to 1906, defined conveyance as "That by which anything is carried or borne along; any instrument of transportation from one place to another; specifically, a carriage or coach; a vehicle of any kind." "Vehicle" is defined as "Any carriage moving on land, either on wheels or on runners; a conveyance." The definition of "bicycle" is "A modification of the two -wheeled velocipede...Bicycles having seats and driving gear for several riders placed one behind the other are called tandems -- a name often restricted to such a bicycle for two riders. A bicycle for three riders is called a triplet, one for four a quadruplet, one for five a quintuplet, one for six a sextet or sextuplet, etc." Clearly, the population at large in 1901 and 1907 recognized the bicycle as a means of conveyance and as a vehicle. It is also clear to me that the wording in the deed restriction, "every other kind of conveyance," came from this dictionary, or one with the same or similar definitions, and is intended to include bicycles. I have personally spoken with the attorney who filed the lawsuit against the City in 1974, which resulted in the City dropping its plan to put a bicycle path on the beach. He informed me that the case for the plaintiff in the 1974 lawsuit included several citations to court decisions which clearly identified bicycles as "vehicles", as does the state vehicle code. The City Attorney's written opinion made no mention of these decisions. I began this crusade with the notion that the bicycles on the Strand were dangerous, but not illegal. As I delve further and further into the issue, I am becoming convinced that allowing bicycles on the Strand is a violation of the original deed restrictions, and that the course of action the City Council is following is placing the City in what could be serious financial jeopardy. I would also call your attention to Section 21211 of the State of California Vehicle Code: "(a) No person shall stop, stand, sit, or loiter upon any bikeway, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 2373 of the Streets and Highways Code, or any other public or private bicycle path or trail, if the stopping, standing, sitting, or loitering impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of any bicyclist." Said Section 2373 reads: "As used in this chapter, "bikeway" means all facilities that provide primarily for bicycle travel. For purposes of this chapter, bikeways shall be categorized as follows: (a) Class I bikeways, which provide a completely separated right-of-way designed -for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflows by motorists minimized. (b) Class II bikeways, which provide a restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semiexclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted. (c) Class Ill bikeways, which provide a right-of-way designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians or motorists." It is safe to assume that our bikeway falls under one of the three designations above, and therefore is subject to Section 21211 as well. What does that mean? Up until the awarding of the contract for the expenditure of State Highway funds, our bicycle path was not a "designated bikeway" except as the City of Hermosa Beach had so designated. Therefore, it did not fall under the provisions of the vehicle code. Now it does. Once again, I urge the Council to place a hold on this project until its position is clarified by the courts. Si,1;�. rely, . Mitchell 2-5676 CC: City Attorney B.J. Mitchell P.O. Box 865 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 3/9/93 Remarks to City Council 3/9/93: For nearly two months 1 have been speaking to you about the dangers of the Council's current course of action regarding conversion of the Strand to a County Regional Bikeway. I have presented to you strong evidence that the use of the Strand in this manner may well be a violation of the original deed restrictions of 1901 and 1907. I have participated in discussions with other groups in the city about whether it is better to put a separate bike path on the beach west of the Strand, or to maintain a mix of pedestrians and wheeled vehicles permanently. I heard the Council pass a motion by Councilwoman Midstokke to place the issue of where the bicycle path should go on the November ballot. All this time I am scratching my head and wondering what planet I came from to be so far afield from these discussions. Only Mayor Wiemans seems to understand the full implications of what is going on. For example: 1. Until a court says that bicycles on the Strand and/or the beach west of the Strand do not violate the original deed restrictions, we are wasting our collective breaths discussing whether it should be ON the Strand or WEST of the Strand. 2. If the court concludes that bicycles ARE a violation of the existing deeds, we are wasting our collective money converting the Strand to a County Bikeway. 3. The location of the bicycles at this point in time is a LEGAL issue, and not one the citizens can decide at the ballot box. It can go on the ballot without threat of a lawsuit ONLY after the legal issues aredecided by the courts. 4. I am told that staff at the LACTC has said that mixing pedestrians and bicycles on the Strand is no problem. Then what is meant by Section 21211 of the Vehicle Code that reads: "(a) No person shall stop, stand, sit, or loiter upon any bikeway, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 2373 of the Streets and Highways Code, or any other public or private bicycle path or trail, if the stopping, standing, sitting, or loitering impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of any bicyclist." ?? Is LACTC staff suggesting that the legislature was only kidding? And that stopping, standing, sitting, or loitering on a bike path is really ok if the LACTC says it is? I don't think so. The truth is that we are proceeding with the expenditure of more than one million dollars when we don't even know what the rules are that we are going to be living under. Late this afternoon I received word from city staff that the documents related to the Strand project that I requested, except for the contract with LACTC, was now available for review. I expect to review the file later this week, and you can count on me to share with you any pertinent information I discover. As a matter of general information, I would like to call to your attention sections 6256, 6256.1, 6256.2 , and 6259 of the California Public Records Act: 6256 reads in part: Any person may receive a copy of any identifiable public record or copy thereof...Each agency, upon any request for a copy of records shall determine within 10 days after the receipt of such request whether to comply with the request and shall immediately notify the person making the request of such determination and the reasons therefor. 6256.1 reads in part: In unusual circumstances, as specified in this section, the time limit prescribed in Section 6256 may be extended by written notice by the head of the agency to the person making the request setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched. No such notice shall specify a date that would result in an extension for more than 10 working days. 6256.2 reads: Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit an agency to delay access for purposes of inspecting public records. Any notification of denial of any request for records shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial. 6259 reads in part: The court shall award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiff should the plaintiff prevail in litigation filed pursuant to this section. It is important to observe the law in all cases, but particularly where the informed participation of citizens in city government is dependent upon documents which form the basis for decisions made by the Council, it is of great importance to carefully follow the law. I would suggest that the Council request a review of the City's procedures to comply with the Public Records Act, and I will continue to urge the Council to reconsider its decision to go forward with the Strand bicycle path project. B.J. Mitchell 372-5676 home, 458-8777 wo r . ;' B.J. Mitchell P.O. Box 865 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 February 10, 1993 Department of Public Works City of Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear$StafCym,, Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, and the Freedom of Information Act, please make available to me the following documents: 1. the grant proposal for the Strand project. 2. the contract with the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission for the Strand project. 3. the plans for the Strand project. Please inform me by letter as to the date when the above documents will be available for viewing. Sincerely, B.J. Mitchell (310) 458-8777 work (310) 372-5676 home 4.44t #,3-)S March 1, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council March 9, 1993 SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT 93-1 PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE AND TO RELOCATE THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends introduction of the attached ordinance to amend the sign ordinance. (For a graphic summary of the primary recommended changes please refer to Exhibit A.) Staff Recommendation Staff also recommends introduction of the ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission, except that the provisions relating to the definition of, and how to calculate secondary frontage be retained as currently written (see Exhibit B) . Alternative Modify the recommendations of the Commission. However, if the Council desires any changes to amendments, such as adding provisions to preserve nonconforming signs of historic value, which were not previously discussed by the Commission, said changes are required to be referred back to the Commission for report and recommendation prior to the Council taking final action. Background The review of the sign ordinance was first discussed by the City Council at their meeting of February 25, 1992, based on a request from the Planning Commission. At that time the Council directed the Planning Commission to initiate text amendments to relocate the ordinance from the municipal code to the zoning ordinance and review the ordinance for clarification and substantive changes. Since that time, the Commission has broadened the scope of the review; requested and reviewed several__reports from staff; and held five public meetings on the matter. The review has included a thorough comparison of the sign ordinance with other cities' ordinances, a thorough review of details of our code that need clarification and a review of state law regarding signs. Further, the Chamber of Commerce was encouraged to participate in the process. At their meeting of February 2, 1993, the Commission voted 5:0 to recommend the changes as set forth in the attached proposed ordinance. These changes include, where deemed appropriate, several recommendations made by the Chamber of Commerce. For further background please refer to the attached staff reports and minutes. Analysis The proposed changes generally fall into two types, clarifications, or substantive changes proposed by staff or the Commission. Within the right margin of the proposed text staff has included a note to state whether the subject change is considered a clarification or a more substantive proposal made by -- staff or the Commission. The attached Exhibit A is a summary (including graphic representations) of the basic requirements of the current code in regards to commercial signs, and the areas proposed to be changed. The highlights are summarized as follows: - Pole signs in the C-3 zone would be reduced from a maximum of 35 feet to 20 feet - Projecting signs would be prohibited in the C-3 zones (but small projecting signs would be allowed in the C-1 and C-2 zones for pedestrian oriented business identification) - Would be easier to qualify for secondary frontage as no entrance/exit required at second street, also frontage on parking lot, public open space to qualify as secondary frontage (P.0 recommendation only) - Amount of sign area allowed on the fascia of a building would be reduced from 40% to 25% - No change proposed in the total sign area allowed per business Other notable changes are as follows: Provisions regarding nonconforming signs would be updated to comply with State Law, which limits cities abilities to abate nonconforming signs. Under the proposed provisions (replacing an amortization provision that was not carried out and is thus invalid) nonconforming sign can only be caused to be removed or made to comply when the sign is damaged to more 2 than 50% of its replacement cost, the sign is altered (other than facial copy replacement), substantial expansion of the building which effects the sign, a situation where the owner agrees to remove the sign, the use of the sign has ceased or the property has been abandoned for 90 days, the sign is a safety hazard or traffic hazard. (See section 28A-16, pages 35-37) Residential sign requirements would be modified to be the same in all residential zones, and allowance for wall identification signs reduced from 4 and 6 square feet to 2 square feet in all cases. The above proposals were based on comparison with other cities' sign codes (notably Hermosa Beach total sign allowance is generally higher than most the cities compared with), and other considerations based on the unique problems in Hermosa Beach. Overall the changes will help clarify some provisions, make some requirements slightly more restrictive, and others slightly less restrictive. The change are by no means substantial or severe. Rather than list all changes in this report, the proposed ordinance is written so that all text proposed to be deleted is overstriked and text proposed to be added is underlined. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY BUILDING FRONTAGE The sign code bases the amount of commercial signage on the amount of building frontage (i.e. 3 sq. ft. per linear foot of building frontage in the C-3 zone). When a building is abutted by more than one street, the code distinguishes between primary frontage (where the address of the building fronts) and secondary building frontage (an additional street front where a building entrance/exit is located for customer use) and building frontage is calculated as the primary frontage plus one-half of any secondary frontage. In addition, if a business only fronts on a public/private parking lot, alley, open mall, landscaped open space or other public way it may use that as its building frontage. (Existing regulations regarding building frontage are in Exhibit B) The Planning Commission recommendation was to modify the language to allow a building side to count as secondary frontage whether or not there is an entrance or exit on the second street, and to also allow it where a building side faces a parking lot (such as the public lots A & B) , an open mall (such as Loreto Plaza) , or landscaped open space. Staff does not believe this additional qualification for secondary frontage is appropriate or necessary because more than adequate signage is allotted based on primary frontage, and a business may thus choose to use a portion of that, if they wish, on other building sides (which are usually more appropriate for 3 OL smaller signs). Otherwise an excessive amount of signage might be placed on sides and backs of buildings. For example, if all sides of a building surrounded by a parking lot were counted towards the sign allotment (1/2 for the secondary frontage) staff fears that an unsightly proliferation of signs may occur on that building, on all four sides.Also, staff agrees with the current code that qualifying a building side as secondary frontage should only occur if there is a customer entrance/exit on that side, as only then is there an obvious need for additional signage. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RECOMMENDATIONS Staff and the Planning Commission encouraged and received input from the Chamber of Commerce, through their "sign assistance team". Several issues important to the Chamber were discussed, and several of their concerns have been incorporated into the proposed revisions. Attached is a list of the recommendations of the Chamber of Commerce (Exhibit C). Notes are provided in the margin as to whether the recommendation was included by the Commission or not. Only a few significant recommendations of the Chamber were not included inthe ordinance, these are as follows: - Allow flags, pennants, streamers and A -frame portable signs (these are prohibited under the current code) - Delete all commodity restrictions (these are current provisions in the code that regulate display of commodity signs to prevent proliferations of brand-name signs unrelated to, or only a minor part of the business activity) Allow 30 foot high signs in the C-3 zone (currently 35' is the maximum and the P.C. is proposing 20') - Exempt temporary banners and temporary A -frame signs from the requirement for application and bonding for temporary signs (P.C. is proposing an exemption for temporary window signs of less than 10 square feet) For further analysis, including explanations and justifications for some of the proposed changes, and responses to the recommendations of the Chamber of Commerce please refer to the attachments (Exhibit A, and the Planning Commission staff reports). Also, for comparison of Hermosa Beach's sign requirements to other cities, please refer to the attached comparison chart. HISTORIC SIGNS The Council expressed interest in adding provisions that might allow preservation of nonconforming signs that might have historic value, such as "The Lighthouse" sign. This provision - 4 - could be accomplished by adding a section, similar to Section 13-8, Nonconforming Historic Building, in the nonconforming building section of the zoning code which provides an opportunity to get an exception through a C.U.P. if a building or structure is found to be historically significant (copy attached). As noted above, to make that addition the ordinance would need to be referred back to the Commission for report and recommendation. RELOCATION TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE If the attached draft ordinance is introduced, staff will re -number the provisions for inclusion in the zoning ordinance prior to adoption. CONCUR: I Michael �chubach- P1gnning Direc or rederick R. Ferrin City Manager Attachments Respectful .y submitted, obertson Associate Planner 1. Proposed Ordinance 2. Exhibit A - summary of primary changes 3. Exhibit B - regulations regarding primary and secondary frontage recommended by staff to be retained 4. Exhibit C - Chamber of Commerce recommendations 5. Section 13-8 re: nonconforming historic structures 6. Background Information (P.C. Staff Reports and Minutes) 7. Comparison chart (comparing various cities' sign codes) p/pcsrsign 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 93 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO AMEND THE SIGN ORDINANCE TEXT, AND TO RELOCATE THE ORDINANCE INTO THE ZONING ORDINANCE WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on March 9„ 1993 to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission to amend the sign ordinance and to consider oral and written testimony and made the following Findings: A. Sign ordinances are typically located in the zoning ordinance which is more appropriate in terms of where authority lies for enforcement, interpretation and amendment; —_ B. A study has been conducted to compare the sign ordinance with sign ordinances .of other cities, and while Hermosa Beach's ordinances is similar in many ways, it needs updating and clarification, in some areas made more restrictive, and in others less restrictive; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain that the Municipal Code be amended to relocate the provisions of Chapter 28A, SIGNS, to the Zoning Ordinance, and to amend the text as follows: SECTION 1. Amend the text to read as in the attached reprint of the sign ordinance with overstriked text to be eliminated and underlined text to be added. 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. The City Council shall designate the City Attorney to prepare a summary of this ordinance to be. published pursuant to Government. Code Section 36933(c) (1) in lieu of the full text of said ordinance. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause the summary to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly 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 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. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 1993, by following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: day of PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: p/perssign CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY tr Chapter 28A SIGNS Sec. 28A-1. Purpose, Intent and scope. (a) The purpose of this chapter is to provide minimum standards to safeguard life, health, property and public 'welfare by regulating and enhancing the design, quality of materials, construction, illumination, location, identification and maintenance of all signs and sign structures not located within a building. The intent of this charter is to promote and maintain the attractiveness, orderliness, and dignity of the City's appearance, to preserve property values, and to protect the welfare of citizens through the regulation of signs without impairing the ability of its citizens and businesses to carry out their normal functions. It is further intended that the necessary regulations control and enforcement be carried out expeditiously, vet without planning under burdens upon any citizens of business. (b) No sign shall be erected in such a manner as to confuse or obstruct the view or interpretation of any official traffic sign, signal or device. No scenic values or other public interests should be harmed as a result of signing. (c) The regulations of this chapter are not intended to permit any violation of the provisions of any other lawful ordinance. (Ord. No. N.S. 497, Ss 1,6-19-75; Ord. No. 79-627,ss 1, 10-23-79) Sec. 28A-2. Enforcement. (a) Authority. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce all the provisions of this chapter. Added, per recommendation 1/19/93 staff report (b) Right of entry. Whenever necessary to make an inspection to enforce any of the provisions of this chapter, or whenever the building official or his authorized representative has reasonable cause to believe that there exists any sign or any condition which makes such sign unsafe, the building official or his authorized representative may enter the premises or building on which such sign is located at all reasonable times to inspect the sign or to perform any duty imposed upon the building official by this chapter; provided that if such building or premises on which the sign is located be occupied, he shall first present proper credentials and demand entry; and it such building or premises be unoccupied, he shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other persons having charge or control of the building or premises and demand entry. If such entry is refused, the building official or his authorized representative shall have recourse to every remedy provided by law to secure entry. No owner or occupant or any other person having charge, care or control of any building or premises shall fail or neglect, after proper demand is made as herein provided, promptly to permit entry therein by the building official or his authorized representative for the purpose of inspection and examination pursuant to this chapter. Any person violating this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (c) Appcal3. Any peraon di33atiificd of thi3 chaptcr may appeal in writing to the city council. The filing of Such appeal 3ha11 Stay further action until Such time aa thc council ha3 acted on thc appeal. (c) Violations and penalties. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, demolish, equip, use or maintain any sign or structure in the city or cause or permit the same to be done, contrary to or in Covered in Section - 28A-19 violation of any of the provisions of this chapter. Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of an infraction. (1) Each violation is punishable as follows: a. A fine of fifty dollars ($50.00) for the first violation; and b. A fine of one hundred dollars ($100.00) for a second violation of the same condition within one (1) year; and c. A fine of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) for a third violation of the same condition within one (1) year. d. A fine of three hundred dollars ($300.00) for each additional violation of the same condition within one (1) year. (2) Each person, firm or corporation found guilty of an infraction shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any .. portion of which any violation is committed, continued or permitted by such person, and shall be punishable accordingly. (Ord. No. N.S. 497, ss 1, 6-19-75; Ord. No. 77-557, ss 1, 3-22-77; Ord. No. 81- 669, ss 1, 8-25-81; Ord. No. 85- 818,ss ss 1,2, 11-26-85; Ord. No. 88-925, ss 1, 5-10-88) Sec. 28A-3. Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, certain abbreviations, terms, phrases, words and their derivatives shall be construed as specified in this section. Words used in the singular include the plural, and the plural the singular. Words used in the masculine gender include the feminine, and the feminine the masculine. 3 (1) Approved plastic materials shall be - those which have a flame -spread rating of 225 or less when tested in accordance with U.B.C. Standard No. 42-1 in the way intended for use; and a smoke density rating no greater than 450 when tested in accordance with U.B.C. Standard No. 42-1 in the intended for use; or a smoke density rating no greater than 75 when tested in the thickness intended for use by the chamber method of test under U.B.C. Standard No. 52-2. (2) Awning shall mean a temporary movable shelter supported entirely from the exterior wall of a building. and of a type which can be retracted, folded or collapsed again3t the facc of a Supporting building. If used for Sign purposes, Such awning shall be counted 03 part of the total sign arca. Awning sign shall mean any sign painted on, attached to or supported by an awning with the sign copy parallel or almost parallel to the plane of the supporting building wall. (3) Banner shall mean a temporary sign constructed of cloth, canvas or a light fabric. intcndcd for identification purpo3cs. This definition 3ha11 include pennants, flags, streamers and wind signs. (4) Billboard shall mean any off -premises sign erected for the purpose of identifying a product, event person or subject not entirely related to the premises on which said sin is located. (5) Building shall mean any structure built for the support, shelter or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels or property of any king. (6) Building frontage shall mean the exterior building wall of a ground floor business on the side or sides of the building fronting on or oriented toward a street or highway, which is used exclusively for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Building frontage is measured continuously along the wall for the entire length of the building. Regulation not a definition Added, per recommendation 11/4/92 staff report For clarification. Pennants, flags, streamers prohibited In cases where the exterior walls of a business are oriented to more than one (1) street or highway, the primary building frontage shall be the frontage which is associated with the street identified with the street address of the business. Secondary frontage must have a building entrance/exit which i3 opcn to the public during business hours fer customer/pedestrian U3C, which entrance is the portion of the building fronting on another street or highway, open mall, public open space or parking lot. (7) Building line is a line established by the outer walls creating the perimeter of the structure. A building line may also be a property line. (8) Building official is the officer or other person charged with the administration and enforcement of this chapter or his duly authorized deputy. Building identification sign is any sign containing the name or address of the building which may include hours of operation and emergency information located on the same site as the building. (9) Bulletin board shall mean a structure containing a surface upon which is displayed the name of a park, church, school, library, community center or similar institution and the announcement of the services or activities thereof. (10) Business sign shall mean a sign which identifies only the name, address and general nature of the business or businesses conducted from or upon the premises upon which the sign is located. d i3 a temporary Structure, other than an awning, made of cloth or metal with metal frames attached to a building wall or portion of the building to which it i3 affixed and carried by a frame supported ble braces and—attaehmente from such building wall er portion of the building. 5 Amended per recommendation of Pl. Comm. 2/2/93 Added, per recommendation for clarification Not needed i (12) Clock shall mean any timepiece erected on the exterior of any building or structure for the convenience of the public. (13) Combination Sign 13 any Sign of pole, projecting, and roof signs. (14) Commission shall mean the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission. (15) Commodity identification sign is any sign which advertises a product or service which is available on the premises on which the sign is located, using a brand name, symbol, logo, or trade name as part of the sign. If a business name includes a brand name, symbol, logo, or trade name, signs using that business name shall not be considered to be commodity identification signs. on commercial developments. Thc applicant showing thc location, size, color, and, if cite, thc sign plan shall include a perspective rendering, showing all 3ign3 in relation to the structure. Thc theme of Such cigning shall bc approved as a part of plana for new commercial or industrial developments, and Shall bc an integral part of thc development. (17) Construction sign shall mean a temporary sign stating the name of individuals or businesses directly connected with the construction project, their addresses, and/or their telephone numbers. (18) Curbline is the line at the face of the curb nearest to the street or roadway. In the absence of a curb, the curbline shall be established by the city engineer (see "Legal setback line"). (19) Directional sign shall mean entrance and exit signs, operating instructions, and such like signs. (2 0) Display surfacc shall mean thc arca 6 -- 13 - Definition not needed as projecting and roof signs not permitted Regulation, not a definition - moved to Section 28A-4 included with -n thc outer dimen3ion3 of a painted on a wall er other building Surface, without any border and with it3 background thc arca Shall bc computed by cnclo3ing the entire Sign within onc (1) or more pairs of determining thc arc.a thu3 cnclo3cd. (21) District shall mean any zoning district designated in the zoning ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach. (22) Double -face sign shall mean a sign which has two (2) or more display surfaces backed against each other, or against the same background, one face of which is designed to be seen from one direction and the other from the other direction. With—trio _ p ion o a e � e zone eac side and onc half of thc other Side of a double face Sign 3ha11 bc counted a3 3ign arca provided that both (23) Electric sign is any sign containing electric wiring, but not including signs illuminated by an exterior light source. (24) Entity shall mean any person who is the lessee, owner or who has a proprietary interest in the business for which the sign is proposed. Each business shall be considered a separate entity. (25) Fascia shall mean the flat outside horizontal member of a vertical po3ition. building having the form of a flat band or broad fillet (26) Flag shall mean a piece of fabric, plastic, canvas or any other soft material, in any geometric form, that is attached to a structure, pole or wire. Included in this definition are pennants and streamers. "Flag" shall not include any support, frame or standard used exclusively for the display of the flag of the United Stated of America, the state or the city, nor shall it include 7 4 This definition moved to "sign area" Regulation, not a definition Modified, as recommended, for clarification 1/19/93 staff report these flags. (27) Grade (adjacent ground elevation) is the lowest point of elevation of the finished surface of the ground, paving, or sidewalk within the area between the building and the property line, or when the property line is more than five (5) feet from the building, between the building and a line five (5) feet from the building. (28) Ground sign is a billboard or Similar type of sign which is supported by one (1) or more uprights, poles or braces in or upon the ground, other than a combination Sign, fin Sign or pole sign, as defined by this section. A ground Sign shall not cxcccd tcn portion of the Sign body. (29) Illuminated sign or lighted sign shall mean a lighted sign which has the source of light on the surface of the sign or in the interior of the sign itself, or which has a source of light located such that the beam of the light falls upon the surface of the sign. (30) Legal setback line is an established line beyond which no building may be built. A legal setback line may be a property line. (31) Lot frontage shall mean the linear distance of a lot line, separating the lot fromthe street or highway which is used for pedestrian or vehicular access to the business being conducted on said lot. In cases where a lot is contiguous to more than one (1) street, the lot frontage associated with the street identified with the address of the business. (32) Marquee sign shall mean a sign painted on, attached to, or supported by a marquee with the exposed face of the sign in a plane parallel to the building wall which supports the marquee. (33) Mobile sign is any portable display surface mounted on any nonmotorized or inoperative vehicle or device for the purpose of advertising or identifying businesses services or products. 8 Modified for clarification Regulation, not a definition (34) Moving sign shall mean a sign which has any actual or apparent moving, revolving, scintillating, flashing or rotating parts activated by electric, electronic, kinetic or mechanical devices, or by wind current, and shall include, but not be limited to, balloons, time or temperature recording devices (except clocks), signs which. are constructed of or faced with Scotch Light reflective tape or other similar materials, signs which change color, and signs where the intensity of lighting changes or appears to change. (35) Mural is a pictorial representation not specifically identifying goods or services offered by the business on the premises. (36) Neon sign shall mean a sign utilizing electric energy combined with glass tubing and gaseous substance to create light source. (37) Noncombustible as applied to building construction material means a material which, in the form in which it isused, is either one of the following: (a) Material of which no part will ignite and burn when subjected to fire. Any material conforming to U.B.C. Standard No. 4- 1 shall be considered noncombustible within the meaning of this subsection. (b) Material having a structural base of noncombustible material as defined in item (a) above, with a surfacing material not over 1/8 -inch thick which has a flame spread rating of 50 or less. "Noncombustible" does not apply to surface finish materials. Material required to be noncombustible for reduced clearance to flues, heating appliances, or other sources of high temperature shall refer to material conforming to item (a) above. No material shall be classed as noncombustible which is subject to increase in combustibility or flame -spread rating beyond the limits herein. established, through the effects of age, moisture, or other atmospheric condition. 9 Clarification 4 Flame -spread rating as used herein refers to rating obtained according to tests conducted as specified in U.B.C. Standard No. 42-1. Nonconforming sign is a sign which was validly installed under laws or ordinances in effect at the time of its installation, but which is in conflict with the provisions of the Hermosa Beach Sign Code. (38) Nonstructural trim is the molding, battens, caps, nailing strips, latticing, cutouts or letters which are attached to the sign structure. (39) Off -premises sign is a sign which is not located on the property which it directs attention to. Off premises signs arc not allowed in the City of Hermosa Beach. (40) Permanent sign shall mean any sign which is not classed as a temporary sign. (41) Person shall mean a person who is, and includes, every person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation, whether acting as principal, agent, employee, or otherwise. (42) Pole sign is a sign wholly permitted in the C 3 Zone only, supported by a single member in the ground limited in overall height to a maximum height of thirty five (35) feet measured from finished grade, and placed a minimum of five (5) feet inside the property line. To qualify for a pole sign the site must have at least forty (40) feet more than three (3) sign cans attached to it, and all pole signs may require the incorporation of a raised landscape planter. (43) Political sign shall mean a temporary, commercial sign identifying any person or proposition appearing on the ballot for any election scheduled to be held in the City of Hermosa Beach. (44) Premises shall mean a lot or parcel of real property, or any portion thereof which is used separately from other portions 10 Added for clarification Regulation, not definition Modified for clarification - regulations, not a definition thereof, any building located thereon, or any portion of such building which has a separate street address. (45) Projecting sign is a sign, other than a wall sign, which projects from and is supported by a wall of a building structure with the exposed face of the sign not parallel to the plane of said wall. cQ3c 3ha11 Said Sign extend above thc wall to which it i3 attached. (46) Projection is the distance by which a sign extends over public property or beyond the building line. (47) Real estate sign (such as a "For Sale" sign, a "For Lease" sign, or a "For Rent" sign) shall mean a temporary sign indicating that thc prcmioco on which thc Sign i3 located, or any portion thcrcef, i3 property for sale, lease or rent and the name, address, and telephone number of the owner, broker or other person offering the same for sale, lease or rent, located on the premises for sale, lease or rent or on property owned by another. with that persons consent. In addition, the works "Sold," "Leased," "In Escrow," or "Rented" may be added to a previously posted sign. The area of the sign shall include the area of any and all riders. All riders shall be attached to the face.. of the basic sign. (48) Rental sign shall mean a permanent or temporary sign which is used for giving information on availability of rentals on multiple dwellings, hotels, clubs, lodges and similar permitted uses. (49) Roof sign is a sign erected upon or above or extending above a roof or parapet of a building or structure and i3 not allowed in y (50) Sign is any medium including representational art with its structure and component parts which is intended to be used to attract attention to goods and/or services offered by the business on the premises. Sign Area shall mean the area included 11 Modified for clarification Modified, as recommended (and to comply with state law) For clarification - regulation, not a definition within the outer dimensions of a sign. In the case of a sign placed or painted. on a wall or other building surface, without any border and with its background the same color as the wall of the building, the area shall be computed by enclosing the entire sign within one (1) or more pairs of horizontally parallel and one (1) or more pairs of vertical parallel lines and determining the area thus enclosed. (51) Sign structure, for identification purposes only, is any structure which supports or is capable of supporting any sign as defined in this chapter. A sign structure may be a single pole or poles and may or may not be an integral part of the building. (52) Site shall mean any separate parcel of property as shown on the latest available assessor's maps; provided, however, when a shopping center has been divided into separate parcels, it shall continue to be considered as one (1) parcel of record and provided, further, where one (1) tenant, business or enterprise occupies two (2) or more contiguous parcels, it shall be considered as one (1) parcel of record. (53) Street frontage shall mean the linear distance of a lot line, separating the lot from the street or highway which is used exclusively for pedestrian or vehicular traffic, excluding alleys. Where such site is abutted by more than one (1) street, each street will qualify as frontage if the following condition exists: There are building entrances or exits opening onto the street which are open to the public during business hours. (54) Structure shall mean that which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts jointed together in some definite manner. (55) Temporary sign is any sign, banner, pcnnant, valance, or identification display constructed of cloth, canvas, fabric, 12 Moved from "display area" For clarification For clarification cardboard, wallboard, or other materials, with or without frames, intended to be displayed for a limited period of time only, calendar year. (56) Uniform Building Code is the edition of the Uniform Building Code published by the International Conference of Building Officials and which has been adopted by the City of Hermosa Beach, subject to the particular additions, deletions and amendments set forth therein. (57) U.B.C. Standards is the edition of the Uniform Building Code Standards published by the International Conference of Building Officials and which has been adopted by the City of Hermosa Beach, subject to the particular additions, deletions and amendments set forth therein. (58) Wall sign is any sign attached to or erected against the wall of a building or structure, with the exposed face of the sign in a plane parallel to the plane of said wall. In no CQ3C 3ha11 Said 3ign and not extending above the wall to which it is attached. (59) Wind sign shall mean any cloth or plastic or other flexible light material made in strips, triangles or other shapes which are fastened together at intervals by wire, rope, cord, string or other means in such manner as to move by wind pressure and which are used or displayed to attract attention to a business, product, service or entertainment. (60) Window signs are permanent and/or temporary signs inside or outside of and attached to the surface of windows. mew oign3 3h311 be counted in the total allowable obscure more than twenty (20) percent of the g1a33 3urfacc arca of the window(3). (Ord. No. N.S. 497, Ss 1, 6-19-75; Ord. No. 76-528, Ss 1, 8-10-76; Ord. No. 76-538, Ss 1, 1-11- 77; Ord. No. 77-574, Ss 1 (I), 11-22-77; Ord. NO. 79-627, Ss 1, 10-23-79; Ord. No. 81-669, Ss 1, 8-25-81; Ord. No. 85-818, Ss Ss 3-9,- 13 Regulation, not a definition For clarification, and, regulation, not a definition 4 11-26-85; Ord. No. 86-829, Ss Ss 4., 8, 3-25- 86) Sec. 28A-4. Permits required No sign shall be erected, re -erected, constructed, altered or maintained, except as provided by this chapter and until a permit for the same has been issued by the building official. A separate permit shall be required for a sign or signs for each business entity, and/or separate permit shall be required for each group of signs on a single supporting structure. In addition, electrical permits shall be obtained for electric signs. Application for a sign permit shall be made in writing upon forms furnished by the building official. Such application shall contain the location by street and number of the proposed sign structure, as well as the name and address of the owner and the sign contractor or erector, and shall be accompanied by the written consent of the record owner of the property on which the sign is to be erected. Every application for such permit shall set forth in detail by use of diagrams, drawings, plans or written description of the proposed method of compliance, The diagrams, drawings, plans or written description shall contain all of the electrical and other work which is to be installed as part of the sign, shall include elevations and sections ofthe sign drawn to scale, and shall show the precise location of the sign on the building, parcel or structure. Comprehensive sign plan to be required on proposed commercial developments. The applicant shall submit a sign plan for the development showing the location, size, color, and, if possible, copy for all signs proposed for the site; the sign plan shall include a rendered elevation, showing all signs in relation to the structure. The theme of such signing shall be approved as a part of plans for new commercial or industrial developments, and shall be an integral part of the development. 14 Moved from definition section Exceptions: The following signs shall. not require a sign permit. These exemptions shall not be construed as relieving the owner of the sign from the responsibility of its erection and maintenance, and its compliance with the provision of this chapter or any other law or ordinance relating the same. (1) The changing of the identifying copy or message on a paintcd or printcd Sign only. Exccpt for theater marquees and similar signs specifically designed for the use of replaceable copy., cicctric Signa ohall not be includcd in thin cxcmption. (2) Repainting or cleaning of a sign shall not be considered an erection or alteration which requires a sign permit unless a structural, copy or color change is made. (3) Non -illuminated Construction Signs. not to exceed twentv-five (25) square feet per site and not more than six (6) feet in height above grade. provided the sign shall not be erected, installed or maintained on any premises until the required permits for the construction have been obtained and are removed prior to final inspection. (4) One non -illuminated Real Estate Sign per site provided the sign complies with the regulations for real estate signs set forth in each zoning district (5) Political Signs (6) Building Identification Signs not to exceed two (2) square feet in area A sign permit fee and a plan -checking fee shall be paid in accordance with an amount fixed by resolution of the city council. (Ord. No. N.S. 497, Ss 1, 6-19-75; Ord. No. 77-574, Ss 1(II), 11-22-77; Ord. No. 79-627, Ss 1, 10-23-79; Ord. No. 82-697, Ss 3, 8-10-82) Sec. 28A-5. Maintenance All signs, together with all of their supports, braces, guys, and anchors, shall be 15 For clarification and to better control change of copy (3)-(6) added per recommendation 1/19/93 staff report and to clarify that permit is not needed for these signs s kept in repair and in proper state of preservation. The display surfaces of all signs shall be kept neatly painted or posted at all times. (1) Any location where business goods are no longer sold or produced or where services are no longer provided or where sign copy has been removed from the sign structure shall have one hundred twenty (120) days to remove any remaining nonconforming or derelict "on premises" signs or sign structures following notification by the city, and at the expense of the owner of said property. Where due written notification has been given by the city and compliance has not been made within the required one hundred twenty (120) day period the city may cause removal of such signs with the cost for such removal to be attached to the property. (2) "On premises" signs shall be refinished, repaired or removed as necessary to correct problems of rust, corrosion, cracks, broken faces, malfunction lamps, missing letters or characters, peeling, warping, facing or unsafe conditions within thirty (30) days following notification by the city. (Ord. No. N.S. 497, Ss 1, 6-19-75; Ord. No. 76-528, Ss 1, 8-10-76) Sec. 28A-6. Inspections All signs for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the building official. Footing inspections may be required by the building official for all signs having footings. All signs containing electrical wiring shall be subject to the provisions of the governing electrical code and the electrical components used shall bear the label of an approved testing agency. The building official may order the removal of any sign that is not maintained in accordance with provisions of section 28-A-5. All signs may be reinspected at the discretion of the building official. (Ord. 16 For clarification and per recommendation of Building Director No. N.S. 497, Ss 1, 6-19-75) Sec. 28A-7. Design and construction (A) Design. (a) General. Signs and their supporting members shall be designed in accordance with recognized engineering principles and the provisions of the Uniform Building Code. (b) Materials. Materials for the construction of signs and their supporting members shall conform to applicable Uniform Building Code Standards. (c) Display surfaces. Display surfaces in all types of signs may be made of metal, glass, approved plastics or wood: Glass thickness and area limitations shall be as set forth in Table No. 7-A. Sections of approved plastics on wall signs shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet in area. Sections of approved plastics on wall signs shall be separated three (3) feet laterally and six (6) feet vertically by the required exterior wall construction. Exception: Sections of approved plastics on signs other than wall signs may not be required to be separated if approved by the building official. (d) Restrictions on combustible material. Combustible materials shall not be used where prohibited by the provisions of the Uniform Building Code. No combustible materials other than approved plastics shall be used in the construction of electric signs. (e) Illuminated signs. The approval of any illuminated sign is not final until thirty (30) days after installation, during which period the building official may order the dimming of any illumination found to be excessively brilliant. Illumination is considered excessive if it prevents normal perception of objects beyond or in vicinity 17 Added, per recommendation 11/4/92 staff report of the sign. (B) Projections and clearance. (a) General. Signs shall conform to the clearance and projection requirements of this section and Table No. 7-B and 7-C. (b) Clearance from high-voltage power lines. Signs shall be located not less that six (6) feet horizontally or twelve (12) feet vertical from overhead electrical conductors which are energized in excess of seven hundred fifty (750) volts. The term"over- head conductors" as used in this section means any electrical conductor, either bare or insulated, installed above the ground except such conductors as are enclosed in iron pipe or other material covering of equal strength. (c) Clearance from fire escapes, exits or stand pipes. No sign or sign structure shall be erected in such a manner that any portion of its surface or supports will interfere in any way with the free use of any fire escape, exit or standpipe. (d) Obstruction of openings. No sign shall obstruct any openings to such an extent that light or ventilation is reduced to a point below that required by the Uniform Building Code. Bign3 crcctcd within five (5) feet of an exterior wall in which there arc opcninga within thc arca of thc Sign Shall be constructcd of noncombu3tiblc material or (e) Projection over alleys. No sign or sign structure shall project into any public alley below a height of fourteen (14) feet above grade, nor project more than twelve (12) inches where the sign structure is located fourteen (14) feet to sixteen (16) feet above grade. The sign or sign structure may project not more than thirty-six (36) inches into the public alley where the sign or sign structure is located more than sixteen (16) feet above grade. 18 For clarification, not needed (f) Clearance from streets. Signs shall not project within two (2) feet of the curbline. TABLE NO. 7-A, SIZE, THICKNESS AND TYPE OF GLASS PANELS IN SIGNS Maximum Size of Exposed Glass Panel Minimum Thick - Any Dimension Area (in thickness of Glass Type of Glass (in inches) sq.inches) (in inches) 30 500 1/8 plain,plate,wired 45 700 3/16 plain,plate,wired 144 3600 1/4 plain,plate,wired Over 144 Over 3600 1/4 wired glass TABLE NO. 7-B PROJECTION OF SIGNS Clearance Maximum Projection Less than 8 feet Not permitted 8 feet 1 foot Over 8 feet 1 foot plus 6 inches for each foot of clearance in excess of 8 feet, not to exceed 36 inches TABLE NO. 7-C THICKNESS OF PROJECTING SIGN Projection Maximum Thickness 3 feet 3 feet 2 feet 3 feet 6 inches 1 foot 4 feet (Ord. No. N.S. 497, Ss 6-19-75; Ord. No. 79- 627, Ss 1, 10-23-79; Ord. No. 81-669, Ss 1, 8-25-81; Ord. No. 86-829, Ss 12, 3-25-86) Prohibited Signs. The following signs are prohibited in all zones: A. Contain or are an imitation of an official traffic sign or signal or contain the words "stop", "go slow", "caution", "danger", "warning", or similar words for advertisement purposes 19 that simulate traffic devices and tend to confuse the motorists or pedestrians. B. Are of a size, location, movement, content, coloring, or manner of illumination which may be confused with or constructed as.a traffic control device or which hide from view by motorists or pedestrians. C. Advertise any activity, business, product or service no longer conducted on the premises upon which the sign is located, including off-site signs. D. Contain or consist of banners, posters. Pennants, ribbons, streamers, lines of flashing light bulbs, spinners, rotating signs, gas fired torches or other similar devices that move in any manner or have a moving part. These devices, when not a part of any sign, are similarly prohibited unless they are permitted specifically by this chapter or other provision of this Code. E. Are of flashing, rotating, scintillating nature and of such design as to give the appearance of movement. This section shall no apply to signs which indicate time or temperature. In addition, the following signs are prohibited: F. Billboards G. Mobile Signs, including portable signs, A -frame signs, or sidewalk signs H. Moving Signs I. Off -Premises Signs (except real estate signs) J. Projecting Signs (except for business identification signs in C-1 and C-2 zones) K. Roof Signs L. Wind Signs 20 New section added per recommendation of P.C. and 11/4/92 staff report and for clarification M. Signs other than those which are permitted in the zone as set forth in this chapter Sec. 28A-8. Sign requirements and regulations in resIdemtkaWr Residential Zones, and for residential uses. (a) [Permitted signs.] In thc R-1 and R 2 all residential zones and on any property being exclusively used for residential purposes in any zone, only the following signs shall be permitted per site, subject to the provisions and regulations hereinafter set forth: (1) One unlighted wall real estate sign not to exceed six (6) square feet, or one single - faced real estate sign not to exceed six (6) square feet, or one double-faced real estate sign not to exceed ten (10)" square feet in sign area. The area of the sign shall include the area of any and all riders. All riders shall be attached to the face of the basic sign. (2) One wall identification sign not exceeding four (4) two(2) square feet in sign area, containing name, and address and occupation or of occupant of premises. This sign may be illuminated provided the source thereof is indirect and shielded, and the illumination is not intermittent. Exception: Where such site is abutted by more than one street, the above signs may be erected, installed or maintained on each street frontage. (3) One unlighted Construction signs (see Section 28A-4(4), which may bc a single faccd wall Sign or a double faccd ground sign not arca, provided thc sign Shall not bc erected, thc required permits for thc construction have bccn obtained. Cuch signs Shall be removed prior to final inspection. 21 Sign requirements for all residential uses combined, as recommended 1/19/93 staff report Area requirements the same for all construction signs regardless of zone (4) For multiple dwelling units (three or more units, attached), one unlighted wall or ground rental sign, single -faced, twelve (12) square feet, or double-faced not to exceed sixteen (16) square feet in sign area, giving information on availability of rental on multiple dwellings. Such signs shall be removed upon renting all units with the building. (b) Location and height. (1) Such signs shall be located entirely on private property. (2) Ground signs shall not be over four (4) feet high above finished grade. (3) Wall signs shall not be over eight (8) feet high above finished grade. (4) No moving sign, wind sign, projecting sign, combination sign, construction sign, roof sign, mobile sign, commodity identification sign, or any other sign having a device, symbol, design or figure used as identification, other than numbers or letters, shall be permitted. (Ord. No. N.S. 497, Ss 1, 6-19-75; Ord. No. 76-538, Ss 1, 1- 11-77; Ord. No. 81-669, Ss 1, 8-25-81) rcgulation3 in R 3 'ono (multiplo-family re..: Ae t2 a7) . (a) [Permitted 3ign3] In thc R 3 zone, only thc following 3ign3 Shall be permitted per Site, Subject to thc provi3ion3 and rcgulation3 hcrcinaftcr act forth: (1) Onc unlighted wall real c3tate-3ign not to cxcccd Six (6) Square fcct or onc Single oquarc fcct or onc double faccd real c3tate oign not to cxcccd tcn (10) Squarc fcct in oign arca. The arca of thc Sign Shall include thc arca of any and all ridcr3. All (2) Onc unlighted wall or ground rental 22 Added per recommendation 1/19/93 staff report (previously allowed on R-3 property only) Deleted as requirements for residential combined oign, single faccd, twelve quare-€eet or double faccd net to cxeccd sixteen (16) oquarc feet in sign area, giving information on availability of rental on multiple (3) One wall building identification not to exceed six (6) square feet in sign arca. This sign may be illuminated, provided that the source thereof is shielded and the illumination is not intcrmittcnt. (4) One unlighted construction sign, which faced ground sign not exceeding thirty-two (32) square feet in sign arca, provided the sign shall not be erected, installed, or obtained. Such signs shall be removed prior to final inspection. Exception: Where Such a site is abutted by erected, installed, and maintained on each street frontage. (b) Location and height. private property. (2) Cround signs located within a front, roar, or side yard setback may be seven (7) (3) Wall signs shall not be over eight (8) (6) inches into a required front and side yard, when the side year abuts a street. (5) No moving sign, wind sign, projecting sign, combination sign, roof sign, mobile oign, commodity identification sign, or any other sign having a device, symbol, design or numbers or letters, shall be permitted. (Ord. No. N.S. 497, S3 1, 6 19 75, Ord. No. 76 538, 63 1, 1 11 77/ Ord. No. 81 669, Ss 1, 8 25 81) 23 Sec 28A-10. Sign requirements and regulations, R -P zone (residential - professional) In the R -P zone, only the following signs shall be permitted per site, subject to the provisions and regulations hereinafter set forth: (a) Permitted signs for residential dwellings permitted in the R -P zone are the same as those set forth in the section 28-A-8 for multiplc family residential zones and dwellings. (b) Permitted signs for businesses permitted in the R -P zone are the same as those set forth in section 28A-11, C-1 zone. (Ord. No. N.S. 497, Ss 1,6-19-75; Ord No. 76-538, Ss 1, 1-11-77) Sign requirements and regulations in the 0.8. (Open Space)and O.S.-1 (Restricted Open Space) zone All new signs shall require approval by the Planning Commission and are limited to wall signs and ground signs, which should be Added, per constructed of appropriate natural appearing recommendation materials such as wood, shall not be 1/19/93 staff report illuminated except where necessary for safety purposes, and shall blend in with the natural setting of the open space area. Sec. 28A-11. Sign requirements and regulations, C-1 zone (limi} sIneers — residential neiQhborhood commercial). Intent: To regulate signs recognizing the unique characteristics of neighborhood Added, per commercial districts, namely their proximity recommendation to residential uses and their orientation to 1/19/93 staff report pedestrian users. (a) [Permitted signs.) In the C-1 zone, only the following signs shall be permitted per site, subject to the provisions and regulations hereinafter set forth: (1) Business signs. (2) Building identification signs. 24 (3) One (1) real estate sign. (4) One (1) construction sign. (5) Temporary sign_. (6) Commodity identifications signs for commodities which are integral to the business per the following schedule: Percent of allowable sign area which may be used for commodity identification: Commodity equal to less than 10% of business...10% Commodity equal to 10% to 50% of business...25% Commodity equal to more than 50% of business...75% Commodity identification for beverages sold by restaurants and markets...10% (b) [Styles of signs] Only the following styles of signs shall be permitted. (1) One (1) wall sign. One (1) awning sign. (2) One (1) ground sign. (3) One (1) projecting sign. (for business identification only) (4) Window sign_(s). (5) Mural. (Murals approved by the commission may be permitted. In its review the commission may waive specific provisions of this chapter relating to total sign area, coverage, height, type and style.) Mobile aigna arc prohibitcd. These signs may be electrical, illuminated or neon. (c) Projection, and height and location. (1) Projcction Signa may cxtcnd from tho 25 Per recommendation (see below) wall of the -building or 3trueturc to .,Which the limit3 act forth in Tablc No. 7 8, u3cd for Sign purpo3c3. A single, non - illuminated projecting business identification sign for each business is permitted and may be hung from a wall prosection or marguee over an entry way. provided the sign does not exceed a total area of four (4) square feet per face and provided it shall be at least eight (8) feet above the sidewalk and may not project outward more than three (3) feet. (2) Wall signs shall not project more than six (6) inches from the wall of the building or structure. Ends of the sign may not be used for sign purposes. (3) No sign shall be located on or attached to a parapet wall, roof, or ridge line of a building two stories or higher. (4) All ground signs shall be located entirely on private property and cannot project over public property. No ground sign shall be allowed in the C-1 zone that is greater than eight (8) feet in height, measured from grade to the highest point of said sign. (d) Allowable sign. area.. (1) Total permanent sign area allowable shall not exceed two (2) square feet for each lineal foot of building frontage; provided however; that minimum of twenty (20) square feet shall be allowed. Both sides of a double -face sign shall be calculated when determining allowable sign area. (2) Where more than one separate business or entity is located on any one site, the sign area shall be calculated separately for each entity or business according to its amount of building frontage. (3) Where a business or entity is abutted by more than (1) street, the building frontage for said business or entity shall be the sum of the primary building frontage, plus one - 26 Added, per recommendation of Chamber of Commerce (similar to Manhattan Beach requirements) 11/17/92 staff report For clarification For clarification per 9/1/92 staff report half of any secondary building frontage, providcd the 3ccondary building frontagc has a building cntrancc/cxit which i3 open to the public during bu3inc3o hour3 for fronting on a 3trcct granted by virtue of frontage may be used frontage only. or highway. Sign area qualified secondary on the secondary (4) No sign shall cover more than forty (40) twenty-five (25) percent of the wall or facia it occupies or is placed upon. (5) Businesses fronting only on a ..'. - tiblic/private parking lot, alley open mall, or landscaped open space or othcr public way may use the building side facing such public/private parking .lot, open mall, or landscaped open space as the secondary building frontage. Only one (1) frontagc. Exception: On each street frontage one real estate sign not exceeding twenty-five (25) square feet in sign area and one construction sign not exceeding twenty-five (25) square feet in sign area may be erected in addition to the allowable sign area on any one site or entity. (e) Window signs. window signs shall be allowed in this zone and 3hali conform to the dcfinition of window 3ign3 as act forth in ocction 28A 3,3ub3cction (60). and shall be counted in the total allowable sign area. and shall not obscure more than twenty (20) percent of the glass surface area of the window(s). (f) (Residential uses) When the property is being used solely forresidential purposes, the sign permitted on the premises and the requirements and regulations shall be as set forth in section 28A-9, multiple -family residential. (g) Second -story signs. Signs for second - story businesses may be provided, but shall be part of the total sign area allocation for the prcmiac3. corresponding building frontage 27 Amended per recommendation of Pl.-Comm. 2/2/93 Per recommendation 9/1/92. staff report Amended per recommendation of Pl. Comm. 2/2/93 Regulation, moved from definition section on the groundfloorbelow. No signs are allowed above the second story. (h) Pole signs. Pole signs shall not be permitted in a C-1 zone. (Ord. No. N.S. 497, Ss 1, 6-19-75; Ord. No. 76-528, Ss 1, 8-10- 76; Ord. No. 76-538, Ss 1, 1-11-77; Ord. No. 79-527, Ss 1, 10-23-79; Ord. No. 81-669, Ss 1, 8-25-81; Ord No. 85-818, Ss 10, 11-26-85; Ord. No. 86-829, Ss Ss 1, 5, 9, 3-25-86) Sec. 28A-12. Sign requirements and regulations, C-2 zone (restricted commercial) Intent: To regulate signs recognizing the characteristics of restricted commercial zone as a pedestrian oriented shopping and entertainment district, and as the City's downtown district. (a) [Permitted signs] In the C-2 zone, only the following signs shall be permitted per site, subject to the provisions and regulations hereinafter set forth: (1) Business signs. (2) Building identification signs. (3) One (1) real estate sign. (4) One (1) construction sign. (5) Temporary signls). (6) Percent of allowable sign area which may be used for commodity identification: Commodity equal to less than 10% of business...10% Commodity equal to 10% to 50% of business...25% Commodity equal to more than 50% of business...75% Commodity identification for beverages sold by restaurants and markets...10% (b) [Styles of signs] Only the following styles of signs shall be permitted per business. (1) One (1) wall sign. (2) One (1) ground sign per site. (3) One (1) awning sign. (3) Projecting sign. (business identification onlY)._ (4) One (1) marquee sign. (5) Onc (1) combination Sign. 28 Added, per recommendati 1/19/93 staf Modifications per recommendations, and for clarification (6) Window sign(s). (7) Banners (if approved by eemmins-ien} (8) Mural. (Murals approved by the commission may be permitted. In its review the commission may waive specific provisions of this chapter relating to total sign area, coverage, height, type and style.) (9) Mobile oigno arc prohibited. These signs may be electrical, illuminated or neon. (c) Projection, and height and location. (1) Projection 3ign3 may cxtcnd from the wall of thc building or 3tructurc to which thc limito act forth in Table No.7 B, section 28A 7. Enda of thc Sign may not be u3cd for sign purpo3c3. A single, non -illuminated projecting business identification sign for each business is permitted and may be hung from a wall prosection or marquee over an entry way, provided the sign does not exceed a total area of four (4) square feet per face and provided it shall be at least eight (8) feet above the sidewalk and may not project outward more than three (3) feet. (2) Wall signs shall not project more than six (6) inches from the wall of the building or structure. Ends of the sign may not be used for sign purposes. (3) All ground signs shall be located entirely on private property and cannot project over public property, and shall not exceed ten (10) feet from grade to the highest portion of the sign body. No ground sign shall be allowed in the C-2 zone that is greater than eight (8) feet in height, measured from the grade to the highest point of said sign. (4) No portion of a projecting Sign Shall be highcr than tcn (10) fcct above thc parapet wall, roof or ridgc linc of a building, whichever i3 thc lcs3cr. 29 Per recommendation of Chamber of Commerce - 11/17/92 staff report Moved from definition section For clarification as roof signs prohibited 9/1/92 staff report (d) Allowable sign area. (1) Total permanent sign area shall not exceed two (2) square feet for each foot of lineal building frontage; provided however, that a minimum of twenty (20) square feet shall be allowed. Double -face sign area shall be calculated by counting one (1) side and one-half of the other side. p vi ca the messages arc : dont : -_, (2) Where there is more than one (1) business or entity located on any one (1) site, the sign area shall be calculated separately for each entity or business according to its amount of building frontage. (3) Where a business or entity is abutted by more than one (1) street, the building frontage for said business or entity shall be the sum of the primary building frontage, plus one-half of any secondary building frontage, provided thc 3ccondary building i3 opcn to thc public during bu3inc33 hours for cuotomcr/pcdcstrian uoc, which entrance i3 fronting on a atrcet or highway. Sign area granted by virtue of qualified secondary frontage may be used on the secondary frontage only. (4) No sign shall cover twenty-five (25) percent it occupies or is placed more than forty (40) of the wall or facia upon. (5) Businesses fronting only on a public/private parking lot, alley open mall, or landscaped open space or other public way may use the building side facing such public/private parking lot, open mall, or landscaped open space public way as the secondary building frontage. Only one (1) Such building 3idc may be conridcrcd building frontage. Exception: On each street frontage one real estate sign not exceeding twenty-five (25) square feet in sign area and one construction sign not exceeding twenty-five (25.) square feet in sign area may be erected in addition to the allowable sign area on any one site or entity. 30 For clarification 9/1/92 staff report For clarification, not needed as both sides count towards total sign area Amended per recommendation of P1. Comm. 2/2/93 Per recommendation 9/1/92 staff report Amended per recommendation of Pl. Comm. 2/2/93 (e) Window signs. window signs shall be allowed in this zone and Shall conform to the definition of window 3ign3 33 3ct-forth in 3cction 28A 3,3ub3cction (60). and shall be counted in the total allowable sign area, and shall not obscure more than twenty (20) percent of the glass surface area of the window(s). (f) Second -story signs. Signs for second - story businesses may be provided, but shall be part of the total sign area allocation for the prcmi3c3 corresponding building frontage on the ground floor below. No signs are allowed above the second story. (g) Pole signs. Pole signs shall not be permitted in a C-2 zone. (Ord. No. N.S. 497, Ss 1, 6-19-75; Ord. No. 76-528, Ss 1, 8-10- 76; Ord. No. 76-538, Ss 1, 1-11-77; Ord. No. 79-527, Ss 1, 10-23-79; Ord. No. 81-669, Ss 1, 8-25-81; Ord No. 85-818, Ss 10, 11-26-85; Ord. No. 86-829, Ss Ss 1, 5, 9, 3-25-86) Sec. 28A-13. Sign requirements and regulations, C-3 zone (general and highway commercial) Intent: To regulate signs recognizing the characteristics of the General Commercial zone as an automobile oriented strip commercial district. (a) [Permitted signs] In the C-3 zone, only the following signs shall be permitted per site, subject to the provisions and regulations hereinafter set forth: (1) Business signs. (2) Building identification signs. (3) One (1) real estate sign. (4) One (1) construction sign. (5) Temporary sign -(s). (6) Percent of allowable sign area which may be used for commodity identification: Commodity equal to less than 10% of business...10% Commodity equal to 10% to 50% of business...25% Commodity equal to more than 50% of business...75% 31 Regulation moved from definition section Added, per recommendation 1/19/93 staff report Commodity identification for beverages sold by restaurants and markets...10% (b) [Styles of signs] Only the following styles of signs shall be permitted per business. (1) One (1) wall sign. (2) One (1) ground sign, or one (1) pole sign per site. (3) One (1) awning sign. (3) Projecting sign. (4) One (1) marquee sign. (5) One (1) combination sign. (6) Window signf s). (7) Banners (if approved by commission). (8) Mural. (Murals approved by the commission may be permitted. In its review the commission may waive specific provisions of this chapter relating to total sign area, coverage, height, type and style.) (9) Revolving signs. (10) Mobile signs arc prohibited. These signs may be electrical, illuminated or neon. (c) Projection and height. (1) Projection signs may cxtcnd from the wall of the building or structure to which they arc attached a distance not to exceed the limits set forth in Table No. 7 B, oection 28A 7. Ends of the sign may not be (2) Wall signs shall not project more than six (6) inches from the wall of the building or structure. Ends of the sign may not be used for sign purposes. (3) All ground signs shall be located entirely on private property and cannot project over public property, and shall not exceed ten (10) feet form grade to the highest portion of the sign body. (4) Combination signs, wall signs and projecting signs shall not be higher than fifteen (15) feet above the parapet wall, roof or ridge line o -f a building, whichever is the lesser. 32 --39 Modifications, per recommendation, for clarification Per recommendation 9/1/92 staff report Moved from definition section For clarification as roof signs prohibited (5) Revolving:3ign3 oubjcct to following rcgulation3: a. Doc3 not encroach over public property. b. Limit of one (1) revolving 3ign for each entity or buainc33. c. Maximum 3ign arca not to exceed ono hundred (100) Square fcct. d. Shall not revolve more than cight (8) revolution° per minute and Shall be 30 labeled by thc manufacturer of Said Sign. blinking, changing of color° or intcn3ity of lighting changc3 or appearance of change, or faccd with Scotch Light or othcr Similar matcrial3. Proposed to be prohibited (d) Allowable sign area. (1) Total permanent sign area shall not For clarification exceed three (3) square feet for each foot of 9/1/92 staff report lineal building frontage. Both sides of a double -face sign shall be calculated when determining sign area. (2) Where there is more than one (1) business or entity located on any one (1) site, the sign area shall be calculated separately for each entity or business according to its amount of building frontage. (3) Where a business or entity is abutted by more than one (1) street, the building frontage for said business or entity shall be the sum of the primary building frontage, plus one-half of any secondary building frontage, provided thc Secondary building for customcr/pcdc3trian u3c, which entrance i3 fronting on a 3trcct or highway. Sign area granted by virtue of qualified secondary frontage may be used on the secondary frontage only. (4) No sign shall cover more than forty (40) twentv-five (25) percent of the wall or facia it occupies or is placed upon. (5) Businesses fronting only on a public/private parking lot, alley open mall, or landscaped open space or othcr public way 33 11-0 Amended per recommendation of Pl. Comm. 2/2/93 Per recommendation 9/1/92 staff report may use the building side facing such public/private parkins; lot, open mall, or landscaped open space as the secondary building frontage. Only one (1) frontage. (e) Window signs. window signs shall be allowed in this zone and Shall conform to the definition of window 3ign3 a3 Set forth in ocction 28A 3,sub3cction (60). and shall be counted in the total allowable sign area, and shall not obscure more than twenty (20) percent of the glass surface area of the window(s). (f) Second -story signs. Signs for second -story businesses may be provided, but shall be part of the total sign area allocation for the prcmi3c3 corresponding building frontage of the ground floor below. No signs are allowed above the second story. (Ord. No. N.S. 497, Ss 1, 6-19-75; Ord. No.76-528, Ss 1, 8-10-76; Ord. No. 76-538, Ss 1, 1-11-77; Ord. No. 79-627, Ss 1,xx 79; Ord. No. 81-669, Ss 1, 8-25-81; Ord No. 85- 818, Ss 13, 11-26-85; Ord. No. 86- 829, Ss Ss 3, 7, 11, 3-25-86) (g) Pole signs. Pole signs are permitted but shall not exceed the height of the building on the same lot, or twenty (20) feet in height measured from existing grade, whichever is lesser, and no part of the sign shall encroach or proiect within five (5) feet of any adiacent private property, or, encroach or project into the public right-of- way. To qualify for a pole sign, the site must have at least forty (40) feet of street frontage. No pole sign may have more than one (1) sign can attached to it and all pole signs shall incorporate a raised landscaped planter. Sec. 28A-14. Sign requirements and regulations in M zone (manufacturing). Sign requirements and regulations for businesses permitted in the M zone are the same as those set forth in section 28A-13. (Ord. No. N.S. 497, Ss 1, 6-19-75) 34 Amended per recommendation of P1. Comm. 2/2/93 Regulation moved from definition section Per recommendation 11/4/92 staff report Per recommendation of Pl. Comm. 1/19/93, modification of recommendation in 9/1/92 staff report. Also regulation moved from definition section. Sec. 28A-15. Political signs. Any political sign shall be permitted on private property only, with the consent of the property owner, in any zone, for a reasonable period of time preceding an election. No political signs shall be posted on public property or utility poles. All political signs shall be removed within fifteen (15) days following the date of the subject election (Ord. No. N.S. 497, Ss 1, 6- 19-75) Sec. 28A-16. Nonconforming signs in all zones. (a) [Removal of electrical signs.] All immediately preceding the effective date of before July 1, 1978. (b) [Procedure for nonelectrical oign3.) All nonelectrical signs which were nonconforming pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance Ne. 331 N.S.—(repealed -dune--1-T fol 1 owi ng prorx�rltiire: lig and planning departments shall, within a reasonable time, occupant of any lot or parcel wherein there occupant of the existence of such nonconforming nonelectrical sign. Said or by certified mail with return rcccipt requested. (2) Within one (1) year after rcccipt of of time or for approval to maintain said sign improvement commission. Any person shall improvement commission to the city council in ocction 28A 2(c) of this chapter. 35 commi33ion Said Sign 3hall be removed by or on of Said extc_s: of time. In the event that Said Sign Shall be of the notice of the exiatcncc of the nonconforming nonelectrical sign as referred to above. (4) Any person in violation of thin oub3ection Shall bc guilty of an infraction. The per3on who or entity which i3 in located 3hall bc deemed in violation of thin 3ub3cction. Each infraction 311311 be puni3hablc by: a. A fine not cxcccding fifty dollara ($50.00) for the fir3t violation. b. If within Sixty (60) day3after final di3po3ition of the first violation the Said Sign violation ha3 not been abated, then it will be deemed to be a nccond violation and a fine not cxcccding one hundred dollar3 ($100.00) Will --be If within Sixty (60) day3 after final di3po3ition of the Second violation the Said Sign violation ha3 not bccn abated, then 4t will be deemed to be a third violation and a fine not cxcccding two hundred fifty dollar3 ($250.00) for each additional (1) year will be impo3cd. (c) [Effect of chapter on cxi3ting conforming 3ign3.] All 3ign3 which were conforming at a date immediately preceding the adoption of thi3 chapter arc exempt from the proviaiona of thi3 chapter as long aa caid sign3 arc not changed or altered, and as (d) Alteration or rccon3truction of oign. No nonconforming Sign nhal1 be altcrcd or rccon3tructed unlc33 the Same, when 30 altcrcd or rcconatructcd, 3hall comply with the requirements of thi3 chapter. (Ord. No. 497 N.E., 63 1, 6 19-75, Ord. No. 76 528, 6a 1, 8 10 76, Ord. No. 77 560, C3 1, 7 26 771 36 Ord. No. 79 627, 63 1, 10 23 79) Signs lawfully existing at the time of the adoption of this section which do not comply with the sign ordinance shall be deemed legal nonconforming structures and shall be removed or made to comply whenever the following conditions occur. (a) The sign is damaged or destroyed to more than fifty (50) percent of its replacement cost and the destruction cannot be repaired within 30 days: of its destruction. (b) The sign is altered, enlarged, remodeled, reconstructed, or relocated, other than facial copy replacement. (c) The building or land use upon which the sign is located is expanded or enlarged and the sign is effected by the construction enlargement or remodeling, or the cost of construction, enlargement, or remodeling, exceeds 50% of the replacement cost of the building. (d) A sign for which there has been an agreement between the sign owner and the city for compliance or removal on any given date. (e) The use of the sign has ceased, or the structure upon which the sign is located has been abandoned by its owner, for a period of not less than ninety (90) days. (f) The sign is or may become a danger to the public or is unsafe. (g) If the sign constitutes a traffic hazard not created by relocation of streets or highways or by acts of the City. Sec. 28A-17. Conditioned approval. Theplanning commission or the city council, on appeal, may attach appropriate and reasonable conditions to the approval of sign or signs in conjunction with the review of a Precise Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit or other discretionary land use, including but not limited to allowable projection and height, allowable sign area, 37 Existing regulations replaced per recommendation 11/4 & 9/1/92 staff reports and to comply with state law Per recommendation 1/19/93 staff report location of sign or signs upon the lot or building, and other design modifications. In granting its conditioned approval, the commission shall find that: (1) The sign is permitted in the particular zone; and (2) The modifications and conditions are reasonably compatible in character and quality of design with the exterior architecture of the premises and other structures and signing in the immediate area; and (3) The modifications and conditions will not materially reduce the visibility of existing conforming signs in the area. (Ord. No. N.S. 497, Ss 1, 6-19-75; Ord. No. 82-697, Ss 3, 8-10-82) Sec. 28A-18. Variance The planning commission or the city council, on appeal, may grant a variance to the specific requirements of this chapter provided a demonstrated hardship exists and the proposed sign will not adversely affect public safety or the design and appearance of the surrounding neighborhood and the following conditions are found to exist: (1) A variance authorized is not a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity; and (2) Special conditions and extraordinary circumstances apply to the property and do no apply to the other properties in the vicinity so that the strict application of this chapter works a demonstrated hardship on the particular property; and (3) The variance will not adversely affect public safety and the design and appearance of the signing and structures of the surrounding area. (Ord. No. N.S. 497, Ss 1, 6-19-75; Ord. No. 82-697, Ss 3, 8-10-82) Sec. 28A-19. Sign review 38 (a) The department of building and safety shall be the sign reviewing agency and shall make final determinations on all signs. Provided that any determination may be brought before the planning commission on appeal. (b) On appeal to the planning commission, or further appeal to the city council, the city shall post a notice for sign appeal hearing at least sixteen (16) inches by twenty (20) inches, posted in a prominent place on the subject premises, clearly visible from the street, for at least one week prior to the review, stating the type, number and size of signs proposed, the date and place of hearings, and the telephone number of the department of building and safety for further information. (c) A fee for a sign review shall be paid in accordance with an amount fixed by resolution of the city council. (Ord. No. 76-258, Ss 1, 8-10-76; Ord. No. 77-574, Ss 1(III), 11-22- 77; Ord. No. 82-697, Ss 3, 8-10-82; Ord. No. 85-818, Ss 13, 11-26-85) Sec. 28A-20. Temporary signs. Temporary signs are allowed in addition to permanent signs subject to the following criteria: (1) Allowable area. The allowable area for one (1) or more temporary signs shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the allowable area for permanent signs provided that in any case a temporary sign of twenty (20) square feet in area shall be allowed, and one hundred (100) square feet shall be the maximum area. (2) Duration of display. The total duration of display for all temporary signs for any business shall not exceed ninety (90) sixty (60) days during any calendar year. The ninety sixty-day maximum allotment shall be used in increments of not less than thirty (30) days for each sign. (3) Applications. An application for a temporary sign shall be made in writing on 39 Per recommendation 9/1/92 staff report Per recommendation 9/1/92 staff report forms furnished by the building official. Such application shall contain the location of the proposed temporary sign, as well as the name and address of the business owner and shall be accompanied by the written consent of the recorded owner of the property on which the sign is to be erected. The building official shall obtain written permission from the applicant to enter the subject property for the purpose of removing any temporary signs which remain displayed after their expiration date. (4) Bonds. Applicants for temporary signs shall post a bond or cash deposit to guarantee removal of the temporary signs. The building official shall establish the amount of said bond or cash deposit, but the amount shall not exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00). The city attorney shall approve said bonds as to form and such bond or cash deposit shall be held by the city treasurer until all temporary signs are completely removed. If the city must remove any temporary sign(s), the cost of removal shall be charged against said bond or cash deposit. (5) Exception to regulations. The requirements of this section shall not apply to temporary political signs, or to temporary real estate signs, or temporary construction signs of lcs3 than (10) squarc fcct in arca. (6) Exception for temporary window signs. The requirements of the above sub -sections (3) and (4) regarding applications and bonds, shall not apply to temporary window signs of less than ten (10) square feet. (Ord. No. 76-529, Ss 1, 9-28-76; Ord. No. 79- 627, Ss 1, 10-23-79; Ord. No. 82-697, Ss 3, 8-10-82; Ord. No. 85-818, Ss 14, 11-26-85) Sec. 28A-21. Reserved. Editor's note - Ord. No. 85-818, Ss 15, adopted Nov. 26, 1985, provided for the deletion of Ss 28A-21, administrative approval of signs, as derived from Ord. No. 77-574, Ss 1(III), adopted Nov. 22, 1977; Ord. No. 78-582, Ss 1, adopted Apr. 11, 1978; 40 Per recommendation and clarification Ord. No. 79-627, Ss 1, adopted Oct. 23„ 1979; Ord. No. 81-669, Ss 1, adopted Aug. 25, 1981; and Ord. No. 82-697, Ss 3, adopted Aug. 10, 1982. 41 EXHIBIT A Permitted Signs Awning Signs Signs painted or printed on the surface of the awning material. Clarify that awnings do not have to be collapsible and clarify that signage is allowed only on surface of awning parallel to wall. ,c. Br.?mm�yiHr rra, , ia,..- ni Marquee Signs Marquee signs so long as they do not extend more than 6 inches from the surface of the marquee, nor extend over the top of the marquee, nor provide less than eight feet of clearance above ground level. See example below. Wall Marquee 11 6" Max. " " I E— Sign, Side View 8' Min. 0 No Change Page 1 Existing Code Ground/Monument One ground sign for each site in the commercial and industrial districts, so long as the sign does not exceeed 10 feet in height above grade. See example below. Signs � 1 Pole Sign Joe's Cafe ■ Ma =II a e MI n M IIIII1 11= OM O____ M I_ N__ NMI ■_____ MI E- INN I= IMO a MI MI MNM MN IMM ME INN NM MN MI IMO NM MIME OM MI MIN IIMI MI MI NMI NM NM Ii 10' Max. MAX. ►vk C-1 zovtt) One pole sign (C-3 zone only), with a maximum height of 35 feet, located at least 5 feet from the property line. See example below. Max. 3 Cans 35' Max. 1 Story Building • Minimum Lot Frontage for Pole Sign = 40 Feet Proposed Changes MINSIVE No Change ACIZAIOUrealliMaiDi Reduce Maximum Height to Height of Building or 20 Feet whichever is Less. Limit to One Can. Signs may not encroach or project within 5 feet of adjacent private property, or into public right of way. Cannot Exceed Bldg. Height 1 Story Building 20' Max. 2 Story Buildirig Page 2 Existing Code Projecting Sign Projecting signs in commercial and industrial districts . See example below. :';oWcZ' Max. 8' Min. No Limit on Sq. Footage (Cannot Extend Over Roof) Can Include Commodity Identification. Page 3 Proposed Changes Prohibit - Except in C-1 & C-2 (Downtown Area & Neighborhood Commercial) Provided 4 Sq. Ft. or Less on Each Face; Clearance: 3' Max. Projection; Located above Entry; Non Illuminated; Business Identification Only. Maximum Height is 11 Feet. 11' Max. • MaP 8' Min. I 3' — Max. Existing Code Proposed Changes Wall Signs kri r,) Wall Signs Revolving Sign Wall signs so long as the sign face does not extend more than 6 inches from the wall and is parallel with the wall, and the sign does not project over the top of the wall or parapet. See example below. Charlies Bar & GrIO 1111 MO MI NM Mil MIMI UM NE =II --- INN NMI MI NM MI OM MN 0 0 71 I I I TM ON 17.1 OTM ila NMI OW MIME MO I= INE OM -- Must not cover more than 40% of wall or fascia it is placed upon. See example below. 40 Percent XXX Pier 0 0 1)1 Fascia: The flat, outside, 5. horizontal band above the window in these examples No Change - Except Prohibit Signs Above 2nd Floor Limited to 25% of Wall or Fascia. XXX Pier 0 25 Percent •I One revolving sign (C-3 zone only) with maximum area of 100 square feet, maximum of 8 revolutions per minute, no flashing or blinking. • . „ .,..ezwz.'1 • Page 4 Prohibit Window Signs, Permanent Existing Code Permanent window signs so long as the sign area of all windows signs does not exceed 20% of the first floor's total frontage glass area shall comply with the maximum sign area permitted. Proposed Changes No Change y Window Signs, Temporary Temporary window signs so long as the total area of all window signs does not exceed 20% of glass area. No Change - Except Clarification that Temporary Window Signs of 10 Sq. Ft. or Less are Exempt from Permit Requirement, and Requirement to post a bond. r,* vi Temporary Signs Banner, valance, or identification display made of cloth, canvas, fabric, cardboard, wallboard, etc. intended to be displayed for a limited period of time (not to exceed 90 days) in minimum 30 -day increments. Allowable Area: 40% of the allowable area for permanent signs calculated as set forth below. Allowed in addition to permanent signage. In all cases a minimum of 20 sq. ft. shall be allowed. SEs NF. ;.ral Page 5 Limit Display Period to 60 Days in minimum 30 -day increments and Limit Temporary Signs to a Maximum of 100 Sq. Ft., Clarify Current Practice of Allowing Signage in Addition to Permanent Signs. Total Permitted Sign Area This section shows how to compute the total sign area allowed. Basic Computation The total permanent sign area allowed at a given site for all signs externally placed or externally visible = Building Frontage x Sign Area Factor. The Sign Area Factor and other restrictions for each zoning district are' as follows. -F Sign Area Shall mean the area included within the outer dimensions of a sign. A sign without any border or with its background the same color as the wall of the building, the area shall be computed by enclosing the entire sign within one or more parts of horizontally parallel and one or more pairs of vertical parallel lines and determining the area thus enclosed. See below for examples: No Border (i.e. Painted Sign) With Border i.e. Can Sign No Change No Change C-1 2(I:1 Count both sides of double face. C-2 2[] Count one side of double face, 1/2 of other side. C-3 3 Count both sides of double face. M-1 3 Count both sides of double face. Temporary signs may be provided in addition to above to a maximum of 40% of si•n allotment. C-2 District 30' -- MIN ----------I MI INN NM IMP IIIII NMI MO NIB II ------ ------------------- In C-2 District, Sign Factor = 2 Total Sign Area a Allowed = 2 x 30 = 60 Sq. Ft. Total Temporary Signage allowed = 24 Sq. Ft. No Change No Change • Multiple -Use Buildings Cr, Secondary Bldg. Frontage C-3 District 30' •N----O___ION _MIOM I INS MIN 1 11M111111•11.11 MN MI MIN OM 1= MN MN MO MN N----MI_=MI= _-NMI -- In C-3 District, Sign Factor = 3 Total Sign Area Allowed = 3 x 30 = 90 Sq.. Ft. Total Temporary Signage Allowed = 36 Sq. Ft. For multiple occupant buildings in commercial or industrial districts the total sign area allowed for each establishment is determined by that portion of the building frontage occupied by that establishment. For the purpose of computing total sign area for a business on a street corner, the building frontage shall be the sum of the primary building frontage plus 1/2 the secondary frontage (provided a public entrance / exit is located at secondary frontage). Sign ; area granted by qualifying secondary frontage may be used there only. See example below. No Change Planning Commission Recommended Change: Eliminate need for public entrance to qualify for secondary frontage. Also, add "open mall", "public open space" or "parking lot" as secondary frontage. 40 Sq. ft. 60 Sq. ft. 30' In C-2 District, Sign Area Factor = 2 Primary Building Frontage = 30 Secondary Building Frontage = 40 Total Sign Area Allowed = 30x2 + 40x1 = 100 Sq. Ft. Signage Secondary Frontage May Not Exceed 40 Sq. Ft. C-2 Zone Prohibited Signs Roof Signs Off -Premises Signs Sandwich Signs Flags and Pennants Those not Permitted Expanded List as Follows: Billboards Mobile Signs,Including portable signs, A -Frame Signs, or Sidewalk Signs Moving Signs Projecting Signs (except for Business Identification Sgns in C-1 and C-2 Zones). Wind Signs EXHIBIT B Provisions Regarding Building Frontage and Secondary Frontage recommended to be retained by staff DEFINITION PAGE 4 - SUB -SECTION (6): (6) Building frontage shall mean the exterior building wall of a ground floor business on the side or sides of the building fronting on or oriented toward a street or highway, which is used exclusively for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Building frontage is measured continuously along the wall for the entire length of the building. In cases where the exterior walls of a business are oriented to more than one (1) street or highway, the primary building frontage shall be the frontage which is associated with the street identified with the street address of the business. Secondary frontage must have a building entrance/exit which is open to the public during business hours for customer/pedestrian use, which entrance is fronting on a street or highway. REGULATIONS FOR ALL COMMERCIAL ZONES PAGES 27, 30, & 33 SUB -SECTIONS (3) & (5) (3) Where a business or entity is abutted by more than (1) street, the building frontage for said business or entity shall be the sum of the primary building frontage, plus one-half of any secondary building frontage, provided the secondary building frontage has a building entrance/exit which is open to the public during business hours for customer/pedestrian use, which entrance is fronting on a street or highway. Sign area granted by virtue of qualified secondary frontage may be used on the secondary frontage only. (5) Businesses fronting only on a public/private parking lot, alley open mall, landscaped open space or other public way may use the building side facing such public wayas the building frontage. Only one (1) such building side may be considered building frontage. Exception: On each street frontage one real_estate sign not exceeding twenty-five (25) square feet in sign area and one construction sign not exceeding twenty-five (25) square feet in sign area may be erected in addition to the allowable sign area on any one site or entity. PAGE SECTION # EXHIBIT C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RECOMMENDATIONS AND/OR COMMENTS 4 28-A-3 (2) 4 28-A-3 (2) 28-A-3 (3) .28-A-3. (6) 8 28-A-3 (28) 9 28-A-3 (34) 1.1. _ 28-A-3 (47) 1..12. 28-A-3 (53) 13 -15 15 15• 16 17 28-A-3 (58) 28-A-3 28-A-4 Retain previous definition of "awning" to avoid complexities under UBC. Delete "with sign copy". Delete "intended... ." Delete "must have a building entrance/exit" requirement. "A ground sign...sign body" is regulation, not definition. Delete "balloons", "signs which are constructed of or faced with Scotch Light or other similar materials" "intensityy of lighting changes or appears to change" is an illumina- tion, not movement issue. Raises questions about AMC marquee. Add "In Escrow" or similar language. Delete phrase "if the following condi- tion exists...during business hours." PLAN. COMM. RECOMMENDED Previous definition • retained - "awning sign" added Not deleted Agree, deleted i Agree, deleted Agree, modification made I • Not deleted "In no case...is attached" is,regula- :; tion, not;' definition. (60) Delete "inside of and". p. 4 Replace "perspective rendering" with "rendered elevation 28-A-4 P. 5 28-A-4 P. 6 28-A-5 P. 2 28-A-7 (A)(e; Retain Except 1e for". Delete "copy or color". Request 180 days for removal due to time required to lease property. Request removal of "Illuminated signs. operation only". -2- Not changed_ OK, incorporated Not deleted Agree - reworded Agree - reworded to state "inside or out- side of" OK, incorporated Not included Not deleted Not included • Not deleted, but Section modified PAGE 18 18 SECTION # 28-A-7 (B)(d) 28-A-7 (b)(d) 20 Prohibited 20 20. 20. 20 21 28-A-8 (. RECOMMENDATIONS AND/OR'COMMENTS What chapter is used as reference? Does this exclude wood wall signs? If so, what is the rationale? PLAN. COMM. RECOMMENDED Change to UBC 9 Signs . Delete(2)Flags, pennants, streamers. Not deleted -Add to (3) "except A -frame portable signs Notincluded Add to (4) "except marquee signs with Not deleted moving copy". Add to(5)"and political signs". Not needed Delete (6 "Projecting Signs" by Incorporated adopting Manhattan Beach standards. Request allowance of more signs with ea Notincluded sign allotted less square feet. ) (3) 23 28-A-9 (a)(4) 24 28 -A -11(a)(3) 25 28 -A -11(a)(4) 25 28 -A -11(a)(5) 25 28 -A -11(a)(6) 25 28 -A -11(b)(3) 25 28 -A -11(b) '25 . 28 -A -11(c) 26 28 -A -11(c)(3) 26 28 -A -11(d)(3) 28 28A -12(a)(3) 28 28A -12(a)(4) 28 28A -12(b)(1) 28 28A -12(b)(2) 28 28A -12(b)(3) 28 28A -12(b)(3) 28 28A -12(b)(4) 28 28A -12(b)(6) 28 28A -12(b)(8) 29 28A -12(c)(1) Same as above request. Not included Onc (1) real estate signage. Onc (1) construction signage. Temporary signs. Delete all commodity restrictions. restrictive to free enterprise and to enforce. Not included --- Not included OK -Incorporated Thi diff Not deleted Retain "One (1) projecting sign" by ado Incorporated Manhattan Beach standards. Add: "Awning signs, banners and A -frame portable signs". Add: "Wall, ground and mural signs" and insert Manhattan Beach standards for projecting signs. Awning signs - OK; Banners & A -frame - not included 9 Incorporated Modified to apply on Delete parapet wall . buildings 2 stories or higher Delete "provided the...on the secondary frontage only." Onc (1) real estate signage. Onc (1) construction signage. Change to: Wall signs Change to: Ground signs Change to: Awning signs Retain: Projecting sign. Change to: Marquee signs. Change to: Window signs. Change to: Murals. Add: Manhattan Beach standards. -3- Incorporated Not changed Not changed Not changed Not changed Not changed OK Not changed OK Not changed Incorporated PAGE SECTION # RECOMMENDATIONS AND/OR COMMENTS 29 28A -12(c)(3) Delete height restriction for 30 28A -12(d)(1) Delete "provided the messages are identical." PLAN. COMM. RECOMMENDED ground sign. Not included 30 28A -12(d)(3) Delete "provided the secondary...the secondary frontage only." 30 28A -12(d)(5) Last sentence should read "side" not "site". Request clarification. 28A -13(a) Same as recommendation for sections 28A -11(a)(3) thru 28A -11(c) on page 2. '•._ • 31 32 28A -13(c)(1) Add: Manhattan Beach standards. 33 28A -13(d)(3) Delete "provided the secondary... secondary frontage only." 34 28A -13(d)(5) "site" should read "side". 34 28A -13(f) 34 28A -13(g) 38 28A-18 P.1 40 28A-20(5). 40. 28A-20 Add: Signs for second story buildings may be provided "for pricipal tenants or building identification." Allow 30 feet in height as allowed in Manhattan Beach standards. Delete "a demonstrated hardship" and insert "good cause". Add "or temporary construction - signs"; Add Item't7): Exception for temporary banners and temporary A -frame signs. Agree, deleted Agree, deleted Sidg incorporated Not included Incorporated Agree, deleted OK - incorporated Not included Not included - limited to 20' Not included OK - incorporated Not included •The following items refer to the November 12, 1992 staff report to the Planning Commission. Comments address comparisons of the proposed Hermosa Beach standards to the current Manhattan Beach standards. Relative to C-3 pole sign height: Manhattan Beach allows 30 feet compared to proposed 15 feet for Hermosa Beach. Relative to Prohibition of billboards, flags, etc. in Hermosa Beach C-1 and C-2: Manhattan Beach has no prohibition of this nature. . Why restrict permitted sign copy to name of business only projecting signs? -4- on p/signrec § 13-8 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE § 13-8 ck is minor and necessary for a logical extension of all and that the nonco . rming side yard is gen- erally sistent with the ajority of existing side yards in the "bloc " as der d by the zoning ordinance. Mea- surement of si. - . rds shall be approximated by use of aerial photo . nd ieid inspections. Fees for such re- quests s.: be set by he city council. (Ord. No. N.S. , § 3, 2-6-62; Ord. Nb.,84-776, § 4, 9-11-84; Ord. No. 89-10* a, 9, 9_26-89; Ord. No. 90-1051 1, 11-27-90) Sec. 13-8. Nonconforming historic buildings. (a) A locally recognized historic building or structure may be substantially preserved, renovated or rebuilt subject to the issu- ance of a conditional use permit. (b) In reviewing the application for the historic building or structure, the planning commission shall evaluate and make find- ings on the following: (1) The local historical significance of the building or struc- ture. (2) The historical significance of existing architecture. (c) In approving a conditional use permit, the planning com- mission may authorize such deviations as necessary to preserve. the structure and its historical significance and impose conditions of approval as deemed necessary. — (Ord. No. 89-1008, § 10, 9-26-89) Supp. No. 12.90 546.8 BACKGROUND MATER/AL Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission January 4, 1993 Regular Meeting of 'y 19;-._1993- Ftjzu zr 993 (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 4, AND NOVEMBER 17, 1992) SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT 93-1 PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE AND TO RELOCATE THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation Staff recommends that the Commission recommend amending the sign ordinance pursuant to the attached resolution. Background At the meeting of January 19, 1992, the Planning Commission continued this item for one additional noticed public hearing, and for staff to make some additional minor changes to the recommended text of the sign ordinance. This issue has been discussed at four previous meetingsof the Planning Commission and the attached resolution includes the final draft of the text of the sign ordinance incorporating all the comments and recommendations of the Planning Commission as discussed in the four staff reports. For further background please refer to the attached staff reports. Analysis The following are descriptions of the changes and modifications made to the text, or explanations, to respond to the Commissioners specific comments from the last meeting, referenced to the page number and item number in the same way referenced in the minutes: Page 4 (3) (6) "intended for identification purposes" deleted at end of the definition for "banner" No change is proposed in the definitions of "building frontage" or to add a definition for secondary frontage. Staff has not experienced a problem with the current definition of "building frontage" which clearly includes descriptions of primary and secondary building frontage. The primary frontage is considered the street address side of the building, and for any other side of the building' to qualify as secondary frontage it must front on a street and have an entrance/exit. The advantage of "secondary frontage" is that one-half of that frontage can be used to count towards allowable sign area. This does not mean that signs cannot be displayed on building sides with no entrance/exit, but any such signs must be included in the total sign allotment which is based only on the amount of primary building frontage. 8 (28) Ten foot height limit moved from definition section and moved to regulation section for C-2 and C-3 zones (Sections 28A -12(c)3 & 28A -13(c)3). Ground signs are already limited to 8 feet in the C-1 zone. (34) Changed "Scotch light" to "reflective tape" in the definition of "moving sign." 12 (53) No changes proposed regarding the definition of "street frontage" --not to be confused with building frontage (see note above)-- Please note that sign__, allotment is based on building frontage not street frontage, staff has no problem with current definition. (54) Added "shall mean" after "structure" for clarification (58) P.C. inquired about last part of definition. As an explanation, specifying that the sign not extend above the wall is necessary to distinguish wall signs from prohibited roof signs. 13 (60) Clarified the definition of "window signs" to state "signs inside or outside of and attached to the surface of windows. 14 Exceptions (2), P.C. suggested adding the word "conforming" in front of "sign" to exempt only repainting and cleaning of conforming signs from sign permits. Staff is proposing no change as both conforming and nonconforming signs being repainted or cleaned should be exempt from permits pursuant to state law. 15 Maintenance - added "nonconforming" after "remaining" to clarify that only "nonconforming" or derelict signs to be removed within 120 days after abandonment Changed proposed regulations concerning illuminated signs to eliminate the requirement for shut-off one-half hour after closing time. Clarified this section to read: "Signs erected within five (5) feet of an opening in an exterior wall shall be constructed of nonconmbustible material or approved plastics." -65- 21 (3) Eliminated restriction to one construction sign, thus allowing multiple construction signs to a sum total of 25 square feet 26 (3) Changed, so that prohibition on attaching signs to parapet or roof line in C-1 zone only applies to two-story or more building 28 & 31 Changed to clarify that more than one of certain types of signs are allowed per site for multiple businesses 29 (d)1. Changed so both sidesof a double -face sign do not have to be identical (this is OK since both sides count towards total sign area). 34 (g) Changed proposed maximum height of pole sign from 15 -feet to 20 -feet. With these above changes, staff believes the draft ordinance is ready to be forwarded to the City Council, recommended for adoption, and recommended to be added to the zoning ordinance section of the Municipal Code. The draft ordinance still uses the old number system for easy comparison to the current -- ordinance; once it is finally adopted by Council, it will be renumbered. Michael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Maps of Commercial zones 3. P.C. Minutes 1/19/93 Res•ectfu ly submitted, n Rober son Associate Planner January 4, 1993 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission January 19, 1993 (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 4, AND NOVEMBER 17, 1992) SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 92-4 PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE AND TO RELOCATE THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ZMITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission direct staff to set this matter for public hearing and public noticing, and to prepare a text amendment resolution for recommendation to City Council. Background At the meeting of November 17, 1992, the Planning Commission continued this item to give staff more time and respond to the several comments made by the Planning Commission and, also, the Chamber of Commerce. On January 13, Staff met with the Chamber of Commerce to discuss the recommendations of the Sign Assistance Team (see attached memorandum from the Chamber) At the meeting of November 4, 1992, the Planning Commission considered and discussed staff's suggestions and a draft of the proposed amendments. Based on testimony and further discussion, the Commission continued this item to November 17,' 1992, for staff to meet with the Chamber of Commerce and to respond to Commission requests. For further background please refer to the attached staff reports. Analysis In response to the requests of the Planning Commission and the Chamber of Commerce, staff has prepared a summary of the key elements of the sign ordinance as compared to the proposed changes. This summary, which includes graphic representations where appropriate, is attached. Further, staff has continued to consider, and include where possible, modifications to address other noted concerns of the Commission, and to improve clarity. The remainder of this staff report will discuss these other areas of concern not previously discussed. For further analysis please refer to the attached staff reports. Also, please refer to the resolution for details of the proposed modifications to the text of the sign ordinance. Please be reminded that text to be added is underlined and text to be removed is overstriked. Also, notes are provided in the margin to briefly explain the proposed changes. Several of the recommendations were discussed in previous staff reports and are not noted in this report. Also, please refer to the Chamber of Commerce memorandum, and staff's initial responses typed in the margin. INTENT In response to comments made at the last Planning Commission meeting, staff has modified the opening section to the sign ordinance in regards to purpose and intent, including some of the language of the same section in the City of Manhattan Beach's sign ordinance. Further, staff is proposing adding intent sections to the opening-_ sections of the, C-1, C-2 and C-3 sign requirements. These are proposed to emphasize that C-1 sign requirements are intended to recognize the character of neighborhood commercial areas; that C-2 requirements are to. recognize the unique character, and pedestrian orientation, of the downtown area, and; that C-3 requirements are to recognize the unique needs and characteristics of the strip commercial areas of the City. Although these additional intent sections do not change the content or requirements of the ordinance, staff believes these additions will help improve general understanding of the ordinance, and establish some basic reasons why the requirements differ between the C-1, C-2 and C-3 zones. SIGN REQUIREMENTS ON P.C.H. As requested at the last Commission meeting, staff has further examined existing sign requirements of Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach as compared with existing Hermosa Beach Requirements as they apply to Sepulveda Blvd. and P.C.H.. These are briefly summarized below: City Signs Permitted HB Pole, Wall, Ground/Monument Projecting Revolving MB Pole, Wall, Free Standing Projecting, ( Prohibited Max. Ht Area Allowed Roof, 35 ft 3 sq. ft per foot Moving of frontage Revolving, Moving 30 ft 2 sq. ft. per foot of frontage; 4 sq ft for projecting RB Pole, Wall, Free Standing Projecting Roof Revolving, 30 ft 200 sq. ft. for pole Moving sign; 15% of wal for wall sign: 1 sq ft per ft of frontage for projecting sign In summary, the main difference is that Hermosa Beach does not permit roof signs, but allows a slightly higher pole sign (35' instead of 30'). Further, as compared to Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach allows a greater total area of signage per linear foot of frontage. It should be emphasized that the character (in terms of existing development, existing cluttering of signs, typical lot frontages, distance between intersections and stop lights) of Hermosa Beach along P.C.H. is quite different than Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach which are characterized by larger lots, and more shopping centers, and generally faster moving traffic. Further, in Hermosa Beach there are residential areas uphill from P.C.H. with ocean views that might be obstructed by roof signs or excessively high pole signs. As noted previously, staff is proposing to reduce the maximum height of pole signs from 35 feet to 15 feet, and to prohibit projecting signs in the C-3 zone. In staff's judgement, the proposed changes to lower the maximum height to fifteen (15) feet should not reduce Hermosa Beach's competitive standing, but rather would recognize the existing situation of slower moving traffic, and potentially improve the City's competitive standing by preventing a continuing unsightly proliferation of signs which are out of scale with the size of buildings or businesses they represent. (To show that these lower signs can work, staff would note Plaza Hermosa's low-level monument signs on P.C.H. which appear more visually effective than their pole sign on Pier Avenue). Additional considerations: Staff has not proposed reducing total sign area in conjunction with these changes, but a reduction (to perhaps 2 square feet per linear foot) should probably be considered and discussed. Also, the prohibition of projecting signs may be a concern along the segments of P.C.H. (particularly south of Pier Avenue) in which the buildings front on the street, since no room is available for a pole sign to advertise these small businesses. An alternative might be to allow small projecting signs in the S.P.A. 7 zone. DOWNTOWN SIGNS The C-2 sign requirements of Hermosa Beach essentially represent the sign requirements for downtown. In the interest of providing a "pedestrian friendly". environment, the proposed sign code changes include allowing small projecting business identification signs. Otherwise no substantial changes are proposed. The C-2 zone differs from the C-3 zone in area requirements, and by prohibiting pole signs (a free-standing ground sign of 8 -foot high maximum is allowed). The Commission has expressed interest in illumination standards and sandwich signs provisions. Staff proposed an illumination requirement for all signs that simply states that sign cannot be excessively brilliant, and must be turned off one-half hour after closing time. The city already prohibits sandwich signs (also known as portable signs or A -frame signs) which is typical of other cities. The Commission, based on input from the Chamber of Commerce has expressed interest in allowing these signs in limited situations, such as temporary menu boards. Staff still does not believe these signs should be allowed in any circumstances as plenty of opportunities exist through either window signs or wall signs to advertise menus or daily specials. Staff's only suggestion if the Commission wishes to allow these signs would be to limit them to the subject property, to a certain size, and for display for limited periods for special events. Additional considerations: The Commission noted that perhaps signs should be allowed to be illuminated in the downtown area - until up to midnight or later, even when a business is closed, to maintain a lively atmosphere. If the Commission desires this modification, the shut-off time for signs in the C-2 could be set as midnight or one-half .hour past closing time which ever is later. Another option may be to allow illuminated signs in the C-2 and C-3 zone with no restriction if they clearly have no impact on nearby residential areas, although this limitation would be hard to interpret and enforce. RESIDENTIAL SIGNS The sign ordinance regulates residential signs in the following ways: R-1 & R-2 zones: Permitted Signs: One unlighted real estate sign - (Max. 6 sq. ft., 10 sq. ft. if double -face) One wall identification sign for each street frontage - (Max. 4 sq. ft. with name, address and occupation of occupant) One unlighted construction sign - (Max. 32 square feet, must be removed upon completion of project) Regulations: Ground signs max. 4 feet high Wall sign max. 8 feet high R-3 zone: Permitted Signs: One unlighted real estate sign (Max. 6 sq. ft., 10 sq. ft. if double -face) One wall identification sign for each street frontage - (Max. 6 sq. ft.) One unlighted construction sign - (Max. 32 square feet, must be removed upon completion of project) One unlighted rental sign (Max. 12 sq. ft., 16 sq. ft. if double -face) Regulations: Ground signs max. 7 feet high Wall sign max. 8 feet high Staff is proposing to change the allowance for a name, address and occupation to just name and address, and to limit the area for each street frontage to 2 square feet rather than 4 square feet or 6 square feet. Also staff sees no reason to have different requirements for R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones, and is thus proposing one set of requirements for all residential zones and residential uses, thus fully including R -1A and R -2B zones, and residential uses in other zones. Rental signs would be still be allowed for multi -family attached units, but based on the use rather than the zone. The proposed changes include a clarification that construction signs be limited to 25 square feet in all zones (previously 32 in residential with no max in commercial); real estate signs be limited as set forth in each zone; and rental signs be allowed in any zone for multiple family dwellings (3 or more units attached (the allowed real estate signs which can also advertise a property or unit for rent or lease are more than sufficient for single-family units and duplexes). Also, the changes clarify that these types of signs do not require sign permits. SIGN REVIEW Review of proposed signs and sign plans, issuance of sign permits, and enforcement are all under the authority of the Building Department. In cases for new buildings where Precise Development Plans are required or where C.U.P.'s are required the Planning Commission is becoming more involved in sign review on a case by case basis. Recently the Planning Commission has included conditions on Precise Development Plans that signs must conform to the approved plan and any modification requires approval of the Planning Director. In cases where an applicant does not agree with an interpretation of the Building Director or wishes to request a variance the ordinance provides for an appeal to the Planning Commission. Staff is not proposing any changes to these current procedures. One reason for keeping the review authority in the Building Department is that sign plans often need checking for structural and electrical elements from the Building Department, having another department or committee review signs would cause duplication of effort and potential delays. Also, signs for significant new projects are reviewed as part of the overall plan by the Planning Commission as part of a C.U.P. or Precise Development Plan. Since the Planning Commission has the authority to impose conditions via P.D.P's and C.U.P.'s on signs, a statement to inform applicants of this discretion is proposed to be added. OPEN SPACE SIGNAGE Staff is proposing that all signs to be located in open space zones be reviewed an approved by the Planning Commission. Rather than place any restrictions on area or materials staff has included a more general statement to guide the Commission, that signs "should be constructed of appropriate natural appearing materials such as wood, should not be illuminated except where necessary for safety purposes, and shall be made to blend in with -- the natural setting of open space areas." OTHER Fascia Definition: Staff is proposing modified language to clarify what constitutes fascia based on the dictionary definition. Staff believes the current definition is unclear. Sign Area Definition: Staff is proposing using the current definition of "display area" as the definition for "sign area". This clarifies how one calculates the area of a sign. Respectfully submitted, oberts•K Associate Planner Michael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Summary of key sign provisions/Proposed Changes 2. Draft Resolution and text amendments 3. P.C. Minutes 11/17 and 11/4/92 4. Chamber of Commerce Memorandum withstaff's response November 12, 1992 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission November 17, 1992 (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 4, 1992) SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 92-4 PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER RELOCATING THE SIGN ORDINANCE BACK TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND TO CONSIDER TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation Staff recommends continuance of this item to January 19, 1993, to give all parties involved (Staff, the Planning Commission, the Chamber of Commerce, and the public) ample time to review,._ digest, refine, and perhaps further modify the proposed amendments. Background At the meeting of November 4, 1992, the Planning Commission considered and discussed staff's final suggestions and the final draft of the proposed amendments. Based on testimony and further discussion, the Commission continued this item to November 17, 1992, for staff to meet with the Chamber of Commerce and to respond to Commission requests. Analysis Staff recently held a meeting with representatives from the Chamber of Commerce to solicit input regarding the proposed changes to the sign ordinance. Highlights from the discussion and a summary of staff's responses follow. In short, it is clear that additional time is needed to address the various issues that were discussed. PROJECTING SIGNS The recommendation to prohibit projecting signs was not opposed, however, allowing exceptions for small business identification signs which overhang entrance ways was discussed. Staff would not object to exceptions limited to very small pedestrian scale signs, if limited to business identification, and located above entrance doors. If the Commission supports such an exception staff would suggest the adoption of the Manhattan Beach standard: 1 1' A single non -illuminated business identification sign for each business shall be permitted and may be hung from a wall projection or marquee, or attached to a decorative holder over a pedestrian right-of-way, provided that the sign not exceed a size or total area of more than four (4) square feet total dimension per face and proved that it shall be at least eight (8) feet above the sidewalk, and provided that it shall not project outward more than three (3) feet from the wall of the building. This exception could apply city-wide or be limited to the downtown area (C-2 zone) only. AWNINGS There was concern about allowing awnings under our current definition which includes a collapsing structure. Preference was given to permanent awnings. The definition is thus recommended for change. A -FRAME, SANDWICH, PORTABLE SIGNS These are a type of mobile sign by our definition, and are -- currently prohibited. If displayed off-site they would become an off -premises sign which is also prohibited. The Chamber was interested in perhaps allowing these types of signs to temporarily displayed, especially for downtown area restaurants, to advertise specials or other events. In all the cities of our comparison these types of signs are prohibited. These prohibitions are likely because of the tendency of these signs to proliferate, and the difficulty of enforcing temporary limits or locational requirements. Extremely limited use may be acceptable. ILLUMINATION STANDARDS Staff has suggestion that illuminated signs be turned off after business hours, but failed to include a 30 -minute grace period after closing. Staff supports the 30 -minute grace period and further would not be opposed to elimination .of any restriction whatsoever. However, intensive illumination should still be prohibited. CAPS ON WALL SIGN COVERAGE The sign ordinance currently limits wall coverage by signs to 40%. Based on comparisons with other South Bay cities staff is recommending a reduction to 25%. A graphic representation comparing a .40% coverage vs. a 25% coverage is attached. Staff believes 40% is excessive and can detract from the building's architectural appearance and any architectural features). A 25% limit would not, in staff's judgement, reduce the ability of businesses to display the name of the business of other advertising given the other types of signs possible. Additionally it was concluded that a short summary extracting the key changes of the proposed amendments be prepared. In response, at this time staff has updated the matrix to compare the proposed ordinance, with the existing ordinance and Manhattan Beach's ordinance relative to some key requirements (attached). Prior to the next meeting staff intends to prepare a more concise summary, to simply highlight the key points of the proposed amendments. Also, staff intends to provide more extensive graphics and to conduct a sample analysis of existing signs (good and bad examples) and how they would be effected by the proposed changes in the code. Another issue for discussion was whether there should be review of permanent signs by anyone other than the Building Director. Suggestions would include, the Planning Commission as consent calendar items, or the establishment of staff level sign review committee, or the establishment of a new commission. The advantage of this type of review is that more subjective architectural considerations not easily codified could be included in the review. (i.e. is the sign integrated with the architectural features, does it detract from these features etc. etc.) The obvious disadvantage is that additional delays would be incurred in obtainingsign approvals, additional staff time would be necessary, and to compensate for that additional time fees might have to be increased. Further, it should be noted, that for new buildings requiring Precise Development Plans, sign review is already included in the Planning Commission duties. Please review the above discussion and make any further suggestions at this time for consideration at the next meeting. cON'C Michael Schubach Planning Director Respectfull s bmitted, Ken Robertson Associate Planner Attachments 1. Comparison chart of key sign provisions 2. Graphic example of wall coverage requirement October 29, 1992 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission November 4, 1992 (CONTINUED FROM MAY 19, AND SEPTEMBER 1, 1992) SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 92-4 PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER RELOCATING THE SIGN ORDINANCE BACK TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND TO CONSIDER TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council amend the sign ordinance as set forth in the attached resolution, and to re -number for placement in the zoning ordinance. Alternative Continue the public hearing to a specific date to allow further study and for staff to address any more specific concerns of the Planning Commission. Background At the meeting of September 1, 1992, the Planning Commission review sign ordinances from other cities and somesuggestions of staff for amending the sign ordinance. The Planning Commission expressed their general support of the suggestions of staff and requested that further information and analysis be provided regarding sign illumination, definitions, projecting vs awning signs, sign locations on buildings, and commodity signs. For further background please refer to the September 1, 1992 Planning Commission Staff Report and attachments. Analysis ILLUMINATION Currently, the sign ordinance allows illuminating signs with no limits. Of the cities we surveyed only Manhattan Beach and Newport Beach have specific measurable limits on sign illumination (based on foot -lamberts). Other methods include hours limitations and givingan individual or committee the authority to require dimming of lights after installation. 11- Staff contacted Manhattan Beach staff to inquire about the effectiveness of their illumination limits, and found that to their knowledge, the standards, which have been in the code since 1979 have not been used as there has been no apparent need or complaints about sign brightness. Staff is simply proposing that illuminated signs be required to have timing devices so that they are turned off within a half-hour of when the business closes. Also, staff is proposing language, similar to that found in the Rancho Palos Verdes ordinance, that [the approval of any illuminated sign is not final until 30 days after installation, during which period the building official may order the dimming of any illumination found to be excessively brilliant. Illumination is considered excessive if it prevents normal perception of objects beyond or in vicinity of the sign] Also on a complaint basis, objections to sign brightness can be brought to the Planning Commission for review. If the Commission prefers illumination limits based on standards, this section of the sign ordinance would require further examination as staff would need to obtain useful reference manuals and study existing illuminating signs to come up with reasonable and fair limits, and would suggest that a separate study be prepared. PROJECTING/AWNING SIGNS As you may recall, the Commission supported staff's suggestion to prohibit projecting signs. The Commission also expressed concern about the allowance for awning and awning signage which might result in a de -facto projecting sign. In response, staff is proposing separate definitions of "awning" and "awning sign", to state that an awning sign is specifically defined as lettering or images placed on an awning parallel to the plane of the supporting wall. Any lettering or images on the side of an awning would be considered a projecting sign, and would be prohibited under the proposed prohibition of projecting signs. SIGN LOCATIONS ON BUILDINGS The sign ordinance currently has no restrictions or requirements relating to the location of signs on a building. The Commission expressed interest in this issue to improve the appearance of signage and to integrate signs into the building. The only current requirements related to location are basically that all signs must be on the property involved (off -premises signs are prohibited), and that pole signs be a minimum of five feet from any property line, and clearance requirements extracted from the Uniform Sign Code. Several other cities in our survey also have locational requirements for free-standing or pole signs, but locations on buildings is only addressed in limited instances. For example, Santa Barbara's includes language that a wall sign placed in between windows on the same story shall not exceed more than 2/3 of the height of the window, or major architectural details related thereto, and Santa Monica prohibits any signs on upper levels. In both Santa Barbara and Santa Monica, however, the way location on buildings is addressed is through their architectural review procedures which include signage. The only suggestion of staff is to limit upper level signs above the second level. Currently the code allows second level signs. COMMODITY SIGNS The sign ordinance currently defines and allows commodity identification signs subject to the following limitations: Percent of allowable sign area which may be used for commodity identification: Commodity equal to less than 10% of business10% Commodity equal to 10% to 50% of business25% Commodity equal to more than 50% of business75% Commodity identification for beverages sold by restaurants and markets 10% This table of percentages was developed as a compromise when this ordinance was last amended. In comparison with other cities in our survey, staff found no other city with this type of breakdown. The approaches vary and include the banning of commodity identification signs; limiting the number of such signs; allowing them only if they identify a principal activity; or no restrictions on content. Staff is not suggesting any changes to this section or total prohibition, but the Commission may wish to consider 75% to be too much signage for any business and recommend a lower percentage. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AS DISCUSSED IN LAST REPORT TEMPORARY SIGNS Place a maximum cap on the allowable area for temporary signs (100 square feet). As discussed previously, there is currently no cap on maximum area for a banner, making it possible for a location with a large sign area allotment to display an excessively large banner. This maximum is consistent with the Uniform Sign Code, a publication prepared by the International Conference of Building Officials. Reduce the allowable duration for temporary signs to sixty (60) days which is also consistent with the Uniform Sign Code and would help reduce the proliferation of banner signs, without interfering with businesses needs to advertise sales, grand openings, or special events. Clarify the definition of banners to exclude flags, pennants, and streamers, so that flags (with the exception of U.S., State, or City flags) are not permitted, which is the current practice since flags, pennant, streamers are not listed as permitted signs. SIGN AREA For clarification, specifically state that the allowable sign area is for "permanent" signs, which will eliminate any confusion whether temporary .sign area should be included in the calculation. Thus the allowable area for temporary signs is over and above permanent sign area. As noted previously Hermosa Beach's sign area allotment is higher than most cities in our comparison. The Commission may wish to consider lowering the allowable area. GROUND/FREE-STANDING/POLE SIGNS As previously discussed staff recommends lowering the maximum height in the C-3 zone. The recommendation is that height be limited to "the height of the building on the same lot, or 15 -feet whichever is lower." Previously staff had suggested 25 feet. WALL SIGNS As previously suggested reduce the 40% coverage allowed on walls to 25%. This suggestion was because staff believes that 40% is excessive, and on comparisons with other South Bay Cities that either use a percentage cap. (Torrance and Redondo Beach: 15%, Hawthorne: 33%) Eliminate the sub -section (currently section 28A -13(c)4) regarding the 15 -foot extension above the roof to be consistent with the definition of wall sign. NONCONFORMING SIGNS Eliminate the distinction between nonconforming signs and treat nonconforming signs the same whether electrical or nonelectrical. As discussed previously, replace the existing abatement procedure that requires an inventory of all nonconforming signs and extensive noticing, and abate nonconforming signs through attrition, with strong language that any change in copy, or alteration to a sign requires bringing signs into conformance, and further that any building permits that involve a substantial amount of work, or any change in business ownership would require bringing signs into conformance. This suggestion was based on comparison with other cities procedures and to recognize the difficulty of conducting an inventory and mailing notices to abate all nonconforming signs through an amortization procedure. � C PERMIT PROCEDURES, FEES, AND ENFORCEMENT Keep the same, except relocate the sign ordinance to the zoning ordinance. GENERAL CLEAN-UP/CLARIFICATION Add a new section titled "prohibited signs" to list signs that are prohibited in all zones. Refer to other changes in the proposed text, which includes some fine tuning of definitions and re -organization. Text to be removed is over-striked and proposed new text is underlined (a brief explanation for each change will be provided in the master text, available for review by early next week). CONCUR: Michael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Previous Staff Report w/attachments Respectfully submitted, en Robertson Associate Planner August 25, 1992 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission September 1, 1992 (CONTINUED FROM MAY 19, 1992) SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 92-4 PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER RELOCATING THE SIGN ORDINANCE BACK TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND TO EXAMINE OTHER POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission to further direct staff on the scope and content of changes to the ordinance, based on the suggestions below, and to continue the hearing to further discuss issues not covered in this report. Alternative If a comprehensive revision of the sign ordinance is desired, staff would recommend the establishment of a sign ordinance review committee with representatives from the Planning Commission, City Council, the Chamber of Commerce, etc., to develop consensus on the direction a new ordinance should take. Background At the meeting of May 19, 1992, the Planning Commission directed staff to review sign ordinances from other cities and bring back a matrix which compares the various cities' ordinances.. For further background please refer to the May 19, 1992 Planning Commission Staff Report. Analysis A sign ordinance is a rather comprehensive and complex ordinance. In a sense it is like a miniature zoning ordinance itself, as it regulates all aspects of signs including type, size, location, design, materials, illumination, type of message, temporary signs, timing and duration, etc. etc.. Also, a sign ordinance contains its own enforcement and permitting procedures, and remedies for dealing with illegal or nonconforming signs. Further, sign ordinances deal with a very sensitive issue since the regulation of business advertising directly impacts and sometimes conflicts with the rights of expression allowed under the First Amendment of the Constitution. In addition, although currently not part of Hermosa Beach's ordinance, sign ordinances can also be broadened in scope to deal with issues of color, lettering size, architectural compatibility, and other issues relating to aesthetic impact. Given its comprehensiveness, complexity, and the sensitivity of the issues, staff is proposing changes to fine tune the City's current ordinance based on the limited direction received so far from the Commission.. and Council and is far from being a comprehensive overhaul. Given the complexity of even this relatively small task, this report is not totally complete as staff intends to further study and discuss in more detail our definition section, issues dealing with commodity vs. business identification, and allowed sign materials. If a comprehensive overhaul of the sign ordinance is desired, staff would recommend that the Council be requested to form a committee representing various community interests in order to gain a consensus as to the direction and scope ofa new ordinance. Otherwise staff and Commissioner's time would be wasted proposing various changes and new provisions which might not have broad-based community support. COMPARISON WITH.. OTHER CITIES Staff has obtained sign ordinances from 12 other cities in order to make the requested comparisons. The cities selected were chosen to demonstrate how other local South Bay cities and various communities throughout Southern California regulate signs. The attached comparison charts highlight the key points of each one of these sign ordinances as compared to Hermosa Beach's requirements, focusing on commercial sign requirements. The charts are separated into four major separate subject areas: temporary commercial signs, commercial wall signs, commercial ground or free-standing signs, and commercial projecting signs. Staff has also attached a copy of Santa Barbara's sign,ordinance, as requested, which probably provides the most severe contrast to. Hermosa Beach's ordinance, staff has also attached the sign ordinances of Santa Monica and Manhattan Beach for comparison. Copies of all the cities' ordinances are available on file in the Planning Department. Staff's conclusion from reviewing these charts is that Hermosa Beach's ordinance is comparable to other cities and certainly is as up-to-date and comprehensive as the others. The most noticeable difference is that Hermosa Beach's ordinance, although it thoroughly regulates all types of signage, tends to be less restrictive in its commercial sign requirements. This is true in terms of types of temporary signs allowed and duration, and in terms of allowable permanent sign area (3 square feet per lineal foot of building frontage) and height (35 feet for pole signs). Representing the other extreme are the cities of Santa Monica and Santa Barbara, where, for example, the allotted sign area is one square foot of sign area per linear feet of building frontage or - g2- even less; height is limited to one-story; and all signs are subject to review of an architectural or sign review committee. The remainder of the report will discuss each major subject area within the sign ordinance and staff will provide suggestions for possible changes (suggested changes are printed in bold for easy reference). In considering possible changes to the ordinance, staff would remind the Commission that the sign ordinance has already been amended several times since 1975. Although there has been some recent problems with issues of enforcement and there are some internal inconsistencies, it is a functional ordinance which may only need some limited fine tuning, if any changing at all. TEMPORARY SIGNS Temporary signs are defined as "any sign, banner, pennant, valance, or identification display constructed of cloth, canvas, fabric, cardboard, wallboard, or other materials, with or without frames, intended to be displayed for a limited period of time only, not to exceed ninety (90) days during any calendar year." Styles of temporary signs also defined in the 'ordinance are "banners", "window signs", "construction signs", "real estate signs" and "political signs". Section 28A-20 sets forth the allowances for temporary signs, in terms of allowable area, duration, and describes the permit requirements. Also, there are differing requirements in each zoning category in regards to temporary signs. Real estate, construction and political signs are provided exemptions. Hermosa Beach allows temporary signs in addition to permanent signs to up to 40% of the allowable area for permanent signs. These signs are allowed for a duration of ninety days in a calendar year (increments of not less than 30 days). Further, banners are only allowed in the C-2 and C-3 zones, and window signs are limited to 20% coverage of a window. The process for obtaining a permit for a temporary sign requires an application for a temporary sign permit ($31.50) and the posting of up to a $250 bond or cash deposit to be returned to the applicant upon removal of the sign. These provisions are fairly typical of temporary sign requirements of other cities, except that Hermosa Beach is somewhat lenient in that all types of temporary signs, including banners, are permitted, and that no cap is placed on the the total area of temporary signage allowed. (See the attached comparison chart. For example, Redondo Beach, has a maximum area of 60 square feet for all temporary signs; Long Beach has a maximum cap of 100 square feet for banners; and Newport Beach and Irvine limit these signs to 24 and 30 square feet respectively.) Staff suggests that a maximum cap be placed on the allowable area for temporary signs (perhaps 100 square feet in the C-3 zone and 50 square feet in the C-2 zone). The current 40% rule would allow a lot with 100 feet of frontage on P.C.H. to have 120 square feet of temporary signage in addition to the 300 square feet of permanent signage. It.. should be further noted that banners are listed as permitted signs in the C-2, and C-3 zones with a statement "(if approved by commission.)" Staff believes this added statement was originally a reference to the old Hermosa Improvement Commission which was disbanded in 1979. The practice of the Building Department has been to issue permits for banners without any commission's approval. Staff would thus further suggest that banners continue to be only permitted in the C-2 and C-3 zones, with the reference to the needed commission approval be removed. Instead staff would suggest in addition to maximum area caps that the duration be reduced to sixty (60) days. This would help reduce the proliferation of banner signs, without interfering with businesses needs to advertise sales, grand openings, or special events. TOTAL SIGN ALLOTMENT FOR PERMANENT SIGNS Permanent signs are defined as "any sign which is not classed as - a temporary sign". Allowable sign area is set forth for each commercial zoning category in the ordinance. Hermosa Beach allows 3 square feet for every linear foot of building frontage in the C-3 zone and 2 square feet per linear foot in the C-1 and C-2 zones. As compared to other cities that base sign area. on linear building frontage, this allowance is rather high. For example, Manhattan Beach allows 2 square feet for each linear foot along Sepulveda, and 1 square foot in its downtown area. Gardena allows 1 1/2 square feet per linear foot, and the cities of Santa Monica, Santa Barbara, Irvine, Rancho Palos Verdes allow one square foot. The only other City that allows 3 square feet per linear building foot is Hawthorne. The allotmentis high compared to other cities as a result of an amendment in 1986 to expand allowable sign area from 2 sq. ft. to 3 sq. ft. per linear foot of building frontagein the C-3 zone, from 1 1/2 to 2 in the C-2 zone and from 1 to 2 in the C-1 zone. At the same time the rule was changed that total sign area includes both sides of a double -face sign. These changes were made as a result of several public hearings at the time, and on input from the Chamber of Commerce, and may have been an attempt to improve the business climate. The Commission may wish to consider, however, the argument that a streetscape less cluttered with signage as long as all business have equal access to identify their business would also improve the business climate, and perhaps recommend reducing the allowable sign area either throughout the City, or perhaps only in the downtownpedestrian oriented district. Whether or not the sign area requirements are recommended for change, staff suggests for clarification, that the allowable sign area requirements specifically state that they are for "permanent" signs to eliminate any confusion whether temporary sign area should be included in the calculation. GROUND/FREE-STANDING/POLE SIGNS Hermosa Beach allows ground signs no greater than 8 -feet high in the C-1 and C-2 zones. This is fairly typical of other cities ordinances, which in some cases apply to the whole city. In the C-3 zone, however, Hermosa Beach allows pole signs up to a height of 35 feet, this is comparable to Manhattan Beach's allowance for 30 -feet along major boulevards, and is equivalent or even less than the heights allowed in Gardena and Hawthorne. Staff suggests lowering the maximum height to "the height of the building on the same lot, or 25 -feet whichever is lower." The Commission may even want to lower that number to 15 -feet. Staff is making this suggestion because the maximum height limit of buildings in the C-3 zone was recently lowered from 45 -feet to 35 -feet. Further, given the typical speed of traffic on P.C.H. and Aviation the higher pole sign is simply not necessary for visibility, a lower "eye -level" sign is more visible in this congested area. Also, allowing a pole sign to exceed building height would create a de -facto roof sign, which is otherwise not permitted. PROJECTING SIGNS A projecting sign is defined as a sign "which projects from and is supported by a wall of a building structure. In no case shall said sign extend above the wall to which it is attached." Hermosa Beach allows projecting signs in all commercial zones. The amount of required clearance and allowed projection is dictated by Table no. 7-B and 7-C in the ordinances, which allow projections only above 8 -feet high, and limit that projection to 1 -foot plus 6 inches for each foot of clearance above 8 feet to a maximum of 3 feet and the projection may not extend closer than 2 -feet from the curb line. In the C-2 and C-3 zones there are allowances for projecting signs to extend higher than the wall to which it is attached. In the C-2 zone it may extend 10 feet and in the C-3 zone it may extend to fifteen (15) feet above the parapet wall, roof or ridge line of a building whichever is the lesser". This conflicts with the definition or projecting sign as noted above, as such, if projecting signs are allowed these sections 28A -12(c)1 and 28A -13(c)4 should be eliminated. However, since projecting signs have a tendency to block the view of neighboring businesses signs and can further cause a proliferation of projecting signs as they compete with other businesses to project their signs even further out, staff suggests that projecting signs be prohibited, as they are in Santa Monica. WALL SIGNS Wall signs, defined as "any sign attached to or erected against the wall of a building or structure, with the exposed face of the sign in a plane parallel to the plane of said wall. In no case shall said sign extend above the wall to which it is attached." In addition to counting towards total sign allotment, wall signs may not cover more than 40% of the wall or fascia that it occupies or is placed upon. Staff believes this may be excessive. Of the other cities that use a percentage cap on wall coverage, Torrance and Redondo Beach use a cop of 15%, Hawthorne 33%, and Newport Beach 40% (but has a maximum limit of 200 square feet). Staff suggests that the 40% coverage allowed on a wall be reduced to perhaps 25%. Also in the C-3 zone, as noted above related to projecting signs, there is a provision that states that combination, wall, and projecting signs may extend to fifteen feet above the parapet wall, roof or ridge line of a building whichever is lesser. Staff would again suggest elimination of Section 28A -13(c)4 regarding the 15 -foot extension above the roof to be consistent with the definition of wall sign. .NONCONFORMING SIGNS Hermosa Beach's ordinance currently has a provision for abating nonconforming signs, but it is limited to those nonconforming signs that pre -dated the adoption of the sign ordinance in 1975. The ordinance sets forth the procedure for notifying property owners of such nonconforming signs and giving them a year to comply to ask the Planning Commission for an extension or variance. Staff is not aware of any efforts by the City to send notices to carry out this abatement procedure. For those signs that "were conforming at a date immediately preceding the adoption of this chapter" they may remain until the signs are altered or when a business changes. A review of other cities provisions regarding nonconforming signs shows that the majority allow legal nonconforming signs to continue unabated unless there is a request to alter the sign, or to reconstruct after it is damaged more than 50%. .What is considered enough alteration to force removal of nonconforming signs varies from change in sign copy, to actual expansion or replacement. Another more pro -active approach:to require removal of nonconforming signs is upon change of business ownership. Four of the cities in our survey include language to amortize nonconforming signs, Torrance and Santa Monica's ordinances state that nonconforming signs must be removed with a period of time from the adoption of the ordinance (Torrance 10 years, Santa Monica - 15 years) while Santa Barbara and Rancho Palos Verdes use language similar to our ordinance giving a time period after receiving notice (Santa Barbara - 6 months, R.P.V. -.5 years). Staff's first suggestion is that the distinction between nonconforming signs be eliminated, and further that all c c nonconforming signs be treated the same whether electrical or nonelectrical. Staff further suggests that rather than the existing abatement .procedure that requires an inventory of all nonconforming signs and extensive noticing, that nonconforming signs be abated through attrition, with strong language that any change in copy, or alteration to a sign requires bringing signs into conformance, and further that any building permits that involve a substantial amount of work, or any change in business ownership would require bringing signs into conformance. Staff does not support a time period for amortization of nonconforming signs because of the difficult legal procedures and potential conflicts that are involved. Further, to conduct an inventory to determine which signs are nonconforming and to notice all owners of said signs is a time consuming and costly process for the City. Also, it would be very disturbing and costly to some business owners to remove and replace signs that were otherwise legal when they were originally constructed. If the Commission still desires to amortize legal nonconforming signs, staff would suggest that a legal opinion be obtained from the City Attorney as to what would be an appropriate time period, and what other procedures are necessary, prior to making such a recommendation. PERMIT PROCEDURES, FEES, AND ENFORCEMENT In Hermosa Beach all permanent signs require a sign review (application fee of $83.75) by the Building and Safety Department. This includes the erection, re -erection, construction, or alteration of any sign. Any building permit or plan check fees required for the sign structure are in addition to the sign review fee. Temporary signs require a sign review fee of 31.50. While the sign ordinance allows the building official to require the posting of a bond or cash deposit of up to $250, this practice was recently stopped by the direction of City Council. At that time the Council also suggested that the provision which allows this charge of a $250 refundable deposit be eliminated from the code. Staff, however, believes the cash deposit or bond is an appropriate way to regulate these temporary signs and further it provides the necessary incentive for applicants to comply with the duration requirements of the sign ordinance. The current practice of not requiring the bond or cash deposit can remain, but staff does not believe the ordinance should be changed as the Council may desire to re-establish the deposit requirement in the future. Our three neighboring cities, Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach and Torrance currently require bonds or cash deposits. The sign ordinance enforcement and sign review authority is currently in the hands of the building official, with oversight by the Planning Commission and the City Council only when a decision of the building official is appealed. Since the -91- �,4 c- c ordinance is located within the municipal code as a separate chapter, the authority to amend the code and establish policies for its implementation technically rests with the City Council. If the ordinance is moved to the zoning code, the final authority for amendments would still be with the City Council but the Planning Commission would have the authority to initiate amendments and/or policies and to make recommendation on any amendments proposed by Council. As such, staff suggests that the ordinance be relocated to the zoning ordinance and re -numbered accordingly. A final suggestion of staff is that all reference to the "improvement commission" be removed and replaced by "commission" to make clear that the Planning Commission has the oversight authority. "Commission" is already defined as the Planning Commission in the definition section. Michae Schubach Planning Director Re.pectfu .ly sub itted, en Robertson Associate Planner Attachments 1. Staff Report 5/19/92 2. Comparison Charts 3. Copies of Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, and Manhattan Beach sign ordinances (NOTE: A Hermosa Beach sign ordinance was previously provided for you to keep. If you no longer have a copy or never received one, please inform the Planning Department immediately, and you will be provided a copy.) May 12, 1992 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission May 19, 1992 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 92-4 PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER RELOCATING THE SIGN ORDINANCE BACK TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND TO EXAMINE OTHER POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff as deemed appropriate in terms of the type and scope of amendments to examine. Background At their meeting of March 10, 1992 the City Council adopted a resolution of intent to "initiate a text amendment to relocate the sign ordinance from the municipal code to the zoning code and direct the Planning Commission to study other possible modifications." In addition to the more technical and legal reasons for relocating the sign ordinance, the reason for this study is to examine other possible amendments especially related to temporary signs. At their meeting of February 25, 1992,.the Council also discussed the issue of enforcement of the sign ordinance in regards to temporary window signs counting towards total sign area. The Council voted 3:2 to continue to enforce the 25% maximum coverage of windows but to suspend enforcement of requiring window signs to count towards total sign area. The Planning Commission also discussed signs at their meeting of February 4th 1992 regarding a banner at Hermosa Hotel. At that time the Commission requested that the Council initiate this text amendment. HISTORY OF CURRENT SIGN ORDINANCE The basic form and content of the current sign ordinance was adopted in 1975. This was a fairly comprehensive amendment of the pre-existing sign provisions adopted in 1968. Interestingly, a primary emphasis for making the changes was to remove sign requirements from the zoning code and create a separate sign ordinance. It appears from the record that there was concern at that time about lack of enforcement of sign requirements in the zoning code, and a separate ordinance was seen as part of the solution. At the same time the Council adopted procedures and fees for processing and reviewing and permitting proposed signs. An important element of the 1975 ordinance was the requirement for review and approval by the Hermosa Improvement Commission of all signs prior to issuance of permits. Sign area requirements in the Commercial zone were not changed from the 1968 ordinance and thus remained at 4 square feet per linear foot of building frontage in the C-3 zone, 3 square feet in the C-2 zone, and 2 square feet in the C-1 zone. Between 1975 and 1986 the ordinance was amended several times. The most notable amendments were a 50% reduction of allowable sign area in all commercial zones, and the eventual removal of the requirement of sign approval from the Hermosa Improvement Commission thereby giving all review authority to the Building Official. The most recent amendments adopted in 1986 made the ordinance less restrictive in terms of signage area. The amount of allowable sign area in the C-3 zone was increased from 2 square feet for each linear foot of building frontage to 3 square feet. In the same vein, the C-2 sign area allotment was increased from 1 1/2 square feet to 2 square feet, and the C-1 was increased from 1 square foot to 2 square feet of building frontage. Additionally, the ordinance was amended to allow commodity signs to be a small percentage of total sign area. Previously commodity signs were not addressed. Analysis At this time staff is not proposing any specific changes to the sign ordinance, but would instead like to request direction from the Commission as to what the scope of this study should be (i.e. should we limit our efforts to relocating the ordinance to the zoning code and clarifying temporary sign provisions, or, should the entire sign ordinance be opened up for examination including issues of enforcement, authority for interpretation, total sign area allowed, review procedures, etc.?) A complete copy of the sign ordinance is attached so that the Planning Commission my familiarize itself with all aspects of the ordinance. If the Commission desires a more comprehensive review of the sign ordinance, staff suggests that a committee be formed -that would include members from the Planning Commission, City Council, and perhaps the Chamber of Commerce, so that some level of consensus could be reached on which issues should be addressed. SON UR: V chael Schubach Respectfully su mitted, Kean -Roon bett Associate Planner Planning Director Attachments 1. C.C. Minutes, Staff Report 3/10/92, 2/25/92 2. P.C. Minutes 2/4/92 3. P.C. memo to C.C. 4. Sign Ordinance (please retain for your records) -.ified (but would have to satisfy both the Municipal Co.e an. he Building Dept.'s Director) or deleted. Comm. Di - da sugges -d the Commission request the trash area be all. -ed to remain a- it currently existed via a memorand to the Building De• . The Commission agreed this would setter serve the spirit and - rpose of the Ordinance. No one else wished o speak regarding is item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public •-aring at 7:16 •.m. MOTION made by Comm. Oakes, -ec• ded by Comm. Di Monda, to APPROVE application CUP 92- s', with deletion of Condition #16(a). AYES: Comms. • Monda, Marks, 0- =s, Suard, Chmn. Merl NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: one Chmn. M- stated this item was APPROVED, subject to -'.eal to the y Council within 10 days from the date of this me- ing. TEXT 93-1 -- TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE. Recommended Action: To recommend adoption of the sign ordinance. Mr. Schubach gave the Staff Report, detailing the background and highlighting the suggested changes and modifications which were in response to the Commissioners previous comments. He stated that Staff believed the draft ordinance ready to be forwarded to the City Council with recommendations of adoption and inclusion into the Municipal Code. Comm. Oakes questioned the definition of "awning" noting some awnings could be of stainless steel and did not collapse, fold or retract. Mr. Schubach stated Staff was not concerned whether the awning was movable or not, agreeing with Comm. Oakes that that portion of the definition could be removed. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7:25 p.m. Dean Nota, representing the sign assistance task force, noted the reason for folding awnings was for safety and to assure building assessibilty for the Fire Dept. He suggested a drawing be included which showed a specific awning profile currently used by the Building Dept., Page 1 requirement that the second frontage have entrances be eliminated and the Commission reconsider Page 2 which referenced Page 18, Item D, which would make signs in the downtown area non -conforming due to combustibility. He noted a memorandum from the Chamber .of 3 P.C. Minutes 2-2-93 cl I Commerce to Mr. Schubach and detailed its'' contents and recommendations,. .:including allowing A -frame signs,, the confusion resulting from Subsection A28A-11, feeling the word "site" was incorrect.- Both-Comms. ncorrect.Both-Comms. _ Oakes and Di Monda felt Mr. Nota was incorrectly reading the statement. Nota noted Page 26, Item 3, parapets, to which the Comm. Di Monda responded this item should state, "a building higher than two stories". Mr. Schubach noted the parapet could go above the second level. Comm. Oakes discussed with Mr. Nota the details of the various points made. Comm. Di Monda responded he felt A -frame signs should not be allowed until the pedestrian zone has been established, as the Commission may wish to review many related items and suggested this item remain "as is". Gerason Frost, 58 Pier Avenue, felt the terminology referencing "primary and secondary" discouraged business owners from modernizing their facilities. He illustrated by explaining the problems it represented to him and suggested that buildings have equal frontage on both sides, based upon customers' "line of sight" from where they park their cars to the facility entrance. He felt people should be encouraged to remodel... and the Commission should "re -think" the draft ordinance. • No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 8:06 p.m. Comm. Oakes referenced Page 18, "signs erected within five feet of an exterior wall" did not make a lot of sense and requested it be deleted; to which Mr. Schubach agreed it could be removed as it was a Building or Fire Code problem and could be restricted under those codes. The Commission then discussed the requirement foran entrance in secondary frontage with Messrs._ Schubachand. Nota:-: Comm. Suard supported allowing "half again" signage of the secondary frontage. Comm. Di Monda felt that corner buildings should be treated a little differently than others. Mr. Nota stated the Chamber committee felt the 50% reduction for'.: secondary frontage was reasonable, but it should be allowed whether there was an entrance or not. Mr. Schubach noted that signs could be displayed on the secondary frontage, but the square footage was counted in the overall allowable amount, which resulted in more signage; it was not being split. Comm. Oakes suggested changing Page 4 (6), to read, "Building secondary frontage...", striking "street or highway", replace with "alley or parking lot" and including that secondary frontage must have an entrance unless it is a corner lot. The Commission discussed the verbiage to be used within the various areas questioned..__ Mr. Schubach suggested that Page 4(6) and 30(5) be revised and combined. 4 P.C. Minutes 2-2-93 Comm. Marks suggested a conformity of elevation signs 'and suggested the uniformity of signage within blocks be reviewed within the future, to which Comm. Oakes agreed. MOTION made by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Oakes, to APPROVE TEXT 93-1, Text Amendments to the Sign Ordinance, with the following changes: DELETION of Page 18, Section 28A-7 (B)(d) second paragraph beginning with, "Signs erected..." and CHANGING Page 4 (6), by striking "street or highway", replace with "alley or parking lot" and adding. Page 27, Item (5) and the applicable pages having the same terminology relating to the C-2 and C-3 Zones, to read, "Businesses fronting on a public/private parking lot, open mall or landscaped open space may use the building side facing such public/private parking lot, open mall or landscaped open space as building frontage." with the last sentence being deleted. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chmn. Merl Council. � Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl None None None stated this item would be forwarded to the City C TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADOPT CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PZ$N/ TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE LAND USE ANALYSIS PROGRAM SOLUTION. Recommended resolution. tion: To recommend adoption of Mr. Schubach noted analysis was a proce part of the Resolution presented to the Commissi were required to adopt a TDM the CMP be adopted by the there would be a mergg Transportation Authorit (MTA). implementation responsi lities, notin responsible for ado.6.nc and implemen which met establi ed minimum standards. detailed the pr• ects which would be exempt d ordinance/ change in the Staff port: the Land Use al effort whic will be included as the City ouncil and willnot be . --He tated local jurisdictions ance by April 1, 1993, with in November 1992 and noted 1 to the new Metropolitan He explained MTA's local jurisdiction was 'ng a TDM ordinance Mr. Schubach then as well as the r new non-residential developm .ts of 25,000, 0,000 square feet. He stated Staff •elieved the M requirements set forth by the CMP were not able, noting the great majority of future co. ercial would probably be under 50,000 square fee the est future commercial project would probably be bet^@en 000-90,000 square feet and, therefore, the impact on futu • 1 • requirements • 50,000 and minimum unreas prof - s la 5 P.C. Minutes 2-2-93 3 -•ified (but would have to satisfy both the Municipal Co•e an. he Building Dept.'s Director) or deleted. Comm. Di z da sugges -d the Commission request the trash area be all. ed to remain a it currently existed via a memorand to the Building De• . The Commission agreed this would setter serve the spirit and - rpose of the Ordinance. No one else wished o speak regarding is item, and Chinn. Merl closed the Public -aring at 7:16 •.m. MOTION made by Comm. Oakes, ec• ded by Comm. Di Monda, to APPROVE .application CUP 92- e', with deletion. of Condition #16(a). AYES: Comms. ' Honda, Marks, O- =s, Su rd, Chinn. Merl NOES: None ABSENT: Non ABSTAIN: one Chinn. M stated this item was APPROVED subject to .eal to the y Council within 10 days from th• date of this me ing. TE 93-1 -- TEXT AMENDMENTS TO TH SIGN ORDINANCE. Recomm-sded Action: To reco end adoption of the sign ordinanc- Mr. Schubach •ave the Staff eport, detailing the background and highlighti : the sugges ed changes and modifications which were in response to the •mmissioners previous comments. He stated that Staff •elie ed the draft ordinance ready to be forwarded to the Cit C. ncil with recommendations of adoption and inclusion into the unicipal Code. Comm. Oakes questio - d the • efinition of "awning" noting some awnings could be o stainless teel and did not collapse, fold or retract. Mr. Schubach st. ed Staff was not concerned whether the awn g was movable • not, agreeing with Comm. Oakes that that portion of the defin ion could be removed. Public Heari opened by Chinn. Merl at 7:. p.m. Dean Nota, representing the sign assistance :sk force, noted the reaso for folding awnings was for safety .nd to assure'' building assessibilty for the Fire Dept. He uggested a drawing be included which showed a specific awni,g profile curren• y used by the Building Dept., Page 1 require'ent that the econd frontage have entrances be eliminated d the Co ssion reconsider Page 2 which referenced Page 18, tem D, which would make signs in the downtown area non -conforming due to combustibility. He noted a memorandum from the Chamber .of 3 cl I P.C. Minutes 2-2-93 4 t Schubach stated the request was for a two-year extension, b Staff recommended a six-month extension to remain consistent w h previems granted extensions. He stated the request was due t' the diffici%lty in financing. The proposed project confirmed o all requireMilts. Mr. Schubach stated each extension request equired a fee • to b paid. Chmn. Merl inv'ted public input at 8:50 p.m. Jerry Olguin, 230 Pacific Coast Highway, requ- ted an extension due to economic c ditions. He stated the ee was $240. He discussed his previou request for extensio with Comm. Marks and explained his current f ancial prospects. No one else wished to spe regarding his item, and Chmn. Merl began discussion at 8:51 p.m. Comm. Marks referenced and read •.•e 7, item 14 regarding approval of C.U.P.'s, noting the building p mit had not been obtained, nor paid. Comm. Marks felt the )iildin3 permit should be paid since two years had elapsed. hmn. Mer and Comm. Di Monda both disagreed, stating the C.0 . had been r- ewed in October 1992. MOTION by Comm. Oakes seconded by Comm. Monda, to APPROVE a one-year extension or CON 90-16/17/18/19 .'d Vesting Tentative Parcel Maps #22634/ 5/36/37. AYES: mm. Di Monda, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. NOES: one ABSTAIN: Comm. Marks ABSENT: None Chaff n Merl stated this item was approved, subject to'apal to the ity Council within 10 days from the date of this meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) SS 92-4 -- SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING THE SIGN ORDINANCE (continued from 5/19, 9/1, 11/4 and 11/17/92 meetings). Recommended Action: To set for public hearing for text amendment. Mr. Schubach stated Staff had reviewed previously -presented issues and contacted the Chamber of Commerce, reviewing many issues with its members. The Chamber of Commerce forwarded a listing of issues of concern, along with comments, to which Staff had made comment and changes, as suggested. Mr. Schubach noted items to which the Staff opposed or agreed with the Chamber of Commerce's opinion. Mr. Schubach reiterated Staff's opinions and highlighted the provided graphics, noting those graphics would be provided to the public when requests were made. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 9:00 p.m. 7 P.C.Minutes 1/19/93 i Dean Noda, representing Chamber of Commerce subcommittee, thanked the Commission for the work already completed, -the communication and benefit to the public. He gave a history as to his roll in this process, noting two tasks given to the subcommittee: (1) review the ordinance and address Chamber concerns, and (2) design a handbook with.. illustrations, design principles and criteria. He then discussed the specific recommendations and general attitudes of the subcommittee. Comm. Di Monda discussed allowing banners or temporary signs which are an asset, but questions the methods to be used to prohibit those temporary banners which are not an asset. Comm. Oakes suggested banners not be allowed to be placed on buildings. Mr. Noda felt banners could be of good quality and could be controlled, as signs are. Comm. Di Monda felt there were different types of banners and noted the Commission was focusing on those banners which were placed on buildings. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 9:15 p.m. Comm. Di Monda suggested changes to the draft ordinance as follows: Page 4(2) move the underlined Awning definition from this section and place it within the definition section. Comm. Oakes disagreed, stating this section answered the question of what awning signs should be. (3) delete "intended for identification purposes." (6) clarify "Secondary frontage must have a building entrance/exit which is open to the public...." Page 8(28) move "A ground sign shall not exceed ten (1) feet from the grade to the highest portion of the sign body." to the Regulations Section. (34). Staff was asked to investigate why "Scotch Light" was mentioned. Page 12(53) add a definition of secondary frontage and supply a clear graphic example of the effect to the sign area. (54) change to read, "Structure shall mean that..." (55) suggested paper and balloons also be addressed. Comm. Suard felt "other materials" covered these materials. Page 13(58) clarify the intention of the final sentence. (60) change to read, "...temporary signs on the surface of windows." Page 14 Exceptions, Item (1) change toread, "...message on a conforming sign... 8 P.C.Minutes 1/19/93 A c Page 15, Exceptions, Item (2) change to read, "...cleaning of a conforming sign..." Maintenance - clarify that non -conforming signs are to be removed within 120 days. Page 17(e) regulations concerning the time on illuminated signs should be controlled through a C.U.P. Comm. Di Monda felt this section should be deleted as it would result in the downtown area being totally dark after 8:30. Comm. Suard suggested "...unless it interferes with a residential area" be added andwould be determined based upon a complaint basis. Staff was instructed to change this item, implementing the suggestions made. Page 18(d) Paragraph 2 clarify this item or delete. Further clarification was requested, noting 'a wood -frame building' might not have a stucco sign. If the intention was not to specify a fire-resistant building, the provision should be deleted. Page 21(3) Within residential areas,all shops have a small name sign which is placed on the temporary fence. This should be allowed and needs to be addressed. Page 26(3) add "...of a two-story or higher building." (d)(3) a definition is needed for "qualified secondary frontage". Page 28(b) address the issue of multiple tenants relating to styles of signs and include a zone map. This item was thought to be confusing. Page 29(d)(1) why do the messages hav4cto be identical?. Comm. Marks asked if a provision for coordinated signage by multi - occupant buildings had been made. Mr. Schubach replied in the negative, but new development projects have had a requirement for coordinated signs. Comm. Suard felt that 20 feet was a more reasonable height limitation for highway signs, feeling that 15 feet was a little short. The Commission agreed with this suggestion. MOTION by the Commission to CONTINUE SS 92-4 to allow•Staff to incorporate the suggested changes and bring back this special study and text amendment at the February 2, 1993 meeting. No objection, so ordered. P.C.Minutes 1/19/93 lay Smith, 1705 Flagler Avenue, stated his timeframe was to begin o• -ration as soon as possible. He did not want to incur the expanse of building a building when there was a less expens've meth.• that could be used. Churn. Merl stated the Commission ust adhere o the requirement that this activity needed to be enc osed. He reit ated the structure located in Beverly Hills w• ld be nothing 1 e the proposed one. He suggested he provide - detailed drawing, t• which Chmn. Merl approved and requested material sample. No one else wised to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public earing at 9:27 p.m. Comm. Oakes noted is operation was si machinery, did not nee.. to be enclosed. Sh reasons the Commission as considering t Marks felt the operation was extremely required to confirm to cer in regulat' with machinery, noise an• possib confirmed the Commission conc red tent. Mr. Schubach responded wish to put work outside, which Di Monda stated he would not s ular, involving no stated these were the proposed tent. Comm. cleanand should not be ns as areother body shops pollutants. Chmn. Merl ut wished to see the proposed h- other types of business also not allowed by the City. Comm. po a canvas wall. MOTION by Comm. Suard, se ended by omm. Oakes, to APPROVE this application with delegatio to the Pla .ing Director to approval or disapprove the esthetic- and adequacy 'f the structure. If the structure was found to be inadequate, th- Planning Director would refer this issue to e Planning Commission. AYES: Co Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl NOES: Co . Di Monda ABSTAIN: ►•mm. Marks ABSENT: None Chairman erl stated this item was approved subject o appealto the Cit Council within 10 days from the date of this•m--ting. A •reak was taken from 9:35 to 9:41 p.m. Chmn. Merl reconven=d the eeting with all Commissioners seated. SS 92-4 -- SPECIAL. STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING THE SIGN ORDINANCE (continued from November 4, 1992 meetinq). Recommended Action: To continue to January 19, 1993 meeting. Mr. Schubach stated Staff had compared the City's existing and proposed ordinances to those of the City of Manhattan Beach's. He detailed the matrix information and Staff's meeting with the Chamber of Commerce. He stated any additional input from Commis- sioners and audience would be analyzed and presented at the Commission's. January 19, 1992, meeting. P.C.Minutes 11/17/92 Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 9:46 p.m. Dallas Yost, 65 Pier Avenue, thanked Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach for their attendance and participation at the Chamber of Commerce's meeting. He stated he had talked to about 20 downtown business owners and suggested that small, uniform signs be allowed at a level viewable to pedestrians. Jerry Compton, 1200 Artesia Blvd., Ste. 300, was pleasedto see that manyof the issues that had been objected to by. business owners had been changed. He supported signs adjusted to pedestrian orientation and suggested a pedestrian district be designated within the downtown area which would allow such small signs. He discussed the difficulty in identifying the stores when walking. He objected to the ordinance that did not allow identification of businesses located above the second floor and requested that this issue be reviewed. He felt that the differences between vehicular and pedestrian orientation should be closely reviewed, since the current ordinance precludes existing buildings without a five -feet setback from having a pole sign. He questioned the limit of pole signs to 10 or 15 feet, requesting clarification. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl continued the Public Hearing at 9:55 p.m. Comm. Oakes felt the signs on Pacific Coast Highway should be similar to that of Manhattan Beach or Redondo Beach, the neighboring cities, suggesting more lenient signs in that area than that in the downtown area. She suggested that the ordinance address different requirements for the different areas of the City, allowing those on the highway to be competitive with the adjacent cities. She complimented Staff's efforts, but felt the recommenda- tions be limited to the downtown area along Hermosa and lower Pier Avenue. Comm. Di Monda stated RUDAT had resulted in the suggestion that special signs be developed for the downtown area, of which the A -frame signs were acceptable if they were removed at the end of the hours of operation each day, to which Comm. Oakes agreed. She felt that areas other than downtown should not automatically be allowed to have A -frame signs. She also favored illuminated signs in the downtown area being allowed to remain "on" almost all night, to alleviate the area becoming dark. She felt redefinition was needed for those stores that didn't have adequate room, necessitating a permanent window sign. Comm. Di Monda felt the intent of the sign ordinances of other adjacent cities should be reviewed and adopted for assure future clarity. He suggested the definition for a ground sign should include "monument sign". He questioned the definition of a projecting sign, noting the parallel section was irrelevant. He felt "it's intended to be displayed for a limited time only" should be deleted, and that elaboration was needed in the description of "banner" signs, which needed to be changed to prohibit excess P.C.Minutes 11/17/92 interpretation. He felt that Manhattan Beach had a section on "prohibited signs", Beach's ordinance, with the addition of b c d e f reasonable g , which could be utilized in Hermosa space signage should be included, and care must be taken. Support- ing small, projecting signs, he felt it should' be done when Open a pedestrian zone is established in the downtown area, and that the signs be uniform in size and graphics. when and if for small, projecting signs when the pedestrian ordinancecould the downtown area. He noted the lack of signage Provide residentialns in -the ontownareas. noteare in the to the appealDi Monda also noted thatl it was unclear asarificatioprocess relating to sign reviews, requesting Comm. Suard suggested adding Awnings, "copy that is not parlleler is DefinitionSection 28.A-3, Mr. Compton referenced prohibited". P the matrix just provided to closed and requested Mr. Compton note those items and noting three items needed comment.Chmn. Merl noted the hearing was information to the Commission. provide the MOTION by Chmn. Merl, seconded b to January 19, 1993, to allow by Comm. Oakes, to CONTINUE CUP 92_2 presented to the Commission. further input to be obtained and AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: HEARING Comms. None None None Di Ronda, P 92-2 - 21 - SIX MONTH REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PE STREET 21ST STREET RESTAURANT. Recommen.- Action: To direct provisions Staff Conditional UsePer to Perto Mr. Schubach statethe establishment no and no complaints had :-en received by aff. tiger has entertainment Chmn. Merl invited audience on this subject. •ation. No one wished to speak RECEIVE AND FILE. Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl 0 continu • T AT 807 o -:-enforce the STAFF ITEMS a. Memorandum workshop artic' garding City Council/planning Comms on joint sting. —19- P.C.Minutes 11/ /92 AYES:Comm. Marks, Oakes, Suard, Vice-Chmn.�i� Monda NOES: Min ABSENT: Chmn. ABSTAIN: None A break was taken fr :57 to 9:05 Chmn. Merl umed the position of Chairman at 5 p.m. SS 92-4 -- SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING THE SIGN ORDINANCE. Recommended Action: To recommend approval of text amendment. Chinn. Merl noted the Commission had received a slightly revised sign ordinance, and asked if Staff had amendments. Mr. Schubach stated the revision noted why the changes were made; mostly for clarification and resulting from the study that had been made and comments from the Commission. Additionally, three changes were made due to new State law requirements. He stated signs could not be required to be moved when there was a change in property ownership or simply sign copy change. If the building is redeveloped, the sign can be requested to be removed. Real estate signs on private property with the consent of the property owner cannot be required to be removed, but can be regulated. Window signs that are not simply posters (not exceeding 10 square feet of window area) will require a permit. Mr. Schubach stated Staff had reviewed ordinances from other cities and tried to maintain consistency with them, and explained some of the other requirements that had been included. Comm. Di Monda noted that page 40, "temporary signs" had an error, suggesting "60 days should be changed to "60 -day allotment". He confirmed with Mr. Schubach that painting on a window was considered a temporary sign, discussing the distinction in window signs and illum- ination would be determined on the amount of lighting, with control would be by timing devices. Mr. Schubach stated no alteration had been made relative to the "green belt". Comm. Oakes and Mr. Schubach confirmed the per- centage of a wall that could be covered with signage, that signs were allowed on second floors, but not above second levels. Comm. Suard confirmed with Mr. Schubach that address numbers are not considered signs and are not addressed by this ordinance, although they are regulated on condominiums. Comm. Suard felt stores and businesses should be required to display address number signs. Public Hearing opened by Chinn. Merl at 9:24 p.m. loo — P.C. Minutes 11-4-92 -._... a..+ .e...........�'q.�a:�:.fi.,ife:✓�=wiN�c/artiff Gary Waylon, 1097 Aviation Blvd., Chairman. of Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber has worked with the City on this ordinance, with Staff to simplify the business license process and sponsored the RUDAT program. He stated this ordinance would place hardships. upon businesses that were trying to attract more sales tax dollars, noting some provisions were not geared toward businesses. He noted the Chamber had received a copy of the ordinance at 3:00 p.m. today, and requested additional time in .order to study it. He requested the Commission approve Staff's recommendation to allow further study and to meet with the Chamber members to address its members' concerns. He referenced page 18, paragraph B of the new ordinance, stating he did not see a "30 -minute window" in this item, noting he would like to explore the inconsis- tencies within the "illumination" portion. He stated the Chamber of Commerce would like to be a part of the review of the ordinance and requested sufficient time (within the next two weeks) be given prior to the final enactment of the ordinance. He stated some areas of concern include illumination, sign size and time of closing the signs down. Comm. Di Monda stated this issue had been extensively studied by Staff and was not arbitrary, to which Comm. Oakes agreed and reiterated, noting this proposed ordinance was not as restrictive as some in other cities. Mr. Waylon questioned the inclusion of Santa Barbara within the study and stated, again, the Chamber members wished inclusion within the process. Mr. Schubach noted the document had been given to the Chamber last Thursday, while agreeing that this was not a lot of time for review. Leslie Brighart, co-owner of a sign business, stated she was involved in this issue by being a property and,. business owner. She felt the City was too restrictive on banners and signs already, without further reduction. She stated the times are tough, felt the business owners were being slighted for esthetic reasons and objected to. the decrease from 90 to 60 days and the overall size reduction of the signs. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 9:38 p.m. Mr. Schubach discussed with the Commission its future agendas. The meeting date of November 17, 1992 was decided upon for inclusion of the item, if continued. Comm. Di Monda disagreed that the ordinance was too restrictive, stating the Commission was trying to bring this ordinance in line with other cities. He explained '101— P.C. Minutes 11-4-92 4 4 c the survey of other cities was to obtain a comparison. He felt Manhattan Beach's ordinances were more description and thought they should be further reviewed by Staff and during any meeting with Chamber representatives. He felt "prohibitive signs" and signs that blocked architectural features should be included in that review. He explained the concerns regarding the size of signs on the sides of buildings, feeling that esthetics played a significant role. He acknowledged the ordinance was very difficult to write. Comm. Di Monda stated he thought Manhattan Beach allowed a maximum of 150 square feet of sign area. Comm. Di Monda stated she would mirror Comm. Di Monda's remarks. She noted she had a problem with the size of signs, noting one-fourth of the building face could be covered by a sign. She suggested that the location of signs might determine the handling of the sign sizes; ie. Pacific Coast Highway might be considered differently than Pier Avenue. Comm. Suard felt the Commission was attempting to keep visual blockage to a minimum and this should be considered by the Chamber of Commerce. He felt the signs should assist people in locating businesses, not detract from the ease of location. He felt if the signs were smaller and uniform, the ease of reading was enhanced. MOTION by Comm. Oakes to CONTINUE SS 92-4, Special Study and Text Amendment to the meeting of November 17, 1992, and that Staff meet with the Chamber of Commerce representatives and also review the Manhattan Beach ordinance as it relates to maximum area of signs and prohibitive signs prior to that meeting. AYES: Comm. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: - None H NGS CUP 95-2 .PARK 92-2 -- 1) SIR -MONTH REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONAL USEPERMIT. 2) MINOR MODIFICATION REQUEST FOR THREE ADDITIONAL VI -DEO GAMES AT 950—AVIATION BOULEVARD, THE RACER'S EDGE. Recommended Action: enforce the provisio To approve the r di = t Staff to continue to of the Condi ig�nal Use Permit. 2) ested minor modification. Mr. Sch • c stated this review was a rou a one. Addi ally, the applicant had requested three adds 1 video games. Staff recommended approval, but that the P.C. Minutes 11-4-92 • • C No • e else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl close,' the Public Hearing at 7:34 p.m. Comm. Ardmore corridor, designatio Staff's repo the study ori with street fr fronting Valley review if grantin Staff could limit Di Monda stated area special. Therefore, t when considering dissim the area, which should be which the Commission wishe Churn. Merl confirmed the corridor as a parkway. Mr. Ingleside Drive case which indication had been given to as his) would be evaluated issue. Comm. Di Monda sta Ardmore greenbelt; not to Monda felt the original focus had been on the corridor, that allowing oversized fences the greenbelt would possibly be enhanced. change, not a C.U.P., was to be use t was not what he had expected. Mr. nated from a request by a property tage on three sides and a si rive. Staff felt all lot was to be given to cer e review if the Commis within the City are e question of "fa' ar properties recognized to spec' ommi s ch p h He ed the 1 ave additi alley/ ong that thought a He stated chubach stated owner with a lot feet fence height should be allowed in ones. He stated ion so desired. Comm. quite different and very ness", is not appropriate The Greenbelt corridor was s different from other areas, ically deal with at this time. on's focus had been upon the ach stated a factor had.been_the mpted the original investigation; applicant that corner lots (such tated corner lots were also an tent was to review the Valley/ nal C.U.P.'s. • Comm. Marks discussed ith Mr. Schubach onsideration of shrubbery or hedges as barrier- and, therefore, un • -r the governing Code of 12.15. Comm. Oakes fel too much area was being eviewed, parameters should be reite ated to assist Staff in its rev -w and presentation to the Commis on. MOTION by to bring informat' why a lands ,the A S: ES: STAIN: ABSENT: mm. Di Monda, seconded by Chmn. Merl, ack a study focusing on Valley/Ardmore, on for the Commission's review, make recommen how fencing would be appropriate and wh ping might enhance the greenbelt corridor, and .U.P. process for this item. o DIRECT Staff rnish graphic tions as to type of o exclude Comm. None None None Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Mer SS '92-4 -- SPECIAL STUDY TO REONSIDER RELOCATING THE SIGN ORDINANCE BACH TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND TO EXAMINE OTHER POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE (continued from May 19, 1992 meeting). Recommended Action: To continue this project for further study. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended further direction regarding P.C.Minutes 9/01/92 C the scope and content of changes to the ordinance and continue the hearing. An alternative would be to form a committee which could form a consensus as to what should be done regarding the sign ordinance. He explained the sign ordinance, its regulations and impacts, as well as giving comparisons of the ordinance to those of other cities. Mr. Schubach noted due to the complexity, the report is not totally complete. Recommendation was made to place a cap on the allowable area for temporary signs and a duration reduction to 60 days; that allowable sign area requirements specifically state that they are for "permanent" signs and projecting signs be prohibited. He further itemized Staff's recommendations for further changes. Chmn. Merl invited audience participation at 7:55 p.m. No one wished to speak on this item, and Churn. Merl opened discussion by the Commission at 7:55 p.m. Comm. Suard agreed with Staff's proposed changes and comments, while noting that the City had no illumination limits. He suggested adoption of a statement that the illumination is not.._to be out of character with the surrounding area, to which Mr. Schubach agreed. Comm. Oakes supported Comm. Suard's comments. Comm. Suard questioned the ractical consequences of projecting piqn elimination,thedifferences between an „mewing sign and projecting signs and how the proposed regulation of this item would tunction. Mr. Schubach stated the monitoring was accomplished through neighbors' complaints and the C.U.P. process. Comm. Suard recommended that the number of free-standing signs be based upon the number of street frontages to the particular property. Comm. Marks commended Staff's report as being very inclusive, to which Comms. Di Monda and Oakes agreed. Comm. Di Monda stated the original involvement was due to deliberation of temporary banners and signs, and the problems associated with that issue. He .felt the sign ordinance should be similar in concept to that of Manhattan Beach's, with attention directed to the illumination issue, a "temporary siq? a ini ion s ould be included and a review made as to where the signsaare Being placed. Comm. Di Monda then discussed specific._._ signs within the city, objecting to the possibility of the City becoming a giant bulletin board. Churn. Merl concurred that the report was a very comprehensive study. MOTION by Chmn. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to CONTINUE SS 92-4 to allow Staff to consider and respond to the Commission's contents made during this meeting. AYES: Cotes. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Churn. Merl NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Schubach estimated this item would be brought back during October 1992. P.C.Minutes 9/01/92 Chmn.. Ketz felt the vacation issue was extremely complicated recommended the Commission move forward on the encroachment •= i to which the Commission agreed. MOTION by Comm›'Merl, seconded by Comm. Suard o APPROVE the establishment that ---a.„ private use is to b- allowed through a revocable encroachment permit. AYES: Comms. Di Monda, , Merl, Suard and Chmn. Ketz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The Commission RECTED that the revised Vehiclarking on Public Right -of -Way 'long Beach Drive recommendation be _ urned to the Commission—for review at its June 2, 1992 meeting. A • eak was taken from 9:42 p.m. to 9:50 p.m. SS 92-4 -- SPECIAL STUDY TO CONSIDER RELOCATING THE SIGN ORDINANCE BACK TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND TO EXAMINE OTHER POSSIBLE AMEND- MENTS TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Recommended Action: To direct Staff as deemed appropriate. Mr. Schubach stated Staff had presented the existing ordinance to the Commission for its review and decision as to parameters. Upon receiving input from the Commission, Staff will thenfocus its study on the areas and issues of greatest concern. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 9:51 p.m. No one wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Ketz closed the Public Hearing at 9:51 p.m. Chmn. Ketz felt placement into the Zoning Ordinance would give better control, to which Comm. Merl agreed. He suggested a review of neighboring cities' ordinances. Comm. Di Monda agreed, stating the business people of Hermosa Beach should not have any more burdens placed upon them than those in neighboring cities. He noted the sign ordinance fees and fines were the responsibility of the City Council, which would make a determination that it felt was fair, to which the Commission agreed. Mr. Schubach suggested Staff create a matrix (comparison chart) going across the board, to include what is done or not done by Hermosa Beach and similar cities. Comm. Di Monda requested the sign ordinance be given to the Commission, as well as that of another city that is located a distance away (i.e. Santa Barbara, etc.) forreview prior to the June 2, 1992 meeting. Mr. Schubach agreed to obtain the requested information for the Commission. Comm. Suard stated the new sign regulations should be clear, not redundant and consolidated for easy understanding by the local business and any other affected people. Comm. Di Monda criticized P.C.Minutes 5/19/92 -105- 1 • c the definitions in' general,: stating—definitions ..should :.be brought to thee "front:" _including -:the"-si-gn ordinance.,- Comm Suard stated -he would furnish additional written comments to Staff, in order to save time during this meeting. u , r ; - -...,-int STAFF ITEMS a. -Election of the new Chairman and Vice Chairman. MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Comm. Merl, to COND'CT AN :ELECTION to fill the positions of Chairman and Vice- airman. No objections, so ordered. MOTION by .Comm. Suard, seconded by: Chinn.._ Ketz, to ELECT. Comm. Merl _.as:.Cha rmani Planning Commission, :1.992-199 AYES::_... omms.:Di Monda,_Marks,;Merl, S and and Chmn. Keit z NOES: --- None ABSTAIN; '._. ": Non. ABSENT: None. MOTION by Comm. Merl,econded by Co . Suard, to ELECT Comm. Di=Monda as Vice -Chairman, Planning j ommission, 1992-1993. AYES Comms. :Di.>%1 da, Marks, Merl,. Suard- and Chmn -..Katz -NOES: None ABSTAIN: ::_ None ABSENT: None b. Correspondence from Buildi • Department regarding 125 Pacific _Coast Highway. RECEIVE AND FILE c._..Memorandum regarding lanning Commission` liaison for_. May 26, '1992 :.City : Council m=eting.: 'Comm.Di Monde s . ted - a -change::.: the manner o handling is needed,.. noting at the.. City Council is not -m de -aware -of the liaison presen.e,..the .liaison is not on the age da, an information :.p-cket is not. forwarded prior to the meeting, and. -.:yet the lia'-on isexpected to speak during the m-eting:with no informatio on hand... The Staff Report should stat the liaison intention o attendand an information packet.furni .ed to that person f'r review. The Commission: agreed with these tate- ments. Mr. Schubach stated the liaison is to be a me :-r. of the m. ority who voted on the particular issue. Mr. Sc Bach stat:: the packet(s) would be sent to a liaison prior to he mee, ing. M. Lee explained that prior to the City Council meeting, the Council Members would review the Planning Commission's minutes P.C.Minutes 5/19/92 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. 92-5528 1,10 4 LG • A RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO INITIATE A TEXT AMENDMENT TO RELOCATE THE SIGN ORDINANCE FROM THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO THE ZONING CODE AND DIRECT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO STUDY POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting on February 25, 1992, to initiate a study to relocate the sign ordinance from the Municipal Code to the Zoning Code and made the following findings: A. Typically, sign ordinances are part of the zoning ordinance which is more appropriate in terms of where authority lies for enforcement, interpretation and amendment. B. The sign ordinance is currently located in the Municipal Code but would be better interpreted and enforced if it were located in the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby direct the Planning Commission to relocate the sign ordinance and study making possible modifications. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 10th day of March, 1992, by following vote: AYES: Benz, Edgerton, Essertier, Wiemans, Mayor Midstokke NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: CITY CLERK 1C00 FO CITY ATTORNEY 1 Action: To adopt Resolution No. 92-5527, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #21787 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 952 EIGHTH STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA." (k) Recommendation to adopt resolution of intent for Plan- ning Commission to initiate a text amendment to the Municipal Code to make the sign ordinance a part of the zoning code and to study modification of the ordinance. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated March 3, 1992. Supplemental letter form Jim Lissner, w�' 2715 El Oeste, dated March 10, 1992. This item was removed from the consent calendar by Coun- cilmember Benz for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: _ To adopt Resolution No. 92-5528, entitled,"A RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO INITIATE A TEXT AMENDMENT TO RELOCATE THE SIGN ORDINANCE FROM THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO THE ZONING CODE AND DIRECT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO STUDY POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS." as amended in the title by Edgerton to change, "...initiate a study to relo- cate..." to read, "...initiate a text amendment to relocate..." Motion Benz, second Mayor Midstokke. The motion carried unanimously. Mayor Midstokke stated she would like to have "banners" included in the study. 406 (1) Recommendation to approve lease agreement for Beach Cit- ies Coalition for Alcohol and Drug Free Youth, Inc. for use of Room 4 in the Community Center. Memorandum frcm Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated March 2, 1992. (m) Action: To approve the lease renewal agreement with the Beach Cities Coalition for Alcohol and Drug Free Youth, Inc. for the use of Room 4 in the Community Center for a period of one year, beginning April 1, 1992 through June 30, 1992 at a rate of $638 per month (798 sq. ft. X $.80), and from July 1, 1992 through March 31, 1993 at a rate of $670 per month (798 sq. ft. X $.84). Recommendation to approve request of the Association of Volleyball Professionals to hold a Men's Pro Volleyball Tournament in Hermosa Beach. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated March 2, 1992. City Council Minutes 03-10-92 Page 7729 —(o8 — lb lob (b) Memorandum from Planning Commission dated February 4, 1992, requesting that Council initiate a text amendment to the Municipal Code to make the sign ordinance a part of the zoning ordinance. Building and Safety Director Grove and City Attorney Vose responded to Council questions. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Wesley Bush - Chamber of Commerce, discussed the problems businesses were having regarding win- dow posters; and, Joseph Di Monda - 610 Ninth Street, suggested the Council clarify the matter by suspending en- forcement of window posters. Action: To send this item to the Planning Commission, pursuant to its request, to hold the proper public hear- ings in order to initiate the changes to the Municipal Code to make the Sign Ordinance a part of the Zoning Code; and, to review the Ordinance for clarification and substantive changes. Motion Mayor Midstokke, second Essertier. So ordered. Proposed Action: To direct staff to suspend enforcement_ on unpermitted temporary window signs. Motion Mayor Midstokke. The motion was withdrawn fol- lowing a response from Building Director Grove. Proposed Action: To place a moratorium on signs in win- dows of stores. Motion Benz. The motion died due to the lack of a second. Proposed Action: To abate enforcement of all window signs. Motion Edgerton, second Benz. The motion failed due to the dissenting votes of Essertier, Wiemans, and Mayor Midstokke. Final Action: Too -suspend enforcement on all paper win- dow signs covering up to 25% of the window. Motion Essertier, second Wiemans. The motion carried, noting the dissenting vote of Edgerton. City Council Minutes 02-25-92 Page 7721 —Io9_ (b) Request by Mayor Midstokke for discussion of use of tem- porary banners in the City. Action: Mayor Midstokke directed, with the consensus of the Council, that temporary banners be included in the sign study by the Planning Commission; and expressed concern with the amount of the bond for a temporary sign. City Council Minutes 02-25-92 — 11 0 -• page 7722 ttaa arr0aow 00 C tovatatuaa0 thin p®gm0a40owa A Zoning District Permitted Copy Maximum Number Maximum Area Maximum Height Location/ Projection Illuminatiion Permit Fee Prohibitions , Hermosa Beach C-1 Business identification, building identification, commodity identification for commodities integral to business based on the following percentages of allowable sign area: commodity equal to less than 10% of business -10% commodity equal to 10-50% of business -25%; commodity equal to more than 50% of business -75%; commodity identification for beverages sold by restaurants and markets -10%. One - 2 sq. ft. per linear foot of building frontage, with up to 20 sq. ft. of signage permitted regardless of frontage size. For businesses fronting more than one street, total frontage equals the of primary building frontage and 1/2 of any secondary frontage, provided the secondary frontage has a customer entry/ exit. Maximum wall coverage of 40% of wall occupied by sign. 6 inches above top of wall. Maximum projection of 6 inches from wall. No sign may obstruct any building opening, fire escape, exit, or standpipe. No projection into a public alley below a height of 14 ft. above grade. Permitted, but no specific lighting standards. Permit from Building Official required. A seperate permit is required for each group of signs on a single supporting structure. Fiat fee of $83.75 for sign design review. Not permitted on parapet wall. Hermosa Beach C-2 Same as C-1 No limit. Same as C-1 Same as C-1 Same as C-1 Same as C-1 Same as C-1 Same as C-1 Hermosa Beach C-3 Same as C-1 No limit. 3 sq. ft. per linear ft. of frontage. Maximum coverage and sign area for businesses with more than one street frontage is the same as C-1. Same as C-1 Same as C-1 Same as C-1 Same as C-1 ( Same as C-1 ) Zoning District Permitted Copy Maximum Number Maximum Area Maximum Height Location/ Projection Illuminatiion Permit Prohibitions Manhattan Beach Area Districts I and II. Business identification, business address,linear identification of principal activity/product/service (mat include logos and other descriptive graphic devices). No limit. 2 sq. ft. per foot of street frontage with a maximum of 150 sq. ft. per sign. For businesses fronting more than one street, only one street shall be used for permitted area. Top of building wall. Wall of business only. Maximum projection of 12 inches over public R.O.W.. For internally illuminated signs, maximum 150 foot lamberts. For floodlighted signs, maximum 50 foot candles for low reflectant copy and 20 foot candles for high reflectant copy. Permit required from Building Official, based on Planning Department review. Flat fee of $42.50 per permanent sign plus a plan check fee equal to half the equivalant fee for building permk plan Off-site signs, flashing, rotating, scintillating and animated signs are prohibited. A check, based on sign valuation. Manhattan Beach Area Districts Ill and IV. Same as Area Districts I and II. Same as Area Districts I and II. One sq. ft. per linear ft. of street frontage with a maximum of 150 sq. ft. per sign. For businesses fronting more than one street, only one street shall be used for permitted area. Roofline of highest point of structure. Same as Area Districts I and II. For internally illuminated signs, maximum 100 ft. lamberts. For floodlighted signs, maximum 100 ft. candles for low reflectant copy and 50 ft. candles for high reflectant copy. Same as Area Districts I and II. Same as Area Districts I and II. Redondo Beach All No specific regulations. No limit. Front wall:15% of total wall area. Rear wall (permitted only if rear wall faces a street): 10% of total wall area. Side wall: 7.5% of total wall area. Building on corner lots or parcels with two street frontages: 15% of total wall area for each frontage. Top of building wall. Flush against faces or building. Maximum projection of 16 inches. No specific regulations. Permit from Building Department required, pursuant to Planning Department approval of sign design. fee based on building valuation. Permit is null and void if sign Is not completed within 6 months of issuance. Flashing, animated and scintillating signs are prohibited. Torrance All No specific regulations. No limit. 15% of exposed area of single wall. Apparent flat roof line or eave line. Maximum projection of one foot building line. No specific regulaions. Permit from Building and safety Director required, subject to approval of sign design by Environmental (Witty Commission. Fee based on building valuation. Sign permit becomes null and void if work is not completed within 120 days of permit issuance, unless Rotating,moving, flashing, changing or blinking signs are prohbited. r an extension is granted. Rancho Palos Verdes CL, CN, CP, and CR only. Name and type of business. Planning Director may approve product or service identification signs only if such signs identify a product or service that is a major component of business. Product signs with brand names shall only be approved if the business offers that product brand exclusively. No limit on 'wall signs specifically; only one major identification sign per street frontage. One sq. ft. per linear ft. of building frontage, up to maximum of 75 square feet. Eave line or parapet of building. On -premises; signs in public right-of-way prohibited unless authorized by Planning Director. Limited to hours of business operations. The approval of any illuminated sign shall not be final until 30 days after installation, during which period the Planning Director may order the dimming of any illumination found t0 be excessively brilliant. Illumination is considered excessive if it prevents normal perception of objects beyond or in vicinity of sign. Permit from Planning Department required. Staff review fee of $110 plus $5 for each additional sign. Blinkers, flashing, animated, and signs with unusal lighting are prohbited. Rancho Palos Verdes CG only. No specifc restrictions on sign content. Same as CL, CN, CP,and CR districts. One sq. ft. per linear foot of building frontage, up to a maximum of 100 sq. ft. Same as CL, CN, CP, and CR districts. Same as CL, CN, CP, and CR district. During and up to one hour past business hours of operation, or until 12:00 midnight, whichever is later. Same as CL, CN, CP, and CR, district. Same as CL, CN, CP, and CR district. Long Beach All Limited to the identification of business and total of 2 principal products or services offered on -premises. Sign copy shat not be placed on the edge of any wall sign. One per wall or one per business for buildings with multiple businesses ,fronting ' street. Street frontage wall: total area of all wall signs shall not exceed , one sq. ft. of street frontage up to a maximum of 100 sq. ft. Walls facing side or rear yard: total area of all signs shall not exceed one eq. ft. per linear foot of lot line length up to a maximum of 100 No limit for building Identification wall signs. Other wall sign height limits are dependent on the street right -of -way width the business fronts: 80 ft. or less - maximum height of 25 feet ; 81 ft. No wall sign may extend beyond the perimetric limits of the signable area on which itis displayed, nor above the peak of the roof or the top of the building parapet. No sign shall be located upon an architectural No illumination system shall contain or use any beacon spot or stroboscopic light or reflector which is viable from any public right-of-way or adjacent property, nor shall any building or portion thereof be outlined by means of neon tubing or string Permits from Department of Planning and Building required. Staff review fee of $105, plus sign building permit fee based on building valuation. Permits not used within one year of issuance shall be null and void. Prohibited signs: flashing, shimmering, glittering, moving, or changable copy signs. No sign shall emit audile sound, odor or partculate matter. r sq. ft. to 110 ft. -30 ft.; and over 110 ft. protusion. Maximum projection of lights (signs in amusment parks are exempt). -35 ft. 14 inches. No projection over public alley, driveway, or parking above grade. No illuminated sign shall change color, or color light intensity (signs in amusement parks are exempt). Lakewood All No specific regulations. No limit. No wall or roof area 25 ft. Top of wall, parapet Maximum projection Automatic time clock required Requires approval from Moving flashing, blinking or • or more above average ground level shall be include in allowable sign area calculations. Primary elevation (defined as the elevation directly abutting street or parking area- one primary elevation per building): 20% of area of first 25 ft. of elevation up to a maximum of 200 sq. ft. Secondary elevation or rooftine, as applicable. of 18 inches. to regulate illumination hours to hours of business operation only. No mirrors reflecting a direct light source. No sign over 3 eq. ft. in area shall be wholly or partially illuminated by unshielded lighting of any type, including exposed incandescent bulbs or neon tubes. Development Review Board. Fee based on building valuation. rotating signs are prohibited. Signs that emit sound (except drive - through facilities) ,smoke, visible particles, or odors are prohibited. (defined as any elevation determined not to be the primary elevation): 5% of area of first 25 ft. of elevation up to maximum of 50 sq. ft. Hawthorne All No specific regulations. No limit. 3 sq. ft. Roofline of Maximum No specific Permit Flashing and ft. per linear ft. of qualified street frontage (for multi -business buildings) or 2 sq. ft. per linear ft. of qualified street building. projection of one foot from wall or building face beyond I building line. regulations. required from Building and Safety Director. Fee based on building valuation. If work has blinking lights prohibited (except time and temperature signs). 4 frontage (for single business buildings). Maxiumum 330/0 of wall area, or no more than 60 sq. ft. for developments having less than 30 feet of quaffed street frontage. not been completed within 120 days of permit approval, it shall become null and void. Gardena All Each commercial establishment shall have at least one exterior sign written in English, with the sign letters of sufficient size to be easily readable from the center of the nearest abutting road. One wall sign per business per building frontage. A business occupying a comer location may have one additional wall, sign on side frontage of the same size as sign on building frontage. One and one -half (1 1/2) sq. ft. of sign area per linear foot of building frontage for single occupancy parcels, or each tenancy in a busniess center, not to exceed 50 sq. ft. The sign length shall not exceed 70% of leasehold length. One foot beyond roofline. All wall signsAll shall be integrated into wall or flat against the wall. Maximum projection of one foot from wall. external lighting shall be hooded and directed to the sign face and away from adjacent properties. Permit required from Building and Safety Division. No new sign permits shall be issued until all existing signs are brought into conformity with sign code. A sign permit shall become null and void if the sign has not been installed withen 6 months of permit issuance. Flashing or animated signs prohibited. Newport Beach Alli No specific regulations. Maximum 3 wall signs per building, with the exception that a multi-tenant building may have one wall per business, ' plus one 25 square foot building directory wall sign listing tentants. Maximum 200 square feet on any building frontage, not exceeding 40% of the exposed finished wall surface area, including openings. Top of adjacent roofline or parapet of building. Maximum projection of 2 feet over public property. Subject to the following conditions: 1) maximum rating of 40 watts for individual incandescent lamps exposed on the sign surface; and 2) maximum night- time sign brightness of 15,000 foot lamberts. Permit from Planning Director required. Fee based on building valuation. Planning Commission has authority to issue Exception Permit to protect a substantial property right for exceptional circumstances. Flashing, animated, wind, and moving signs are prohibited. Irvine All For single tenant sites, sign letters and logos shall not One per street or One sq. ft. of sign area per linear foot of Eave line of building. Location limited to building or Intensity of illumination subject Permit from Community Animated or moving signs are prohbited. 4 exceed 34 inches in height. For mufti -tenant projects not exceeding two stories, sign letters and logos shall not exceed 24 inches in heght (which may be increased to 34 inches in height for major tenants identified in City's sign program). parking lot frontage. building frontage up to 200 square feet. structure for single tenant sites. Mufti- tenant projects not exceeding two stories may have wall signs in street or parking area access or pedestrian mall frontage. to discretionary approval of Building Official. Neon signs require Planning Commission approval. Development Director required. $38 zoning review fee, plus plan check fee of $37.87 per sq. ft. Santa Monica All No specific regulations. No limit. One sq. ft. of sign area The roofline Maximum No specific Permit required Animated signs per linear foot of building or store frontage, except for the Commercial Recreation District which is subject to Architectural Review Board discretionatry approval. For street comer locations in the Central Business Commercial District only, a maximum of one sq. ft. of sign area for each Nnear foot of building or store frontage for each street facing frontage wall. for one story buildings, and no more than 30 inches above the second story line in multi- story buildings. projection of 12 inches from wall surface. Wall signs may also be located on the sloping surface of a roof so long as there is no air space between the roof and sign (no projection above roof permitted). regulations. from Architectural Review Board. Permits shall become nuN and void if work is not completed within 6 months of permit issuance. (except time & temperature signs) prohibited. Sound emitting signs (except at drive - in restaurants, bank ATMs, and bank drive - throughs) prohibited. Santa Barbara AN No specific regulations. No limit, except that commercial For a dominant building frontage up to 100 Roofline, but not above second story for Attached flat against or pinned away from wall. No specific regulations. Permit required from Sign Committee. Signs that rotate, move, glare, flash, change, reflect, blink complexes linear ft, one sq. ft. of buildings with A wall sign Fee based on size or appear to do any containing 4 or sign area per linear ft. of two or more placed in the of sign: 1-15 square of the above (except more occupants are limited to one commercial complex identification sign per frontage and one directory sign per public entrance. . building frontage, or 65 sq. ft.., whichever is less. For a dominant building frontage with more than 100 linear ft., 3/4 sq. ft. of sign area per linear ft. of building frontage, or 90 sq. ft., whichever is less. For a building occupied by more than one tenant, the dominant building frontage for each business is that portion of stories. space between windows on the same story shall not exceed more than 2/3 of the height of the window, or major architect- ural details related thereto. A wall sign placed between windows on feet- $90; 16-30 square feel- $105; 31-60 square feet - $135; 61-90 square feet- $145: over 90 square feet- $170. The permit becomes null and void if sign is not installed within 6 months of approval date; unless an extension not time and temperature signs) are prohibited. Y the building elevation adjacent to the business. For a business which is not on the ground floor, 1/2 sq. ft. of sign area per liner ft. of dominant building frontage. For a commercial complex containing 4 or more occupants, the following standards apply: 1) one sign per frontage to identify the complex, allowing one sq. ft. of sign area per linear ft. of complex frontage, or 75 sq. ft., whichever is less; 2) for each individual business wdh frontage on a public street or parking lot, 1/2 eq. ft. of sign area per linear ft., or 25 sq. ft., whichever is less; and 3) one directory sign not exceeding 10 sq. ft. in size at each public entrance. adjacent stories shaN not exceed 2/3 the height of the space between said windows. No specific regulations for wall sign projections - projecting signs must clear nearest side- walk by a minimum of 7 ft and may project no more than 4 ft. into public right-of-way. exceeding 6 months has been approved by the Community Development Director. e Cos mallama o4 etaihmoQa0o0 Crewed 0erooa4owdthqg Nosgm0o40owa Zoning District Permitted Copy Maximum Number Maximum Area Maximum Height Location/ Projection Iltuminatiion Prohibitions Hermosa Beach C-1 and C-2 Regulations the same for all signs in commercial districts -See Well Sign Metra. One Regulations the same for all signs in C-1 and C-2 zones - See Wall Matrix. 8 feet from grade to highest point of sign. All ground signs shall be located entirely on private property and cannot project over public property. Permmitted, but no specific lighting standards. Pole signs are specifically prohbited in the C-1 and C-2 zones. Mobile signs are prohbited in all commercial districts. Hermoss Beach C-3 Same as C-1 and C-2. districts. Regulations the same for all signs in commercial districts I and II- See Wall Matra. One ground sign or one pole sign. No limit Regulations the same for all signs in C-3 zone- See Wall Sign Matra. Regulations the same for all signs in Area Districts -I and II -See Wall Matra 10 feet from grade to highest portion of sign body; based on definition of ground sign in sectio 28A-3 (28)QS't-4S 30 feet provided the the sign does not project over public right-of-way more then 12 inches. All ground signs shall be located entirety on private property and cannot project over public property. 35 \ No specific regulations. Permitted, but no specific lighting standards. Maximum 300 foot lamberts. Mobile signs are prohbited. Regulations the same for all signs in commercial districts- See Wall Sign Matra. Manhattan Beach Area Districts I and II. Manhattan Beach Area Districts III and IV. Regulations the same for at signs in commercial districts -See Wall Matra. No limit Regulations are the same for all signs in commercial districts III and IV- See Wall Sign Metric Maximum 15 feet provided the sign does not project into the public right-of-way more then 12 inches. No specific regulations. Maximum 200 foot lamberts. Same as Area Districts I and II. Redondo Beach All No specific regulations. One sign only permitted for the following uses: planned shopping center or service center having 3 or more stores and common parking area: auto service station; new and used auto, boat, camper. trailer, and motorcycle sales; hotels and motel; restaurants; drive-ins and drive-in dairies; and car washes with 50 feet or more of street frontage. All other commercial uses require Planning Commision approval for freestanding signs. Maximum 200 square feet with not more than 2 parallel sign feces permitted with a maximum distance of 18 inches between faces. No freestanding sign is required to be less than 35 square feet in area per face. For all land uses specifically permitted to have freestanding signs without Planning Commision approval, except auto service stations, maximum one square foot of sign area per linear foot of lot frontage. For auto service stations, maximum 1/2 square foot of sign area for each linear foot of lot frontage (corner lots may only count the largest frontage for sign area determination). Maximum 30 feet above grade level end minimum 10 feet above grade. Maximum projection of 3 feet into public right-of-way. No specific regulations... Regulations the same for all signs in commercial districts- See Wall Sign Matrix. ' Torrance All No specific regulations. One per commercial develop(nent One square foot per linear foot of street frontage up to 300 square feet 25 ft with one additional foot for each linear foot of setback from front property line, up to a maximum height of 50 feet from top of sign. Minimum qualified frontage of 100 feet to erect ground or pole sign on property. No specific regulations. Regulations the same for all signs in commercial districts - See Wall Sign Matra. Rancho Palos Verdes CL, CN, CP, and CR only. Regulations the same for all signs in commercial districts- See Wall Sign One freestanding sign with the approveal of the Planning Director if Same as standard for major identification sign: one square foot per linear Maximum 6 feet. Any higher freestanding sign, which shall not exceed 16 No specific regulations beyond lot dimension and setback requirements for Regulations are the same for all signs in commercial districts- Regulations the same for all signs in commercial districts - See Wall Sign Matra. a Mata. k is the major identification sign for that business. foot of building frontage up to maximum of 75 square feet. feet, may be approved by the Planning Commision only in exceptional circumstances if it is the only leasble means of identification and only for shaping centers with 4 or more businesses with • minimum frontage of 200 feet and minimum setback of 50 feet approval of signs higher than 6 feet See Wall Sign Mata. Rancho Palos Verb CG only. No speckc regulations on sign content. Same as CL, CN. CP and CR districts. Same as CL, CN, CP and CR districts. Maximum 8 feet Any higher freestanding sign, which shall not exceed 16 feet, may be approved by the Planning Commision for shopping centers with 4 or more businesses .. with a minimum frontage of 200 feet and minmum setback of 40 feet. Same as CL, CN, CP, & CR districts. Same as CL, CN, CP. 8 CR districts. Same as CL, CN. CP, 8 CR districts. Long Beach Ala Limited to the identification of business and a total of 2 principal products or services sold on the premises. A shopping center freestanding sign may include only the name of shopping center or name of prinapal tenant One per property. Properties with street frontage in excess of 300 feet may have one additional sign for each additional 300 Net, or portion thereof, of street frontage abutting the developed portion of the property. For non -freeway oriented signs, 2 square feet per linear foot of street frontage up to a maximum of 100 square feet. For freeway oriented signs, 3 square feet per linear foot of street frontage up to a maximum ' of 300 square feet For non -freeway oriented signs, maximum height of 25 feet measured from grade to top of sign. For freeway oriented signs, maximum height of 40 feet from grade to top of sign, except that where the freeway elevation is grader than the sign base, the height may be measured from the grade of the freeway lane nearest the sign. No sign shall be located closer to any interior side property life than 1/3 the property street frontage width or 25 feet, whichever is less. Lots adjoining freeway or raitoad right-of-way may have a freestanding sign on the property line adjoining such right-of-way. Where more than one freestanding sign is used fora property, the minimum distance between such signs is 100 feet No freestanding sign shall overhang any right -of -ay line or established setback line. The vertical clearance from grade to lowest point of freestanding sign is 8 feet for pedestrian use and 14 feet for vehicular use. Regulations are the same for all signs in commercial ., districts -See Wall Sign Matra. Regulations are the same for all signs in commercial districts -See Wall Sign Matra. Lakewood All No specific regulations. One per intergrated • commercial site. 120 feet The sum of the overall height and width of a low freestanding sign shall not exceed 19 Net. The overall width of a high freestanding sign shall not exceed that sign's overall height. 25 feet Minimum 25 foot distance from a common lot line; however, this limitation does not apply to properties with secondary frontage that are 25 to 70 feet wide and used for lot access. Regulations apply to all signs in commercial districts- See Wall Sign Matrix.. Regulations apply to all signs in commercial districts- See Wall Sign Mata. Hawthorne MI No specific regulations. One per development with 200 feet or bas of qualified street frontage. 3 square feet for linear foot of qualified street frontage. 60 feet with a conditional use permit requied for any sign over 40 feet However, freestanding signs located within 500 feet of a freeway right- of-way may have maximum height of 70 feet from No specific regulations for freestanding signs. - i No specific regulations. Regulations the same for all signs in commercial districts - See Wall Matrix. a • grade or 40 feet above freeway roadbed, whichever 1 more restrictive. Gardens All Regulations the same for all signs in commercial districts- See Wall Sign Matrix. However, low-rise monument signs may contain the name of a business or business center only. One tor properties with minimum street frontage of 50 feet For pole signs, 1/2 square foot for each linear foot of qualified street frontage up to 100 square feet. For monument signs, maximum 30 feet. 35 feet for pole signs and 4 feet for monument signs. For pole signs, minimum 15 feet from any side property line. For monument signs, prohbited from placement in required corner cutback or setback areas. Regulations the same for .1 signs in commercial districts- See Wall Sign Matra. Regulations the same for aN signs in commercial districts - See Wall Sign Metric. Newport Beech All No specific regulations. No limit,but permitted only on building with minimum 50 foot frontage. 200 square feet 25 feet from grade to top of sign. No specific regulations. Regulations the same for all signs in commercial districts- See Wall Sign Matra. Regulations the same for all signs in commercial districts- See Wan Sign Matra. Irvine AN . No specific regulations. One business identification sign only. One square foot per linear foot of building frontage with a minimum of 21 square feet and a maximum of 200 square feat Maximum 4 feet for sign and maximum 3 feet for berm for combined maximum sign / berm height o1 7 feet. Prohbited from 'sight distance triangle" as determined by staff according to individual sign and properly characteristics. Permitted, but no specific regulations. Regulations the same for all signs in commercial districts - See Wall Sign Matra. Santa Monica All No specific regulations. One ground sign, either monument or pylon type, per site. Freestanding pole signs, except real .estate signs, are prohbited. Pylon eign is defined as a vertical demension greater than its horizontal dimension. 40 square feet, including base of sign. For monument signs, maximum 6 feet above gads. For pylon type sign, maximum 16 feet above grade. No specific regulations. No specific regulations. Pole signs are specifically prohibited. Santa Barbara All No specific regulations. Regulations the same for ale signs in commercial districts- See Wall Sign Matrix. Regulations the same for all signs in commercial districts- See Wall Sign Matra. Regulations the same for ale signs in commercial districts- See Wall Sign Matrix. A ground sign over 6 feet in area shall not be located within 75 feet of any other ground sign. No specific regulations. Pole signs are specifically prohibited. Comparison of Temporary Commercial Sign Regulations City Sign Class Sign Type Max No. Max. Area Max. Height Max. Duration Location Illumination Permit/ Deposit Exemptions/ Prohibitions Hermosa Beach All All Unlimited 40% of allowable area for permanent signs, w/ 20 sq. ft. permitted regardless of sign. Same as permanent signs. 90 days, in Increments of not less than 30 days per calender year. Same as permanent signs. Same as permanent signs, no specific standards restrictions on illumination. Permit from Bldg. Dept. required, w/ bond or cash deposit not to exceed $250 -cost of removal by City shall be charged to bond. Temporary real estate or political signs less than 10 sq. ft. in area. Manhattan Beach All Banners, posters, pennants, ribbons One Same as permanent signs- varys by commercial zone. Same as permanent signs. 90 days Same as permanent signs. Same as permanent signs, depends on type of sign and zoning district Permit from Community Development Department required. Bond required, and shall be forfeited if sign is not removed at end of specific period. None Redondo Beach All Wall Banners Two 60 square feet Same as permanent wall signs- up to maximum height of bldg. 30 days for one or both sign permits. Affixed to wall of structure or building. Not permitted for banners Permit from Community Development Department required. Cash deposit required, and shall be forfeited it it becomes necessary for City to remove banner. Maximum 60 days for business with no permannent signs Torrance All: Defined as a banner or pennant made of cloth, canvass, light fabric, cardboard, walboard, or other light material with or without frames. Wall One banner per building frontage. Additional signs may be approved by the building and Safety Director, but may not exceed the 90 day time limit. 100 sq. ft. in area + 50% of bldg. frontage in width, w/a minimum of 20 sq. ft .+ maximum of 60 sq. ft. of area for buildings at property line. An additional one sq: ft. of area will. be allowed for each 10 ft. of street setback up to 100 sq.ft. Beneath roof line 90 days with extension beyond 90 days subject to Environmental Quilty Commision approve!. Affixed to building surface No specific regulations Permit from building and safety Director w/ bond or cash deposit not of removal by City shall be charged against bond Temporary civil and religious signs are exempt from sign regulations. Mylar -type ballons made of electrically conductive material and self-supporting portable signs are prehbited. Torrance Trade construction,• made of plywood or similar matirial All No limit •. 64 sq.ft. per sign. No limit Up to issuance of certificate of occupancy for construction site , On construction site only Prohibited No permit required None Torrance Leasing signs for commercial properties constructed All One sign per frontage 32 sq.ft.for properties w/less than 100 ft. in frontage: 64 sq.ft. for properties No limit For period property is available for sale or lease only On-site only Prohibited Permit required may be waived at discretion of Building and Safety Director None City Sign Class Sign Type Max. No. Max. Area Max. Height Max. Duration Location Illumination Permit/ Deposit Exemptions/, Prohibitions of plywood or sheet metal material. w/over 100 ft. in frontage. Torrance All Window No limit 25% of window area Not applicable Same as temporary wall sign Commercial areas only Prohbited Same as temporary wall signs None Rancho Palos Verdes All Wall and window signs, banners, flags pennants Two at any one time Same as permanent signs-one square foot per linear foot of building frontage, up to 75sq. ft. Roof line of building 30 day renewable period per sign, totaling no more than 120 days per calender year. One temporary indentification sign may be displayed fro up to 60 days while applicant awaits approvel of permanent sign. Mounted only on a building, or a substantial extension of a building, or inside a window Illumination permitted only during hours of operation Permit by Planning Director required No permit required for temporary window signs displayed for no more than 30 days that do not exceed 10% of total window area. Free-standing temporary signs are prohibited. Long Beach Promotional Activity Signs Bannners, Pennants, Balloons No Limit Banners-One square foot per linear foot of street frontage up to 100 sq.ft. Pennants-one square foot Ballons- One square foot measured as a Iongitudial section of the ballon, per linear foot of street frontage. Roof line of building Banners-60 days, renewable for one additional 60 day period per calender year not less than 30 days after the end of the first 60 day period. Pennants- 90 day nonrenewable period. Grand opening promotional signs-90 day nonrenewable period. No specific regulations No specific regulations Permit required None Lakewood All All Two per calender year, w/ a minimum of 30 days between each sign permit Same as permanent signs, depends on sign type and zoning district Same as permanent signs, depends on sign type and zoning district 30 days Same as permanent signs, depends on sign type and zoning district. Same as permanent signs, depends on sign type and zoning district. Prohibited for temporary subdivision and political signs Permit required from Community Development Director Subdivision signs (a one year nonrenewable period for signs not exceeding total area of 120sq.ft.) political signs for up to 30 prior and 5 days after election; and pennents and flags approved by Development Review Board for auto agencies City Sign Class Sign Type Max. No. No limit Max. Area Temporary window signs shall not exceed 50% of window area Max. Height Same as permanent signs, depends on sign type and zoning district Max. Duration 60 days Location On -premises onlyrequired. Illumination Permitted Permit/ Deposit No bond or deposit eq uired. No permits required for temporary window, civic, real estate, religious signs only. Exemptions!, Prohibitions Real estate sigm- maximum 6 sq.ft. sign Hawthorne All defined as any sign coneructed of cloth, cancass, fabric, cardboard, walboard, or other light matirial with or without frames All Gardena All Window No limit No limit on amount of window area used Height of window 45 days On -premises window No specific prohbitions None None Gardena All Banners No limt No limit No limit 30 days Any where no specifically prohibited No specific prehibitions None provided banners do not impede traffic None Newport Beach All All One per building or building site 100 sq.ft. w/ 24 sq.ft. maximum for signs of material 6 ft 60 days any where not specifically prohbited Permitted, w/ same restrictions as permanent signs: Maximum rating of 40 watts per incandescent lamp, maximum night- time sign brightness of 15,000 foot lambrets No specific procedures. Planning Commission has authority to issue Exception Permits to protect a substantial property right for exceptional ,; circumstances Irvine Special event Wall, window, banner one 30 sq.ft. 20 ft. Two display periods per year, totaling no more than 30 days On building only Prohibited Permited required None Santa Monica All Window No Limit 20 percent of first floor's total frontage glass. Ceiling line of first floor. Two 30 day periods. On -premise only. No specific probations. No permit required. Exempt from Architectural Review Board approval. Santa Barbara All Window No Limit 25% of window area for windows over 25 feet from public right-of-way. `' No specific regulations. Two 30 day periods. On- premise only. No specific probations. Permit from Community Development Department required. Temporary window signs not exceeding 4 square feet or 15% of window area, whichever is greater, do not need sign permits. (06mpmPOt0al 04 C coni iatia0 PP0i0t4Ing N®gmOa40 cont Zoning District Permitted Copy Maximum Number Maximum Area Maximum Height Location/ Projection Illumination Permit Fee Hermosa Beach C-1 Regulations the same for all signs in commercial districts -see Wall Sign Matrix. One Regulations the same for all signs in C-1 zones -see Wall Sign Matrix. Building roof line or ridge line. A maximum one ft. projection with minimum 8 ft. clearance. An additional 6 inches of projection for each additional ft. of clearance, not to exceed total projection of 36 inches. Minimum clearance of 14 ft. for projection into public alley, with maximum projection 12 inch projection for clearances between 14 to 16 feet, up to 36 (stet) Inch projection for sign with over 16 feet clearance. No sign shall project within 2 feet ofcurbline. Maximum thickness of projecting signs based on the following: 3 ft. projection -maximum 3 ft. thickness; 2 ft. projection -maximum 3.5 ft thickness; one ft projection -maximum 4 ft projection. Permitted, but no specific lighting standards. Flat fee of $83.75 for sign design review. Signs with separate structural foundation require a separate building permit, with fee based on sign valuation. Hermosa Beach C-2 Same as C-1. No Umit. Same as C-1. Maximum 10 ft above the parapet wall, roof or ridge line of building, whichever is less. Same as C-1. Same as C-1. Same as C-1. Hermosa Beach C-3 Same as C-1. No Umit. 3 sq. ft. per linear foot of frontage. Maximum 15 feet above parapet wall, Same as C-1. Same as C-1 Same as C-1. Maximum sign area for businesses with more than one street frontage is the same as C-1. roof or ridge line of building, whichever is less. Manhattan Beach Area Districts I and II. .Business identification, business address, identification of No limit. Regulations the same for all signs in Area Districts I and 30 feet above roof for projecting roof Projection depends on type of sign since projecting sign is For internally illuminated facia signs, maximum Regulations the same for all signs in principal activity/ II- See Wall Matrix. signs; 30 feet considered a secondary 150 ft. commercial product/ service above pole base sign characteristic. lamberts. For districts- See (may include logos and other descriptive graphic devices). for projecting free-standing signs. Free-standing signs, pole signs, wall signs and roof signs may not project over the public right-of-way more than internally illuminated free standing or roof signs, maximum 300 lamberts. Wall Sign Matrix. 12 inches. Signs placed on awnings may not project over the public right-of-way more than 3 ft. Each business is allowed one non -illuminated business identification sign with a maximum 3 ft. projection from building wall. For floodlighted signs, maximum 50 ft. candles for low reflectant copy and 20 ft. candles for high reflectant copy. Manhattan Area Districts Same as Area Districts Same as Area Regulations the same 15 feet above Same as Area Districts For internally Same as Area Beach III and IV. I and II. Districts I and II. for all signs in Area Districts III and IV See Wall pole base for free-standing signs. I and II. illuminated facia signs, maximum 100 lamberts. Districts I and II. Sign Matrix. For internally illuminated free- standing or roof signs, maximum 200 lamberts. For floodlighted signs,• • maximum 100 ft. candles for low reflectant copy and 50 ft. candles for high reflectant copy. Redondo Beach Community Shopping Center and Neighborhood Shopping Center Districts only. No specific regulations. No limit. Depends upon type of sign, e.g. wall sign, hanging/ suspended sign, or free-standing/ pole sign. Sign projection is considered a secondary sign characteristic. Depends upon type of sign: projection is considered a secondary sign characteristic. Wall signs: two 16 inches from building or wall. Hanging/ suspended signs: 32175 the length of tha awning, canopy, or parapet projection. Free -standing/ pole signs: 3 ft. over public right -of way. No specific regulations. Regulations the same for all signs in commercial districts -See Wall Sign Matra. Redondo Beach General Commercial District only. No specific regulations. No Limit. One sq. ft. for each linear ft. of building frontage. 5 ft. above roof line or building parapet (parapet defined as not exceeding 6 feet above eaves of roof line). 3 ft. over public right-of-way. No specfic regulations. Same as Community Shopping Center and Neighborhood Districts. Torrance All No specifc regulations. One per each commercial development. One sq. ft. of sign area for each linear ft. of property frontage up to a maximum of 100 sq. ft. 4 feet from any wall face. Maximum one foot projection over public property with minimum 8 ft. clearance, with additional one inch projection for every 2 inches of additional clearance over 8 ft. up to maximum 4 ft. projection. No sign shall project into any alley below a height of 14 feet above grade or more than 12 inches when over 14 ft. No specifc regulations. Regulations the same for all signs in commercial districts - See Wall Sign Matrix. Rancho Palos Verdes CL, CN, CP, and CR only. Regulations the same for all signs in commercial districts- See Wall Sign Matrix. No specific limits on projecting signs; only one major identification sign per street frontage. One sq. ft. per linear ft. of building frontage, up to a maximum of 75 sq. ft. Eave line of parapet of building. On -premises; signs in public right-of-way prohibited unless authorized by Planning Director. Regulations the same for all signs in commercial districts -See Wall Sign Matrix. Regulations the same for all signs in commercial districts -See Wall Sign Matrix. Rancho Palos Verdes CG only. No specifc restrictions on sign content. Same as CL, CN, CP and CR districts. One sq. ft. per linear ft. of building frontage, up to a maximum of 100 sq. ft. Same as CL, CN, CP, and CR districts. Same as CL, CN, CP, and CR districts. During and up to one hour past business hours of operation, or until 12:00 midnight, whichever is later. The 30 day waiting period for final approval after installation same as CL, CN, CP, and CR districts. Same as CL, CN, CP, and CR, districts. Long Beach All Limited to the identification of business and a total of 2 principal products or services sold on the premises. One per street frontage or parking lot frontage pn an adjacent property. One sq. ft. per linear ft. of building frontage. One-third (1/3) above the height of the lowest points of the roof or parapet, nor 15 ft. above grade, whichever is less. No projecting sign shall be located closer to any side property line thanl/3 the width of the street frontage or 25 ft., whichever is less. If any portion of a projecting sign is located above a second floor windowsill line, it shall be located Regulation the same for all signs in commercial districts- See Wall Sign Matrix. Regulation the same for all signs in commercial districts- See Wall Sign Matrix. rdi a distance away from any such window equal to twice the projection of the sign from the wall in which the window is located. No sign may project into a public right-of-way unless an encroachment permit has been issued. No sign shall project into an adjointing private property under separate ownership. Maximum sign projections based on clearance from ground: signs with at least 8 ft. but less than 11 ft. in height -maximum 2 ft. projection; with additional 1/2 ft. projection allowed for every additional ft. of height, up to maximum 4 ft projection for sign 14-15 ft. above grade. Lakewood All No specifc regulations. No limit. 4 sq. ft. per sign face. Top of wall, parapet or roofline, as applicable. Hawthorne All No specific regulations. One projecting sign per 3 sq. ft. for each linear foot of Roofline of building, provided Projecting signs shall have a minimum clearence above grade of 8 ft. over walkway and 12 ft. over driveways. Maximum projection of 18 inches. Maximum one ft. projection with Regulations the same for all signs in commercial districts- See Wall Sign Matrix. Regulations the same for all signs in commercial districts- See Wall Sign Matrix. No specific regulations. Regulations the same for all development. qualified street frontage. that a projecting sign may extend to a maximum height of 60 ft. above ground if the roof is less than 40 feet above ground. A conditional use permit shall be required for any sign more than 40 feet above ground. minimum 8 ft. dearance over any public street, public sidewalk, or other public property (excluding alleys), or beyond a building line, with an additional one inch projection for each additional 2 inches of ground clearance up to a maximum projection of 3 ft. No sign may project more than 6 inches from the building face over private property used or Intended to be used by the general public unless there is a minimum of 8 feet dearence from the the siadewalk or grade, or a minimum of 14 ft. clearance from the vehicular trafficway. signs in commercial districts -See Wall Sign Matrix. Gardena All Regulations the same for all signs in commercial districts - See Wall Sign Matrix. One projecting sign per business. One sq. ft. of sign area for each linear ft. of building frontage for a single occupancy on a parcel or each tenancy in all business center, not to exceed 50 sq. ft. No specific height regulations beyond the requirement that no projecting sign shall extend more than 5 ft. from the wall to which it Is attached. Maximum one foot projection with minimum 8 ft. clearance over any public street, public sidewalk, or other public property, or beyond a building line, with an additional 6 inches of projection for each additional one ft. of clearance up to a Regulations the same for all signs in commercial districts- See Wall Sign Matrix. Regulations the same for all signs in commercial districts- See Wall Sign Matrix. 4 maximum projection of 5 ft. Newport Beach All No specifc regulations. One projecting sign per building or building site. 2 sq. ft. per linear foot of building frontage, up to a maximum of 200 sq. ft. No specifc height regulations for projecting signs beyond the maximum projection of 5 ft. Maximum one linear ft. projection with minimum 8 ft clearance, with additional one ft. projection for each additional 2 ft. of clearance up to a maximum projection of 5 ft. No sign shall project within 2 ft. of the curb line. The thickness of any portion of a sign which projects over public property or beyond a building line is based on the following: 5 ft. projection -maximum 2 ft. thichness; 4 ft. projection - maximum 2 ft. 8 inches thickness; 3 ft. projection - maximum 3 ft. 4 inches projection; 2 ft. projection - maximum 4 ft. projection. Regulations are the same for all signs in commercial districts- See Wall Matrix. Regulations are the same for all signs in commercial districts- See Wall Matrix. Irvine All No specifc regulations. One per street or parking lot frontage. 4 sq. ft. Maximum height of 20 ft. or eave line, whichever is less. Must be attached to permanent building. Maximum projection must be within maximum area of 4 sq. ft. Prohibited. Regulations the same for all signs in commercial - district- See Wall Matrix. Santa Monica All Not applicable. None Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Projecting signs are prohibited. Traffic enginer must ensure that sign placement Santa Barbara All No specific regulations. Regulations are the same for all signs Regulations are the same for all signs Regulations are the same for all signs Minimum ground clearance of 7 ft. and may project no more No specific regulations. in commercial districts -See Wall Matrix. in commercial districts -See Wall Matrix. in commercial districts -See Wall Matrix. than 4 ft. into the public right-of-way. Projecting sign for business in the second story of building permitted only if business has separate street or public parking lot entrance and only if sign is placed at entrance. would not adversely affect traffic or pedestrian saftey; this applies to both projecting and ground signs. All other regulations the same for all signs in commercial districts- See Wall Sign Matrix. 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Michael Schubach, PlannjY4 ctor SUBJECT: Sign Ordinance - Planning Commission Recommendation re: Primary/Secondary Frontage DATE: March 9, 1993 Because of an apparent discrepancy between the proposed language of sub -section (5) (on pages 27, 30, and 33 of the proposed ordinance) as adopted by the Commission on 2/16/93, and their actual intent when making the motion at their 2/2/93 meeting, staff had to go back and review the audio and video tapes from the 2/2/93 meeting. It is apparent that the Commission actually wanted to delete secondary on line 7 of the sub -section, based on the final amended motion of Commissioner DiMonda after testimony from Mr. Frost of "Coast Drug." As such, additional frontage facing a public/private parking lot, open mall, or landscaped open space was desired to be allowed also as primary building frontage, allowing full signage to be placed on both the street side and the side fronting on a public parking lot, mall, or landscaped open space. The Council can keep secondary in the paragraph, or delete secondary which was the intent of the Commission. Staff's recommendation, as explained in the report, is to not adopt the Commissions' recommendations to change these sections regarding primary/secondary frontage. NOT . Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager p/memo6 1 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 5 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT 93-2 el -L44 -/k March 3, 1993 Regular Meeting of March 9, 1993 PURPOSE: TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 13-6 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PERTAINING TO RECONSTRUCTION OF DAMAGED NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation The attached ordinance to amend Section 13-6 be introduced for adoption. Background At the meeting of of September 24, 1991, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to study possible amendments to Section 13-6 with respect to damaged nonconforming structures. This issue originated as a result of the Building Director's request to the City Attorney to interpret whether Section 13-6 applied equally to condominiums and apartments. The Planning Commission has since discussed the issue on several occasions (6 public meetings) to develop consensus on the matter. At their meeting of March 2, 1993, the Planning Commission voted 5:0 to recommend adoption of an amendment, as attached. For further background please refer to the previous Planning Commission staff reports_ and minutes. Analysis The proposed ordinance would make Section 13-6 generally less restrictive than currently written, as it would allow damaged nonconforming residential structures to be rebuilt whatever the extent of the damage. Currently, a nonconforming structure which is damaged more than 50% cannot, in any case, be restored to its previous nonconforming state. This applies whether that nonconformity, for example, is an excessive number of units, or simply a deficient setback. The proposed ordinance would allow exceptions to this rule for residential structures, whatever the amount of damage, upon request and approval by the Planning Commission. The Commission would review a request for an exception on a case by case basis following a set of guidelines which addresses such matters as the degree of nonconformity; whether a building can be replicated in conformance with current building, safety and fire codes; and whether the damage was intentionally caused by arson or other means. Further, the rebuilt structure would be made to conform - 1 - as much as possible with current zoning standards such as parking, setbacks, and/or open space. For example, under the proposed ordinance, owners of a multiple unit condominium which is nonconforming to density, would have the opportunity to rebuild their units and not be forced to seek residence elsewhere. Also, the rebuilt structure would be made conform as much as possible when rebuilt. This could potentially address problems associated with deficient parking or other concerns created by some older projects. The Commission has also added new. language, at their last meeting, that would make an exception to the rule that otherwise allows restoration of buildings damaged less than 50%. This added. exception to sub -section A, would require Planning Commission approval to restore a nonconforming aspect of a building even if the overall destruction is less than 50%. The intent is the make the restored aspect (for example, a substandard garage, or a protrusion into a setback) more conforming if possible, when its rebuilt. Staff and the Commission have worked on the language of the proposed ordinance for several months, and 6 public meetings have been held on the matter. Although staff believes the current ordinance is satisfactory in addressing the issue of reconstructing damage structures, the proposed changes are a reasonable alternative approach towards making the ordinance less restrictive for residential structures, which was the apparent intent of the Council when this study was initiated. Please note that the Commission was interested in giving benefit to owner -occupied housing or condominium type ownership, when making a decision if a structure could be rebuilt, as opposed to a tenant occupied apartment building. Based on the advise of the City Attorney's office, however, this type of benefit would potentially be discriminatory and was not recommended. For further analysis please refer to the attached staff reports. CONCUR: Michael Schubach Pla1nning Directgr Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager Attachments en Robertson, Associate Planner. 1. Proposed Ordinance _ 2. Section 13-6 as currently written 3. P.C. Staff Reports and minutes w/attachments 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 93 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT, SECTION 13-6, PERTAINING TO THE RECONSTRUCTION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND THE ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on March 9 1993, to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission to amend Section 13-6 and to receive oral and written testimony and made the following Findings: A. Rules regarding the reconstruction of nonconforming residential buildings should be written to respect individual property rights and the right for individuals and families to restore damaged homes while at the same time encourage an require rebuilding to conform with current codes when appropriate; B. Section 13-6 currently allows rebuilding only if damage does not exceed 50% of the replacement cost of the entire buildin without exception, which is overly restrictive; C. An environmental assessment has been conducted, and th proposed amendments have been found to qualify for a environmental negative declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermos Beach, California, does hereby ordain that the zoning ordinanc text be amended as follows: SECTION I: Amend Section 13-6 to read as follows: "Reconstruction of a damaged nonconforming building A. A nonconforming building damaged to the extent of no more than fifty (50) percent of reasonable replacemen cost at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion, or other casualty or Act of God, or the public enemy, may be restored and the occupancy or use of suc building or part thereof which existed at the time o such partial destruction may be continued subject to al other provisions of this article. 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 1. Exception: If only a nonconforming aspect of building is damaged, regardless of the value of the damage, approval by the Planning Commission i required to restore such nonconforming -aspect. Thi review and approval by the Commission is necessar to mitigate or minimize the nonconforming aspect as much as possible. B. A nonconforming building damaged more than fifty (50) percent of reasonable replacement cost at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion, or other casualty o Act of God, or the public enemy, shall not be restored except in full conformity with the regulations for the zone in which it is located and the nonconforming occupancy or use of such building shall not be resumed. 1. Exceptions: Nonconforming residential buildings located in residential zones may be restore whatever the extent of the damage if approved by the Planning Commission based on the guidelines set fort below; provided that the rebuilt structure is made as conforming as possible in terms of parking standards and/or other zoning standards such as setbacks;_ an further provided there is no increase in an nonconformity. a) The density of the buildings or buildings on site does not exceed forty-five (45) units per acre b) The height of the building or buildings does no exceed twenty (20) percent more than permitted b the zone in which it is located; c) The basic structural features, setbacks, floo area, room sizes can be duplicated in complianc with current building and safety codes d) The cause of the destruction is..not intentiona through arson or other means C. The extent of damage or partial destruction shall b based on the ratio of the estimated cost of restorin the structure to its conditions prior to such damage o partial destruction to the estimated cost of duplicatin the entire structure as it existed prior thereto. Estimates shall be made or shall be reviewed an approved by the Director of Building and Safety an shall be based the International Conference of Buildin Officials data. D. Disputes as to the interpretation of the provisions o - this .Section or any requested waiver of sub -section B(1) for residential structures in residential zones shall b heard and resolved by the Planning Commission, subjec to appeal to the City Council. The sub -section B.1(d) cannot be waived. • 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 E. If damage to structures is so widespread throughout the city due to a major emergency (such as a earthquake or citywide fire) that the City Council or other government authority declares a State of Emergency, this Section will be superseded by any action of the City Council taken at that time in regards to reconstruction of damaged buildings." 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. 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 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 1993, by following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: day of PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY - S - 1 2 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 93-9 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO RECOMMEND AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT, SECTION 13-6, PERTAINING TO THE RECONSTRUCTION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND. THE ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL . NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on February 16 and March 2 1993, to consider oral and written testimony and made the following Findings: A. Rules regarding the reconstruction of nonconforming residential buildings should be written to respect individual property rights and the right for individuals and families to restore damaged homes while at the same time encourage and require rebuilding to conform with current codes when appropriate; B. Section 13-6 currently allows rebuilding only if damage does not exceed 50% of the replacement cost of the entire building without exception, which is overly restrictive; C. An environmental assessment has been conducted, and the proposed amendments have been found to qualify for a environmental negative declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermos. Beach, California, does hereby ordain that the zoning ordinance text be amended as follows: SECTION I: Amend Section 13-6 to read as follows: "Reconstruction of a damaged nonconforming building A. A nonconforming building damaged to the extent of no more than fifty (50) percent of reasonable replacemen cost �at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion, or other casualty or Act of God, or the public enemy, may be restored and the occupancy or use of suc to 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 building or part thereof which existed at the time of such partial destruction -may be continued subject to all other provisions of this article. 1. Exception: If only a nonconforming aspect of a building is damaged, regardless of the value of the damage, approval by the Planning Commission is required to restore such nonconforming aspect. This review and approval by the Commission is necessary to mitigate or minimize the nonconforming aspect as much as possible. B. A nonconforming building damaged more than fifty (50) percent of reasonable replacement cost at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion, or other casualty or Act of God, or the public enemy, shall not be restored except in full conformity with the regulations for the zone in which it is located and the nonconforming occupancy or use of such building shall not be resumed. 1. Exceptions: Nonconforming residential buildings located in residential zones may be restored whatever the extent of the damage if approved by the Planning Commission based on the guidelines set forth below; provided that the rebuilt structure is made as conforming as possible in terms of parking standards and/or other zoning standards such as setbacks; and further provided there is no increase in any nonconformity. a) The density of the buildings or buildings on site does not exceed forty-five (45) units per acre b) The height of the building or buildings does not exceed twenty (20) percent more than permitted by the zone in which it is located; c) The basic structural features, setbacks, floor area, room sizes can be duplicatedin compliance with current building and safety codes d) The cause of the destruction is not intentional through arson or other means C. The extent of damage or partial destructionshall b based on the ratio of the estimated cost of restorin the structure to its conditions prior to such damage o partial destruction to the estimated cost of duplicatin the entire structure as it existed prior thereto Estimates shall be made or shall be reviewed an approved by the Director of Building and Safety an shall be based the International Conference of Buildin Officials data. 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 D. Disputes as to the interpretation of the provisions of this Section or any requested waiver of sub -section B(1) for residential structures in residential zones shall be heard and resolved by the Planning Commission, subject to appeal to the City Council. The sub -section B.1(d) cannot be waived. E. If damage to structures. is so widespread throughout the city due to a major emergency (such as a earthquake or citywide fire) that the City Council or other government authority declares a State of Emergency, this Section will be superseded by any action of the City Council taken at that time in regards to reconstruction of damaged buildings." VOTE: AYES: Comms.Marks,Merl,Oakes,Suard,Chmn.Di Monda NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 93-9 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, Californja at their regular meeting of March 2, 1993. Joseph DiMonda, Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary Date p/persnon § 13-6 HERMOSA BEACH CPTY CODE § 13-6 Sec. 13-6. Reconstruction of nonconforming building par- tially destroyed. A nonconforming building destroyed to the extent of not more than fifty (50) percent of its reasonable replacement value at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion or other casualty or Act of God, or the public enemy, may be restored and the occupancy or use of such building or part thereof which existed at the time of such partial destruction may be continued subject to all other provisions of this article. The International Conference of Building Officials data shall be used in computing value. (Ord. No. 89-1008, § 8, 9-26-89) 9 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission (CONTINUED FROM THE 2/16/93 MEETINGS) SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT 93-2 January 27, 1993 Regular Meeting of /'M,z.0 z, / 9 9 3 PURPOSE: TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 13-6 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PERTAINING TO RECONSTRUCTION OF DAMAGED NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation To recommend to the City Council to amend Section 13-6 as set forth in one of the attached resolutions. (Staff prefers alternative B) Background At the meeting of February 16, 1993 the Planning Commission continued this item, and assigned Commissioner Suard to meet with staff to further work on the language of the proposed changes. prior to final adoption. For further background please refer to the previous Planning Commission staff reports and minutes. Analysis Attached are three alternative resolutions for,. adoption. Alternative A, is staff's original proposed resolution presented at the last meeting. Alternative B, is a staff proposed resolution, revised to incorporate some of the concerns of Commissioner Suard as discussed with him since the last meeting. Alternative C, is Commissioner Suard's recommendation. The main change in B is that Planning Commission review is proposed to be required for all' exceptions to the 50% rule. Thus, whether or not the "guidelines" are met will be judged by the Commission on a case by case basis. Also, in regards to the guideline relating to height, staff has used the suggestion to base it on 20% above the height limit for the zone in which the building is located rather than an absolute height of.45 feet. Staff believes Planning Commission review of all exception cases is appropriate, given their infrequency, and prefers having the Commission making the judgement calls on each individual case rather than staff. 1 1 c c Alternative C incorporates all the modifications recommended by Commissioner Suard. It also requires Commission review of all exception requests, but goes much further in attempting to define and specify what circumstances warrant granting exceptions, amongst several other changes; and, further it attempts to give beneficial treatment to damaged structures that are owner occupied. At the same time it attempts to make the decision as to what, and how much can be rebuilt negotiable, based on "feasibility" of improving conformance and cost considerations. In contrast, the decision to rebuild, and what to rebuild under alternatives A & B is based more on whether or not the pre-existing structure can be duplicated or at least rebuilt in a similar way; if it cannot, then it should be rebuilt to meet all codes. Staff does not prefer the modifications in C as we believe that these changes would in some cases result in nonconformities being perpetuated where the rebuilt structure or structures do not even resemble what was destroyed, and further, the guidelines and added language complicate and lengthen the ordinance. In our judgement if the Planning Commission is to review each case, it is not necessary to create complicated and cumbersome rules and regulations. This is especially true for this ordinance which will likely have very infrequent application, and because each case will likely be very unique. Further staff believes giving beneficial treatment to owner -occupants is discriminatory and potentially illegal. For further analysis please refer to the attacheddtastaff reports. 2(---- obertson, Associate Planner CO► UR Michael chubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Alternative Resolutions 2. P.C. Minutes 2/2/93 & 1/19/932/I93 3. Previous P.C. Staff Report w/attachments WILLIAM B. BARR CHARLES S. VOSE CONNIE COOKE SANDIFER JAMES DUFF MURPHY ROGER W. SPRINGER EDWARD W. LEE HERIBERTO F. DIAZ JANICE R. MIYAHIRA BETH S. BERGMAN LAW OFFICES OLIVER, BARR & VOSE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1000 SUNSET BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 (213) 250-3043 MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Schubach, Planning Director Ken Robertson, Associate Planner FROM: Steven B� Quintanilla, City Attorney's Office DATE: March 2, 1993 TELECOPIER 1215) 482-5336 RECEIVED MAR 2 1993 PLANNING DEPT. RE: Proposed Text Amendment to Section 13-2 regarding. reconstruction of nonconforming use structures for only owner occupied residential buildings, PURPOSE You requested that our office provide some legal guidance regarding whether the City may discriminate between owners of owner -occupied residential unit(s) and owners. of non -owner occupied (e.g. renters) residential unit(s) in its nonconforming use ordinance. ISSUE Will the above ordinance as amended be subject to litigation on the ground that it discriminates against a class of persons? DISCUSSION I understand that the City plans to amend its nonconforming use ordinance to allow owners of owner -occupied nonconforming residential units to rebuild if 50% of their building is destroyed, whereas owners of non -owner occupied buildings , will not be permitted to rebuild under the same circumstances. - /2 - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION OLIVER, BARR & VOSE This type of ordinance has yet to be challenged in the California Courts. However, the fact that such an ordinance has not yet been challenged does not mean that such an ordinance will not be challenged in the future. State Law--Gov9rnment Code § 65008 Pursuant to Section 65008, subdivision (C)(1) of the Government Code, a city is prohibited from enacting an ordinance which discriminates against a residential development because the residential development is intended for occupancy by persons or families of low and moderate income'. The reason I cite the above law is that it is reasonably conceivable that an individual or organization may challenge the proposed ordinance because of its discriminatory effect on those of low and moderate income. In California, the standard for challenging an ordinance on the basis of discrimination against those of low and moderate income is somewhat liberal. Whereas, the federal court in this District under the Equal protection clause may require a showing of "discriminatory intent", the state courts under the Government Code require merely a showing of "discriminatory effect". (Eel Keith v. Volpe (1985) 618 F.Supp. 1132.) Discriminatory effect, relatively speaking, is a minor burden to bear. All a plaintiff would have to prove is that the majority of renters in the City of Hermosa are in the low to middle income groups, as defined by the Government Code, and that the ordinance if put into effect would have an impact on the availability of housing for those of low and moderate income. Federal Law --Equal Protection Now, assuming that a Court provides standing to a plaintiff of low or moderate income to challenge the ordinance on the ground that it discriminates on the basis of income, the plaintiff will likely win the suit under the Equal Protection clause of the federal constitution. Under the Equal Protection clause, the courts in California will subject a suit alleging discrimination against low and moderate income to the "strict scrutiny" test. Essentially, this test if applied will require the City to show that the ordinance serves a "compelling government interest". This in practice is a very difficult obstacle to overcome. ' Govt. Code § 65008, subd. (c)(2) defines "middle income" as persons and families whose income does not exceed 150 percent of the median income for the County in which the persons or families reside. /3— OLIVER, BARR & VOSE RECOMMENDATION In light of the foregoing, the City Attorney's office cannot recommend that the nonconforming use ordinance be amended in the manner above. If the ordinance is amended as such, it is highly probable that the ordinance can be challenged in a court of law on the basis that it violates Section 65008 of the Government Code and/or the Equal Protection clause of the United States Constitution. 14190 ALTERNATIVE A SECTION I: Amend Section 13-6 to read as follows: Reconstruction of a damaged nonconforming building A. A nonconforming building damaged to the extent of not more than fifty (50) percent of reasonable replacement cost at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion, or other casualty or Act of God, or the public enemy, may be restored and the occupancy or use of such building or part thereof which existed at the time of such partial destruction may be continued subject to all other provisions of this article. B. A nonconforming building damaged more than fifty (50) percent of reasonable replacement cost at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion, or other casualty or Act of God, or the public enemy, shall not be restored except in full conformity with the regulations for the zone in which it is located and the nonconforming occupancy or use of such building shall not be resumed. 1. Exceptions: Nonconforming residential buildings which meet all the standards set forth below, located in residential zones may be restored to the density, floor area, and height that existed prior to the destruction, whatever the extent of the damage, upon the issuance of building permits and in compliance with current building and safety codes; provided that if feasible the rebuilt structure is made more conforming in terms of parking standards and/or other zoning standards such as setbacks; and further provided there is no increase in any nonconformity. a) The original structure was constructed less than forty (40) years prior to the destruction b) The density of the buildings or buildings on site does not exceed forty-five (45) units per acre c) The height does not exceed 45 feet d) The basic structural features, setbacks, floor area, room sizes can easily be duplicated in compliance with current building and safety codes e) The cause of the destruction is not intentional through arson or other means C. The extent of damage or partial destruction shall be based on the ratio of the estimated cost of restoring the structure to its conditions prior to such damage or partial destruction to the estimated cost of duplicating the entire structure as it existed prior thereto. Estimates shall be made or shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Building and Safety and shall be based the International Conference of Building Officials data. D. Disputes as to the interpretation of the provisions of this Section or any requested waiver of sub -section B(1) for residential structures in residential zones shall be heard and resolved by the Planning Commission, subject to appeal to the City Council. E. If damage to structures is so widespread throughout the city due to a major emergency (such as a earthquake or citywide fire) that the City Council or other government authority declares a State. of Emergency, this Section will be superseded by any action of the City Council taken at that time in regards to reconstruction of damaged buildings. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, P.C. 93-13 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of February 16, 1993. Rod Merl, Chairman. Michael Schubach,.Secretary Date p/persnon ALTERNATIVE B SECTION I: Amend Section 13-6 to read as follows: Reconstruction of a damaged nonconforming building A. A nonconforming building damaged to the extent of not more than fifty (50) percent of reasonable replacement cost at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion, or other casualty or Act of God, or the public enemy, may be restored and the occupancy or use of such building or part thereof which existed at the time of such partial destruction may be continued subject to all other provisions of this article. B. A nonconforming building damaged more than fifty (50) percent of reasonable replacement cost at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion, or other casualty or Act of God, or the public enemy, shall not be restored except in full conformity with the regulations for the zone in which it is located and the nonconforming occupancy or use of such building shall not be resumed. 1. Exceptions: Nonconforming residential buildings located in residential zones may be restored whatever the extent of the damage if approved by the Planning Commission based on the guidelines set forth below; provided that the rebuilt structure is made as conforming as possible in terms of parking standards and/or other zoning standards such as setbacks; and further provided there is no increase in any nonconformity. a) The density of the buildings or buildings on site does not exceed forty-five (45) units per acre b) The height of the building or buildings does not. exceed twenty (20) percent more than permitted by the zone in which it is located; c) The basic structural features, setbacks, floor area, room sizes can easily be duplicated in compliance with current building and safety codes d) The cause of the destruction is not intentional through arson or other means C. The extent of damage or partial destruction shall be based on the ratio of the estimated cost of restoring the structure to its conditions prior to such damage or partial destruction to the estimated cost of duplicating the entire structure as it existed prior thereto. Estimates shall be made or shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Building and Safety and shall be based the International Conference of Building Officials data. D. Disputes as to the interpretation of the provisions of this Section or any requested waiver of sub -section B(1) for residential structures in residential zones shall be heard and resolved by the Planning Commission, subject to appeal to the City Council. E. If damage to structures is so widespread throughout the city due to a major emergency (such as a earthquake or citywide fire) that_the City Council or other government authority declares a State of Emergency, this Section will be superseded by any action of the City Council taken at that time in regards to reconstruction of damaged buildings. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 93-9 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 March 2, 1993. Rod Merl, Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary Date p/persnon ALTERNATIVE C (Suard's Recommendation) SECTION I: Amend Section 13-6 to read as follows: Reconstruction of a damaged nonconforming building A. A nonconforming building damaged to the extent of not more than fifty (50) percent of reasonable replacement cost of either: (a) its structural and basic building parts (excluding cosmetic surfaces, fixtures, etc.) or, (b) any nonconforming individual feature (i.e. deck, wall, room, roof, etc.), at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion, or other casualty, Act of God, or the public enemy, may be restored and the occupancy or use of such building or part thereof which was legally constructed and existed at the time of such partial destruction may be continued subject to all other provisions of this article. Any illegal additions done without approved plans/permits cannot be restored and must be removed or permitted upon their discovery. B. A nonconforming building or individual nonconforming feature damaged more than fifty (50) percent of reasonable replacement cost of its structural and basic building parts at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion, or other casualty, Act of God, or the public enemy, shall not be restored except in full conformity with the regulations for the zone in which it is located and the nonconforming occupancy or use of such building shall not be resumed. 1. Exceptions: Nonconforming residential buildings may be allowed to exceed certain zoning requirements, whatever the extent of the damage, if. approved by the Planning Commission based on the following guidelines; provided that the rebuilt structure is made as conforming as possible in terms of all zoning standards (such as parking, height, setbacks, etc.) where determined to be feasible and at a reasonable cost by the Planning Commission, and; further provided that there is no increase in any nonconformity. a) There are pre-existing plans that were approved by the City showing what legally existed before the damage; b) There is a special hardship on the owner or owners (other than decrease in property value or income) such as: (a) one or more owners would lose their home (primary place of residence); or, (b) the c c nonconforming problem is not interfering with any part of the community and the cost of correcting it would far exceed any benefit. c) The number of units to be rebuilt does not exceed one hundred (100) percent more than permitted by the zone in which the property is located, except that it shall not be less than the number of the immediately pre-existing owner occupied units. (The floor area of each unit in these cases may be reduced by up to 20% to allow closer compliance with other zoning requirements); d) The height of the building or buildings does not exceed approximately twenty (20) percent more than permitted by the zone in which it is located; e) All building features to be reconstructed must meet current Building and Safety code requirements. Any basic structural features, parking, setbacks, etc., that can feasibly be replaced in compliance with current zoning requirements will be. For the purpose of this section, 'feasibly means no out of the ordinary construction means or techniques shall be required which would make the cost to meet zoning requirements significantly exceed (i.e. 125% or more) of the normal cost to provide that item for that type of building. f) The cause of the destruction is not intentional through arson or other means. g) The development on the site is not significantly incompatible or inconsistent with or hindering to buildings on adjacent properties and those within 150 feet of it. C. The percentage of damage or partial destruction shall be based on the ratio of the estimated cost of restoring the basic structure (i.e. without cosmetic surfaces and fixtures) to its conditions prior to such damage or... partial destruction, to the estimated cost of duplicating the entire basic structure as it existed prior thereto. Estimates shall be made or shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Building and Safety and shall be based the International Conference of Building Officials data.. Note: the 50% destruction of structural items correlates to much higher percentage (about. 75%) if cosmetic and more quality variable items were included. D. Disputes as to the interpretation of the provisions of this Section or any requested waiver shall be heard and resolved by the Planning Commission, subject to appeal to the City Council. E. If damage to structures is so widespread throughout the city due to a major emergency (such as an earthquake or citywide fire) that the City Council or other government authority declares a State of Emergency, this Section including the Planning Commission guidelines may become the standard if desired by the City Council or it may be superseded by any action of the City Council taken at that time in regards to reconstruction of damaged buildings. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 93-13 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 March 2, 1993. Rod Merl, Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary Date p/persnons B4cKCRavND MM TFR/AC January 27, 1993 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission February 16, 1993 SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT 93-2 PURPOSE: TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 13-6 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PERTAINING TO RECONSTRUCTION OF DAMAGED NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation To recommend to the City Council to amend Section 13-6 as set forth in the attached resolution. Alternatives 1. To modify the proposed ordinance as desired by the Commission 2. Add language to require Planning Commission review of all cases of residential destruction of greater than 50% Background At the meeting of February 2, 1993 the Planning Commission directed staff to set this matter for public hearing for consideration of a text amendment. At the meeting of January 19, 1993, the Planning Commission considered the recommendation of staff to maintain section 13-6 as its currently written, but instead gave staff general direction to amend the section. The Commission suggested making the requirements for rebuilding damaged nonconforming residential structures less restrictive. For further background please refer to the previous Planning Commission staff reports and minutes. Analysis. Attached is a proposed resolution for adoption as presented at the last meeting. For further analysis please refer to the attached staff reports. -2Z- Staff would like to note that in discussing the proposed ordinance with the Building Director, that he generally supports the changes, but is not comfortable with staff having to make judgement calls as to what is "feasible" to make more conforming under sub -section B(1). His suggestion is that each case of residential destruction of more than 50% be a discretionary review by the Planning Commission. In this way the Commission would not only be able to waive the exceptions of sub -section B, but in their judgement on each case, perhaps be more restrictive. Further he noted how rare these cases are, and thus if each was subject for review by the Commission it sY�,ould not be a burden. CONCUR: r , Michael Schubach Planning Director // 1 / en R::e tson, Associate Planner Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution 2. P.C. Minutes 2/2/93 &.1/19/93 3. Previous P.C. Staff Report w/attachments January 27, 1993 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission February 2, 1993 (CONTINUED FROM THE 8/18/92 AND 1/19/93 MEETING) SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 91-4 AND TEXT AMENDMENT 93-2 PURPOSE: TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 13-6 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PERTAINING TO RECONSTRUCTION OF DAMAGED NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation Based on the direction of the Planning Commission, set for public hearing on February 16, 1993, to amend Section 13-6 pursuant to the attached resolution. Background At the meeting of January 19, 1993, the Planning Commission considered the recommendation of staff to maintain section 13-6 as its currently written, but instead gave staff general direction to amend the section. The Commission suggested making the requirements for rebuilding damaged nonconforming residential structures less restrictive. For further background please refer to the previous Planning Commission staff reports and minutes. Analysis Attached is a proposed resolution for adoption. Please review carefully and modify as deemed appropriate before forwarding to the City Council. Staff emphasizes that these are suggestions based on the very general direction given by the Commission at the last meeting. The proposed language in the attached resolution is a combination of the City's current ordinance where all nonconforming situations can be re-established if damage is less than 50%, with added exceptions for residential structures unless they are very old or extremely nonconforming to density or height, or are out of conformance with current building standards in such a way that the essential structure cannot be replicated. Further, a provision has been included that the ordinance would not apply when damage to structures is widespread throughout the -24 - 14 city due to a major emergency (such as a citywide earthquake or fire) and a state of emergency is declared. CONCUR: M'ch e Schubac Planning Director Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution 2. P.C. Staff Reports w/attachments Robertson, Associate Planner January 5, 1993 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission January 19, 1993 (CONTINUED FROM THE 8/18/92 MEETING) SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 91-4 PURPOSE: TO EXAMINE SECTION 13-6 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PERTAINING TO RECONSTRUCTION OF DAMAGED NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES, FOR POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation . Staff again recommends that the Commission forward this item to the Council with a recommendation that Section 13-6 be maintained as it is currently written. Alternatives Direct Staff to set this issue for public hearing for any amendments selected from the options discussed below, briefly summarized as follows, or any other suggestions of the Commission: A. Minor Modification: Add a statement specifying that disputes in interpreting the provisions of the section shall be heard and resolved by the Planning Commission subject to appeal to theCity Council. B. Major Modification: Establish a different set of rules and restrictions which take into account the severity of the pre-existing nonconformities, age of structures, and degree of nonconforming density, and involve the Planning -Commission in one of the following two ways: 1) Only when there is a dispute between staff and the property owner in regards to interpretation 2) In all cases. C. Exemption: Exempt certain damaged non -conforming residential structures (for example, those which do not exceed 45 units per acre) from the 50% rule; Background The Planning Commission, at the meeting of August 18, 1992, considered the recommendation of staff to maintain section 13-6 as its currently written, but continued this item for additional discussion on categories of nonconformities, the valuation used _ 26_ 1 1 in the 50% determination, and the impact on multiple owners of condominiums. For further background please refer to the previous Planning Commission staff report and minutes, and City Attorney discussion of this matter. Analysis MEASURING DAMAGE In the previous report, staff summarized the Building Department's calculation method, pursuant to Section 13-6, in regards to an office building partially destroyed by fire at 601 P.C.H. The total "reasonable replacement value" of the structure was calculated based on the International Conference of Building Officials valuation for that type of structure, based on the total square footage of the building and multiplied by a per square -foot valuation figure, it calculated to be $107,000. To calculate the percentage of the structure "destroyed" the cost of repairing the building to its previous state was estimated based on inspection of the building, and on repair plans submitted by the owner. This estimate was calculated to be $40,000, or, 37% of "reasonable replacement value." As a result, the building was allowed to be reconstructed. The only further information staff can provide is the valuation sheet prepared by the I.C.B.O., as requested by the Commission, which is the basis for making the first calculation. The valuation figures take into account the type of structure and regional adjustment factors (copy attached). In sum staff has not discovered anything faulty or lacking in the application of Section 13-6. MULTIPLE UNIT CONDOMINIUMS The issue of rebuilding condominiums with multiple owners has been discussed frequently in the past. Essentially, based on the opinion of our City Attorney nonconforming multi -unit buildings, whether condominiums or apartments, are treated the same. In regards tothe question of granting special lenience to buildings with multiple ownership, the Commission may consider an exception. However, it may be difficult to legally justify a distinction between multiple ownership buildings from multiple unit rental buildings. Discussion of Alternatives A. PLANNING COMMISSION TO RESOLVE DISPUTES This alternative is simply an addition to the existing 13-6 to make it clear that disputes over interpretation be resolved by the Planning Commission (see the Torrance ordinance). The Commission already has the general authority to resolve disputes over interpretation under Section 1101, Clarification of Ambiguity, so the added statement would make it very clear that the Commission should get involved if a property owner disputes the interpretation of staff. B. PRIORITY SYSTEM BASED ON SEVERITY OF NONCONFORMITIES Under this approach the valuation amount used to determine when a damaged nonconforming structure can be rebuilt would depend on why the structure is nonconforming, and perhaps the age of the pre-existing structure. The following is a possible list of categories of nonconformities, in order of their importance or severity, in the judgement of staff: USE OR DENSITY REQUIREMENTS PARKING HEIGHT SETBACKS OTHER ZONING STANDARDS (OPEN SPACE, LOT COVERAGE) GARAGE SETBACK Obviously, a structure could be nonconforming to more than one, or several categories. The ordinance could be set up to base the valuation on only the most severe nonconformity. For discussion purposes, staff would suggest the following: MOST SEVERE NONCONFORMITY % DAMAGE THAT CANNOT BE EXCEEDED TO REBUILD USE 35 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY (UNITS/ACRE): Density > 45 units per acre 20 Density < 45 units per acre 50 PARKING 50 HEIGHT 65 SETBACKS 65 OTHER ZONING STANDARDS 65 GARAGE SETBACK 65 Also, the age of the structure could be included to have a bearing on the percent damage rule. For example, if a pre-existing nonconforming structure is over 40 years old perhaps it should not be allowed to be reconstructed unless damage is minor (i.e. 35%). Staff would welcome any suggestions as to how to include age of structure in the considerations. ( Further, in terms of residential structures nonconforming to density staff is suggesting a separate category for those excessively out of conformance (45 units per acre and above), to prohibit rebuilding unless damage is minimal (20%). The use of such a system would present many practical difficulties and potential inequities. First, since the pre-existing structure is damaged, it may be difficult or impossible in some cases to determine exactly what the pre-existing nonconformities were prior to the damage. Existing records in the Building Department are not always accurate, especially for older structures. Further, this system would not take into account the degree of the particular nonconformity other than density (i.e. how many parking spaces deficient, how deficient is the setback). The only way that could be accomplished would be a case by case review by the Planning Commission. Given the very straight -forward method of the current ordinance, no Planning Commission review is necessary. If alternative B is considered, its complexities might warrant case by case Planning Commission review to consider unique circumstances, and also degree of nonconformities rather just simply categories. C. RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION In the previous report staff discussed other cities' ordinances for comparison and found many with basic similarities, except most notable that Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach completely exempt nonconforming residential structures. In other words, when a nonconforming residential structure is damaged or even completely destroyed by fire or other act of God it can be rebuilt. Staff has also found that the City of Inglewood uses 75% damage as the benchmark and exempts multiple ownership residential units regardless of the amount of damage, and that Long Beach allows nonconforming structures to be rebuilt in all cases, Although the Commission may wish to consider the approach used by Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach where the 50% damage rule is applied to commercial and other non-residential structures, but where residential structures are exempt, staff does not believe this would be acceptable in Hermosa Beach as it would perpetuate some severe nonconformities, and would seem to have other negative side effects such as the following: - Encourage arson - Perpetuate inequities between properties within the same neighborhood - Reduce incentive to rebuild to bring property into conformance, even if completely destroyed - Determining what actually did exist before complete destruction - Building code requirements prohibiting all, or partial reconstruction of previous existing structures - Perpetuating nuisance developments indefinitely f As such, staff is suggesting that if the Commission is considering more lenient requirements on residential properties perhaps an exemption could be given to some residential structures, but not all. For example, an exemption could be given only to structures on property with a density of less than 45 -units per acre and under 40 years old (or a graduated scale depending on the zone). Some additional criteria and discretionary review could also be included. Also, rebuilding a single family dwelling on any size lot always would be exempt in regard to density. In conclusion, staff is again emphasizing that in our judgement changing the ordinance is not necessary, since the language is adequate for staff to make reasonable estimates of damage as compared to replacement value. Further, the ordinance is simple and easy for homeowners and lenders to understand, treats all nonconformities equally, and is a fairly common method of dealing with nonconformities. However, if the Commission desires granting some relief to nonconforming residential structures, or basing reconstruction on pre-existing conditions, staff has presented some other alternatives for your consideration. Staff--. is strongly opposed to simply exempting all residential development, and believes that cities which have, did not give this issue enough thought. CONC Michaele Sc ubach Planning Director Attachments /// Ken Robertson, Associate Planner 1. Sections 13-6 2. I.C.B.O. Building valuation sheet 3. Selected ordinances from other cities 4. P.C. Minutes 5. P.C. Staff Reports,w/attachments 30 August 13, 1992 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission August 18, 1992 (CONTINUED FROM THE 4/7/92 MEETING) SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 91-4 PURPOSE: TO EXAMINE SECTION 13-6 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO RECONSTRUCTION OF DAMAGED NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation To forward to the Council with a recommendation to maintain Section 13-6 as it is currently written. Alternative Direct Staff to set this issue for public hearing to consider any changes desired by the Commission. Background The Planning Commission, at the meeting of April 21, 1992, continued this item to obtain more information from staff in regards to other city'sordinances in regards to this issue, and to present an example of how the 50% or replacement value is calculated. For further background please refer to the previous Planning Commission staff report and minutes, and City Attorney discussion of this matter. Analysis REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER CITIES Staff has contacted other local cities to compare how our ordinance deals with the issue of damaged nonconforming structures. For all three cities contacted, the 50% damage rule is used, thus allowing reconstruction of nonconforming structures only if 50% or less of the structure is. damaged. In both Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach, however, this applies only to non-residential structures . as nonconforming residential structures within residential zones are allowed to be reconstructed even if they are entirely destroyed (both of these - 3 1 - 1 1 ordinances were recently amended to allow this residential exception). The City of Torrance uses the same standard as Hermosa Beach. (Attached are copies of Manhattan Beach's and Torrance's ordinance sections). Staff is continuing to contact other cities and will provide a summary as a supplemental item. Given that our provision is consistent with other cities in terms of the percentage of damage, staff sees no reason to change that portion of the Section. Also, staff is not aware of any desire by the Commission or Council to grant a complete exception to residential structures. Given the extent and degree of nonconformity of residential structures in some locations within Hermosa Beach it would. not seem appropriate to allow a completely new structure to replace, for example, an old decaying high density apartment building if the City is at all serious about bringing residential areas into conformance. Also, it may take away any incentive to demolish dilapidated buildings and rebuild to current standards and --- perpetuate existing nonconformities if arson is an option. Furthermore, it could be very difficult to determine, in the case of older structures for which no accurate plans are on record, exactly what would be allowed to be rebuilt. Another issue is that many older buildings do not meed current building code requirements, as such, a further difficulty would arise in trying to make a reconstructed structure resemble the destroyed structure. MEASURING DAMAGE In the previous report staff explained how measuring damage as suggested by the City Attorney would not be practical (attached). As an example how the current ordinance works, the Building Department recently had to measure the damage of .a building destroyed by fire, as described. below. The Building Department recently had to make a calculation in terms of Section 13-6 in regards to an office building partially destroyed by fire at 601 P.C.H. In that case the total "reasonable replacement value" of the structure was calculated based on the values provided by the International Conference of Building Officials for this type of structure, and was estimated to be $107,000. To calculate the percentage of the structure "destroyed" the cost of repairing the building to its previous state was estimated based on inspection of the building and on repair plans submitted by the owner. This was calculated to be $40,000, or 37% of "reasonable replacement value." As such, the building was allowed to be reconstructed. In sum, staff does not believe changing the ordinance is necessary at this time, and believes the language is adequate for staff to make reasonable estimates of damage as compared to replacement value. However, if the Commission desires granting some relief to nonconforming residential structures, a Manhattan Beach type exception could be considered. C CUR: Michael Schubac Planning Director Robe'f tson, Associate Planner Attachments 1. Sections 13-6 2. Torrance and Manhattan Beach Ordinances 3. P.C. 4/21/92 4. P.C. Staff Report 4/21/92 w/attachments (CONTINUED FROM 4/7/92 TO 4/21/92 MEETING) Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission April 7, 1992 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 91-4 PURPOSE: TO EXAMINE SECTION 13-6 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO RECONSTRUCTION OF DAMAGED NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES Recommendation Direct staff as deemed appropriate. Background At their meeting of September 24, 1992, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to study possible amendments to Section 13-6 of the zoning ordinance with respect to damaged nonconforming structures. This issue originated as a result of the Building Director's request to the City Attorney to interpret whether section 13-6 applied equally to condominiums and apartments. The City Attorney opined that it did, but also brought up the additional issue of the method of measuring whether a building is more than 50% damaged and felt the language of 13-6 was inconsistent with case law. The Attorney thus recommended consideration of clarification of that section. Analysis Please refer to the attached opinion of the City Attorney on this matter. In staff's judgement further discussion is needed as to whether the current language should be changed at all. It is the opinion of Planning Staff and the Building Director that calculating the cost to repair a. damaged structure by following Section. 13-6 is much more practical and feasible than attempting to assess value to a partially destroyed structure as noted as the correct way by our Attorney. How does one determine the value of a partially destroyed structure without knowing what it will cost to make it usable again?. It seems that the value is inextricably tied to the cost of making a structure whole again. In that sense Section 13-6 use of the language "replacement value" may be appropriate, except that maybe "replacement cost" would make more sense so that the cost of the structure is the sole issue and the value of the land does not get involved. In sum, staff sees no overwhelming reason to change Section 13-6. However, staff is also aware that the Commission may be interested in expanding the scope of this study to also include how replacement cost is calculated per Section 13-7 when applied r C to expansion and remodeling of nonconforming structures. If that is the case, direct staff as deemed appropriate. Staff, however, believes that that the method of calculation has been working for the last 2-3 years, and seems to carry out the intent of the nonconforming ordinance. i CONCUR : Robertson, Associate Planner Michael Schubach Planni Director u) (o& Williani Grove Director of Building and Safety Attachments 1. City Council Resolution of Intent 2. City Council Minutes 9/24/91 3. Attorney's opinion 4. City Council Staff Report 9/18/91 p/memo3 TEXT 93-2 -- TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 13-6 REGARDING RECON- STRUCTION OF NON -CONFORMING BUILDINGS PARTIALLY DESTROYED AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Recommended Action:.. To recommend adoption of said text amend- ment and Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach noted, based on previous input by the Commission, this Ordinance had been revised and was being presented .for adoption. He explained the purpose and provisions of the proposed Ordinance and its impact upon buildings which had been more than 50% destroyed. This Ordinance would be super - ceded by any City Council action taken during the time of major disaster. Mr. Schubach then defined alternatives. Comm. Di Monda confirmed with Mr. Schubach that Mr..: Grove did not wish to :make the call and was suggested modification of Paragraph C to allow Mr. Grove to perform the..calctrlations based upon the I.C.B.O. and forwarded to the Planning Commission. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7:43 p.m. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and at 7:43, Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing. Comm. Suard favored Option #3, feeling stringent regulations allowed the Commission to loosen them, rather than the opposite. He suggested leaving Paragraph C. as is with the addition that the effected party has the option to submit it to the Commission or waiver, in a hardship case. Comm. Di Monda noted this option was in Paragraph D and felt that guidelines were necessary. Chmn. Merl and Comm. Di Monda • 5 " P.C. Minutes 2-16-93 ::• opposed the reversal in Paragraph C proposed by Comm. Suard, feeling definite standards were necessary and Code must• be addressed. Comm. Suard felt age of the building should have no impact, "45 buildings per acre" lacked clarity and questioned the number of buildings over 45 feet in height. He discussed these points with Mr. Schubach. Chinn. Merl commented the Commission was trying to protect individual property rights. Comm. Suard felt the Commission should review each case. Mr. Schubach suggested the criteria remain as suggested, but maximums be established, if the Commission so desired. Comm. Di Monda asked if this Ordinance could include a density exception specifically for condominiums. Mr. Schubach stated he would contact the City Attorney for the final answer, noting an exception could be made using the suggested terminology. The Commission further discussed con- cepts and other possible application implications with Mr. Schubach. Comm. Suard agreed to further define his concepts for the Commission at its next scheduled meeting. Chmn. Merl stated this item should be forwarded to the Council as soon as possible; hopefully, a decision would be made during the next meeting, to which Mr. Schubach concurred. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to CONTINUE TEXT 93-2 to the Planning Commission's March 2, 1993 meeting. AYES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Suard, Chmn. Merl NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Oakes ABSTAIN: None T CT 93-4 -- TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE TOD LANDSCJPE WATER CONSERVATION SECTION IN COMPLIANCE WITHiSTATE LAW. Recommended ion: To recommend approval of s- d text amend- ment. Mr. Schubach stated i a Text Amendme were not passed, the State Law would be apple •. He exp =fined the minimal impacts this proposed amendment w• d - e upon the City and its residents. Public Hearing opened by mn. Merl - 8:07 p.m. No one else wished • speak regarding tel item, and at 8:07, Chmn. Merl close • he Public Hearing. Comm. Suar within s Mr. S be discussed the purpose of prohibits•• of turf -feet or less median strip widths. (Section ) with ubach. Section 10 requires period audits, which to erformed by Staff. Comm. Suard felt determination shou 6 P.C. Minutes 2-16-93 c c� SS 91-4/TEXT 93-2 -- SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING RECONSTRUCTION OF NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS PARTIALLY DESTROYED (continued from April 21, August 18, 1992 and January 19, 1993 meetings). Recommended Action: To set for public hearing for February 16, 1993. Mr. Schubach stated this was an extremely important issue of which a study had been conducted. Staff proposed an ordinance to screen out extremely aged, nuisance type developments which resulted in concerns regarding (1) rebuilding of the previous building if they were to be burnt beyond a certain point, (2) previous buildings that could not be rebuilt to the previous specifications because they could no longer meet Building Codes and (3) buildings that could meet the current Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Schubach then discussed ordinance flexibility and its application, as well as major damage to buildings, noting discretionary review processes by the Commission and City Council had been included. Staff recommended adoption of the Text Amendment, as proposed. He stated this item was a matter of high priority to the City Council. Comm. Di Monda assumed that older buildings were probably non- conforming. Mr. Schubach responded that many older and some newer buildings were poorly designed or constructed. He stated only those buildings that should not be rebuilt to current existing would be screened out, explaining the options available to property owners. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach then discussed height requirements and R-1 Zone density. Comm. Di Monda suggested that in the R-1 Zone, a second unit could not be rebuilt, to which Mr. Schubach did not object. Comm. Suard noted that condominiums currently within the R-1 Zone would represent a problem. Comms. Di Monda, Suard and Mr. Schubach discussed the application and allowances of:a waiver. Comm. Suard felt that all should be treated the same, with no discrimination based upon ownership, noting •property: owners should be required to rebuild the damaged building portion to comply with current standards, with compromises available. Mr. Schubach suggested this item be moved forward to the City Council (concerned with residential), and perhaps request a Resolution of Intent to review the commercial areas. Comm. Suard felt amendment to this item was appropriate and detailed his concerns relating to the various issues. MOTION made by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Oakes, to APPROVE Staff's recommendation to set this item for public hearing February 16, 1993. 9 _ 31 _. P.C. Minutes 2-2-93 AYES: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl NOES: None ABSENT: None - ABSTAIN: None ME RANDUM TO REPEAL RESOLUTION P.C. 92-33 REGARDING INITIA TIO OF A TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADD "DO-IT-YOURSELF BREWERY" AS A PERMI TED USE. Recommended Action: To repeal Resolution P.C. 92-33 by minute order. Mr. Schubac gave the history of this item, noting at if the Commission wi hed to repeal the previously approv d permitted use in the C-2 Zone, it should direct Staff by IrCilute order. MOTION made by •mm. Di Monda, seconded by/onun. Oakes, to REPEAL Resolution .C. 92-33 by minute order AYES: Comms. 'i Monda, Marks, Oak Suard, Chmn. Merl NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SS 92-1 -- SPECIAL STUDY REG DIN RESIDENTIAL FENCES ALONG VALLEY DRIVE/ARDMORE AVENUE. Recommended Action: To adop resolution of intent for a text amendment. Mr. Schubach noted this i em was beillg brought back and based upon Commission directio , Staff recommended adoption of the resolution of intent. e explained the rovisions for current fencing and requireme s for new fences as well as proposed exemptions, criteri and visual appeara ce of these street corridors. Comm. Di Monda elt the Commission had trid to offer 'the residents the ility to install a six -feet 11 as long as landscaping w e provided. He felt that Para aph B should not read, ...may impose..", but should read, "...will impose...". Comm. Di Monda discussed the numb r of non- conformin fences and the reasons the Commission addressed this iss Comm. Oakes confirmed that Manhattan Beach did not allow six- et fences in the front yard. She felt that the pro erty own rs should retain their current rights, but objected t9 a tr ffic "corridor" along those streets. Comm. Suard suggested e resident be given the choice of either front or back yard. 10 P.C. Minutes 2-2-93 -3q- HEARINGS (continued) SS 91-4 -- SPECIAL STUDY REGARDING RECONSTRUCTION OF NON- CONFORMING BUILDINGS PARTIALLY DESTROYED (continued from 4-21 and 8-18-92 meetings). Recommended Action: To leave Section 13-6 as is. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommending the Commission forward this item to the City Council with recommendation that Section 13-6 be maintained as currently written. He discussed alternatives, exemptions, previous actions taken by the Council and calculation of structure destroyed percentage. Mr. Schubach noted the Commission might consider an exception regarding buildings with multiple ownership, stating it might be difficult to make a distinction between multiple ownership and multiple unit rental buildings. Comparison of other cities' ordinances was made, with specific comparisons made by Mr. Schubach. Staff felt changing the ordinance was not necessary, the ordinance was simpleand easy for homeowners and lenders to understand, was fair and is a fairly common methodology, but did present alternatives for the Commis- sion's consideration. Chmn. Merl invited public participation at 9:50 p.m. Dick McCurty, 1113 Valley Drive, stated his townhouse was 35 -feet in height, noted that if his house were destroyed, he would not be able to rebuild the same structure.. His home met all codes 4 1/2 years ago, but now it is a non -conforming structure. He asked why the rules were changed. Mr. Schubach stated the rules had been. changed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Chmn. Merl brought the discussion back to the Commission at 9:52 p.m. Comm. Di Monda felt Manhattan Beach had a: sensibleapproach, as written this document presented problems and requested 'SS.91-4 be rewritten. He felt a carefully written ordinance could not grant old rental units the same exceptions as a multi -owner building. Chmn. Suard agreed, noting he felt the City Council bent over backwards to not interfere with individual rights of residents. He stated that taking away someone's home that had been destroyed would be a total turn around, a position that would be too incon- sistent on the Council's part. He felt the City Attorney's interpretation had not grasped what Staff was doing in term of 50% calculation, discussing this interpretation and applying destruction/replacement instances which would apply. Comm. Suard stated he felt the 50% too restrictive and suggested the opinion be returned to the City Attorney for further review. Comm. Suard suggested that during reconsideration, a compromise be reached so that no resident lost his/her home. . 71.0 P.C.Minutes 1/19/93 MOTION by the Commission to CONTINUE SS 91-4 to allow Staff to investigate and implement the offered suggestions, and bring it back to the Commission as a City Council and Planning Commission priority item at the Commission's February 2, 1993 meeting. No objections, so ordered. a. Report from the City Treasurer regarding sales and use tax ontinued from December 1, 1992 and January 5, 1993 meet'ngs.) Mr. Schubach wished to incorporate this item as an app dices.:.. to t e Land Use Element, to which the Commission agre-d. RECEIVE AND FILE b. Memoranda regarding the City Council/Planning Co ission/ School District annual joint meeting (continued rom January 5, 1993 meetin• The Commission requested the City Council de ermine the meeting date. RECEIVE AND FILE c. Memorandum regardin• South Bay inventory of cities requiring C.U.P.'s for auto bo• /auto paint facilities (continued from January 5, 1993 meetin•. RECEIVE AND FILE d. Planning Department activit report of October, 1992 (continued from December 1, 1993 meetin•)/ and November, 1992 (continued from January 5, 1993 meetingy. Comm. Di Monda discussed with Mr. Schubach the priority status of oil drilling. Mr. Schubach sta ed a diligent search was being made for a new Cijy Yard loca''on ,:both temporary and permanent if oil is discovered. He o.tlined the status of activity. The special study relating •o driveway grades was preempted by non -conforming uses and si• s, but will be addressed soon. RECEIVE AND FILE e. Memorandum f •m the Building Director regardin• 1010 17th Street (con nued from January 5, 1993 meeting). Mr. Schu. ch noted the contractor had left town. RECEI AND FILE f. Ten .tive future Planning Commission agenda. C•mm. Di Monda felt the special study to define do -it- you elf rewery and add to permitted use list should be deleted. M 1 P.C.Minutes 1/19/93 parki with t allowed enhance th not a fair t accomplished stated the in must be provide then discussed th Comms. Suard and 0 evaluating the stru continue if the Commi required parking. After discussion, the Co adding the words, "1/3 har "in excess of 40% of the t -Report, "All work within the reviewed by the Planning Co addition, to which Mr. Terry under the auspices of the Monda and Suard disagreed Mr. Lee noted the Commis improvements. He state jurisdiction of the administrative decis the Council's auth initial improvemen agreed to add, " of -ways shall b prior to work requirements on both the east and west sides of Be Commission. Comm. Suard felt parking shou open space, noting the purpose is to green areas and landscaping. He felt Op eatment of both new and old properties hrough lowering of the percentage. nt was that if a property was , the same as required of 's concept, in depth, with C es felt the percentage ures. Comm. Di Mond ion approved non- ission ag cape", MOTION by memorandum Beach Driv Recommen deletin withi by t AY N S: STAIN: SENT: ob blic as the ion wishe the encroac Public Works n as to issuance o ity to direct the plans under the encroa 1 improvement plans within reviewed and approved by th art up." ch Drive not be eserve and on B.7.b was which could be Comm. Di Monda enovated, parking o er properties. He s. Suard and Oakes. ould be consistent in felt the problems would nfor:ning remodels without eed to change Option B., 2) by )B)7.b) by deleting the words, Item 10, Page 1 from the Staff walk street right-of-way shall be ssion" was also suggested as an ected, stating these streets were Works Dept., to which Comms. Di e were not vehicular streets... to see the initial plans for ent permits were under the pt., who must 'make the permits. He felt it was mmission to review the hment permits. It was he walk street right - Planning Commission C. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Sua- ntitled, "Vehicle Parking on Public Rig ," with the following changes: (a) Delet_ Option 3, (c) 7.b., placing a "period" afte the rest of the sentence, (d) 8. All.impro d, to ADOPT the t -of- Way along Option A, (b) property and ment plans the walk street right-of-ways shall be reviewed and approved Planning Commission prior to work start up. Comms. Nona None None Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. A break was taken from 9:30 to 9:40 p.m. Merl SS 91-4 -- SPECIAL STUDY REGARDING RECONSTRUCTION OF NONCONFORM- ING BUILDINGS PARTIALLY DESTROYED (continued- from April 21, 1992 meeting.) Recommended Action: To direct Staff as deemed appropriate. P.C.Minutes 8/18/92 Mr. Schubach stated Staff's recommendation was to forward to City Council with the recommendation to maintain Section. 13-6 as currently written. He stated Staff had compared the City's ordinance with those of three other cities and explained the similarities and differences. Staff will continue contacting other cities. Mr. Schubach discussed the extent of residential structure non -conformities within Hermosa Beach, noting the need for incentives to demolish dilapidated buildings and rebuild to current standards, although it is not appropriate to allow completely new structures to replace old, high-density apartment building which do not meet building code requirements. He stated the City Attorney's suggested method of measuring damage was not practical, giving examples of calculation of a partially destroyed building. He stated Staff believed the ordinance language was adequate, but an alternate could be considered if the. Commission desired to grant some relief to nonconforming residential structures. Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach discussed the formula used to establish value used by the International Conference of Building Officials. Comm. Di-Monda then summarized the current ordinance. He asked to see the I.C.B.O.'s formula, feeling it was :a "key" in obtaining conformance within the City. Comm. Marks determined that nonconformities can be exactly replaced within new construction, as long as the building damage is less than 50%, objecting to this practice. Comm. Oakes agreed, noting safety issue nonconformities should be brought into conformity. She suggested safety issues be listed and considered before a decision of this item is made. Comm. Suard also agreed, suggesting that a review of the inflicted party be conducted, also. He felt a special leniency should be given to multiple -owned careful examinat onm•priorks to a any changes . Mr. Schubach suggested very being made. MOTION by Chmn. Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to CONTINUE SS 91-4 and direct Staff to further study the categories of nonconformities, the valuation used in the 50% determination, the impact upon multiple owners, the priorities among the nonconformities and present the results to the Commission for review prior to any action being taken. Co::.ms. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn._ Merl None None None AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 2-6 -- SPECIAL STUDY OF SECTION 10-7 AND 10-8 OF THE ZONING ANDARD CONDITIONS FOR ON -S• ORDINANC ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS. Recommended.Act� Mr 'c ubach noted this iaetheaC.USPessentially supposed to be,si• t▪ s, in general. Staff's realize P.C.Minutes 8/18/92 o set for public hearin•. SS 91-4 -- SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING RECONSTRUCTION OF NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS PARTIALLY DESTROYED (CONTD. FROM APRIL 7, 1992 MEETING). Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Mr. Schubach discussed the background of this item, noting this item was a result of the building inspector's request to the City Attorney for interpretation. Staff has examined the manner -of property value determination versus the method recommended. by the City Attorney; finding it a difficult situation. Staff felt the method should remain the same or the City Attorney should re- examine the issue. Comm. Suard discussed the establishment of property value with Mr. Schubach, commenting that he would like to see the value raised from 50% to 75%, to which Chmn. Ketz disagreed, which resulted in further discussion by the Commission. Comm. Di Monda requested a comparison of numbers between current buildings and a hypothetical ones. using the 50% and the 75%. Mr. Schubach explained the dynamics of land value and stated condominiums and apartments would fall under the same rule. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 10:55 p.m. Gerald Compton, 1200 Artesia Blvd, discussed a six -unit building that had burned down and was replaced with two units. He explained the owner had had insurance to cover loss of structureand rents, so the some of the costs were defrayed. The Public Hearing was closed by Chmn. Ketz at. 10:57 p.m. Comm. Di Monda felt there was a potential to take property value away from the property owners and requested more information as to how much it would be. Comm. Suard requested the actual percentage applicable to the law suit relating to the six -unit complex discussed by Mr. Compton, and how the percentage was calculated. MOTION by the Commission to CONTINUE SS 91-4 to allow Staff to obtain the requested information for presentation to the Commission. No objections, so ordered. P.C.Minutes 4/21/92 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 r RESOLUTION 91-5494 t=-te 14.1,44-1 A RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING. THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO STUDY POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 13-6 OF THE ZONING CODE WITH RESPECT TO DAMAGED NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting on September 24, 1991, and made the following Findings: A. The present wording of Section 13-6 of the zoning code may be inconsistent with established case law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby direct the Planning Commission to study possible amendments to Section 13-6 of the zoning code with respect to damaged nonconforming structures. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 24th day of September, 1991, by: rK (eY6/4 PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROV D AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK G' CITY ATTORNEY (n) Recommendation to receive and file City Attorney opinion on reconstruction of nonconforming buildings partially destroyed, and direct clarification of damaged structure valuation language in the Zoning Code, with resolution for adoption. Memorandum from Building and Safety Di- rector William Grove dated September 18, 1991. This item was removed from the consent calendar by Coun- cilmember Sheldon for separate discussion later in the meeting. City Council Minutes 09-24-91 Page 7568 tf-6- Coming forward to address the Council on this item was: June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, expressed concern that this interpretation of the code differed substantially from the intent of the previous Council who had adopted it. Also, she suggested exempting condominiums from the Or- dinance, as this could "take" someone's home. Action: To receive and file the City Attorney opinion on reconstruction of nonconforming buildings that have been partially destroyed; to send the study directive to the Planning Commission, unencumbered by Council limita- tions, to review Section 13-6; and, to adopt Resolution No.. 91-5494, entitled, '+A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO STUDY POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO SEC- TION 13-6 OF THE ZONING CODE WITH RESPECT TO DAMAGED NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES.", with changes, suggested by the City Attorney, to amend: 1) the title, fourth line, striking, "...the method of determining the value of"; 2) strike paragraph A; 3) put a period after the word "law" in paragraph B and strike, "...regarding value determination." and designate paragraph B as paragraph A; and, 4) in the "NOW, THEREFORE" paragraph, fourth line, strike, "...the method of determining the value of...". Motion Sheldon, second Essertier. So ordered. X14 U 7 9-z4/- _�/ • o --d 93-/ey7 March 1, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council March 9, 1993 SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT 93-3 -- CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) / TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) ORDINANCE LOCATION: CITYWIDE INITIATED BY PLANNING STAFF PURPOSE: ADOPTION OF TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1992 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. Recommendation: Planning Commission and staff recommend adoption of the attached Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance. Background: At the regular Planning Commission meeting on February 2, 1993 the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the proposed Transportation Demand Management ordinance. Pursuant to the 1992 Congestion Management Program (CMP), all local jurisdictions in Los Angeles County are required to adopt a TDM ordinance by April 1, 1993. Analysis: The TDM development standards are based on the gross square footage thresholds listed below. Projects exceeding each threshold must include the elements required at the lower threshold. All new non-residential developments of 25,000 square feet or more must provide a transportation information area. The information may consist of a bulletin board, display case or kiosk featuring transportation information. All new non-residential developments of 50,000 square feet or more must provide the above item plus preferential parking for carpools and vanpools. All new non-residential developments of 100,000 square feet or more must provide the above items and the following facilities: A carpool and vanpool loading zone, direct access for pedestrians, bus stop improvements (if appropriate), and direct access to bicycle parking. It should be noted that the Planning Commission held a public meeting on March 2, 1993, to consider a study to examine requiring bicycle racks in conjunction with proposed development as a result of reviewing the TDM ordinance. This amendment request will be coming to City Council in the future. Staff believes that the minimum TDM requirements are reasonable for large scale commercial developments. The majority of future commercial projects in the City would undoubtedly be under 50,000 square feet and therefore would only need to provide a transportation information display at most. Therefore, the minimum TDM requirements will have minimal impact on future commercial projects. CONC Michael Schubach Pl ing Director Federick R. Ferrin City Manager Attachments: 1. Proposed TDM Ordinance 2. February 2, 1993 Planning Commission Staff Report 3. February 2, 1992 Planning Commission minutes Lin say L. irs Planning Aide 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 93 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT FOR TRIP REDUCTION AND TRAVEL DEMAND MEASURES (TDM) IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65089 AND 65089.3 WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on March 9, 1993 to receive and consider oral and written testimony on this matter and made the following Findings: A. The Legislature of the State of California has found that the lack of an integrated transportation system and the increase in the number of vehicles are causing traffic congestion that each day results in hundreds of thousands of hours lost in traffic, tons of pollutants released into the air and millions of dollars of added costs to the motoring public; and B. The Legislature has adopted legislation requiring the preparation and implementation of a Congestion Management Program ("CMP") by county transportation commissions or other public agencies of every county that includes an urbanized area; and C. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("MTA") is responsible for the preparation of the CMP for Los Angeles County ("County") ; and D. The CMP must contain.a trip reduction and travel demand management element that promotes alternative transportation methods, such as carpools, vanpools, transit, bicycles, walking and park -and ride -lots, improvement in the balance between jobs and housing, and other strategies, including flexible work hours, telecommuting and parking management programs; and E. The County and every city within the County is required by state law to adopt and implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance as an important element of the Congestion Management Program to improve both congestion and air quality; and F. MTA must determine annually whether the County and cities within the County are conforming to the CMP, including the requirement to adopt and implement a TDM ordinance; and G. The CMP is an evolving program which will be developed incrementally, as experience is gained through its implementation, this TDM ordinance may be amended or superseded from time to time, as necessary to meet congestion and air quality goals; and H. The State Clean Air Act require regions to attain a 1.5 vehicle occupancy during the commute period by the year 1999; and 3- This ordinance is intended to comply with the CMP's requirements for a TDM ordinance. The requirements of South Coast Air Quality Management District ("District") Regulation XV, are separate from this ordinance, and administered by the Air District. Nothing herein is intended, nor shall it be construed, to limit or otherwise preclude employers from offering or providing additional inducements to use alternatives to single -occupant vehicles to their employees necessary to meet Regulation XV requirements; and J. In order to use the existing and planned transportation infrastructure more efficiently, maintain or improve traffic levels of service, and lower motor vehicle emissions, it is the policy of the City of Hermosa Beach to minimize the number of peak period vehicle trips generated by additional development, promote the use of alternative transportation, improve air quality and participate in regional and countywide efforts to improve transportation: demand management; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, based on the findings above, does hereby ordain the following amendments to the Zoning Ordinance: SECTION 1. Add the following text: ARTICLE 8.5 TRIP REDUCTION AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT MEASURES Sec. 8.5-1 DEFINITIONS The following words or phrases shall have the following meanings when used in this ordinance: A. "Alternative Transportation" means the use of modes of transportation other than the single passenger motor Vehicle, including but not limited, to Carpools, Vanpools, Buspools, public transit, walking and bicycling. B. " Applicable Development " means any development project that is determined to meet or exceed the project size threshold criteria contained in Section 3 of this ordinance. C. " Buspool " means a Vehicle carrying sixteen or more passengers commuting on a regular basis to and from work with a fixed route, according to a fixed schedule. D. " Carpool " means a Vehicle carrying two to six persons commuting together to and from work on a regular basis. --- E. " The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), " a statute that requires all jurisdictions in the State of California to evaluate the extent of environmental 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 degradation posed by proposed development. F. " Developer " shall mean the builder who is responsible for the planning, design and construction of an applicable development project. A developer may be responsible for implementing the provisions of this Ordinance as determined by the property owner. G. " Development " means the construction or addition of new building square footage. Additions to buildings which existed prior to the adoption of this ordinance and which exceed the thresholds defined in Section 3 shall comply with the applicable requirements but shall not be added cumulatively with existing square footage; existing square footage shall be exempt from these requirements. All calculations shall be based on gross square footage. H. " Employee Parking Area " means the portion of total required parking at a development used by onsite employees. Unless specified in the City's Zoning / Building Code, employee parking shall be calculated as follows: o f « ' `< > <' yPeo S < <' tal....Be uired. > <ted <::> t�arklrrg: Devoted ia: Ernlaloyees Commercial 30% Office / Professional 85% Industrial / Manufacturing 90% I. " Preferential Parking " means parking spaces designated or assigned, through use of a sign or painted space markings for Carpool and Vanpool Vehicles carrying commute passengers on a regular basis that are provided in a location more convenient to a place of employment than parking spaces provided for single occupant vehicles. J . " Property Owner " means the legal owner of a Development who serves as the lessor to a tenant. The Property Owner shall be responsible for complying with the provisions of the ordinance either directly or by delegating such responsibility as appropriate to a tenant and / or his agent. K. " South Coast Air Quality Management District " (SCAQMD) is the regional authority appointed by the California State Legislature to meet federal standards and otherwise improve air quality in the South Coast Air Basin. L. " Tenant " means the lessee of facility space at an applicable development project. M. " Transportation Demand Management (TDM) " means the alteration of travel behavior, usually on the part of commuters, through programs of incentives, services, and policies. TDM addresses alternatives to single occupant vehicles such as carpooling and vanpooling, and changes in work schedules that move trips out of peak period or eliminate them altogether (as in the case in telecommuting or compressed work weeks). N. "Trip Reduction" means reduction in the number of work-related trips made by single occupant vehicles. O. " Vanpool " means a Vehicle carrying seven or more persons commuting together to and from work on a regular basis, usually in a vehicle with a seating arrangement designed to carry seven to fifteen adult passengers, and on a prepaid subscription basis. P. " Vehicle " means any motorized form of transportation, including but not limited to automobiles, vans, buses, and motorcycles. Sec. 8.5-2 REVIEW OF TRANSIT IMPACTS Prior to approval of any development project for which an Environmental Impact Report (FIR) will be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or based on a local determination, regional and municipal fixed -route transit operators providing service to the project shall be identified and consulted with. Projects for which a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Draft EIR has been circulated pursuant to the provisions of CEQA prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be exempted from its provisions. The "Transit Impact Review Worksheet", contained in the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program Manual, or similar worksheets, shall be used in assessing impacts. Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, transit operators shall be sent a NOP for all contemplated EIR's and shall, as part of the NOP process, be given opportunity to comment on the impacts of the project, to identify recommended transit service or capital improvements which may be required as a result of the project, and to recommended mitigation measures which minimize automobile trips on the CMP network. Impacts and recommended mitigation measures identified by the transit operator shall be evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project. Related mitigation measures adopted shall be monitored through the mitigation monitoring requirements of CEQA. Phased development projects, development projects subject to a development agreement, or development projects requiring subsequent approvals, need not repeat this process as long as no 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 significant changes are made to the project. It shall remain the discretion of the lead agency to determine when a project is substantially the same and therefore covered by a previously certified EIR. Sec. 8.5-3 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND AND TRIP REDUCTION MEASURES A . APPLICABILITY OF REQUIREMENTS Prior to approval of any development project, the applicant shall make provision for, as a minimum, all of the following applicable transportation demand management and trip reduction measures. This ordinance shall not apply to projects for which a development application has been deemed " complete" by the City pursuant to Government Code Section 65943, or for which a Notice of Preparation for a DEIR has been circulated or for which an application for a building permit has been received, prior to the effective date of this ordinance. All facilities and improvements constructed or otherwise required shall be maintained in a state of good repair. B. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (1) Non -Residential development of 25,000 square feet or more shall provide the following to the satisfaction of the City: A. A bulletin board, display case , or kiosk displaying transportation information located where the greatest number of employees are likely to see it. Information in the area shall include, but is not limited to, the following: 1. Current maps, routes and schedules for public transit routes serving the site; 2. Telephone numbers for referrals on transportation information including numbers for the regional ridesharing agency and local transit operators; 3. Ridesharing promotional material supplied by commuter - oriented organizations; 4. Bicycle route and facility information, including regional / local bicycle maps and bicycle safety information; 5. A listing of facilities available for carpoolers, vanpoolers, bicyclists, transit riders and pedestrians at the site. (2) Non -Residential development of 50,000 square feet or more shall comply with Section 3.B(1) above and shall provide all of the following measures to the satisfaction of the City: A. Not less than 10% of employee parking area, shall be located as close as is practical to the employee entrance(s), and shall be reserved for use by potential carpool / vanpool vehicles, without displacing handicapped and customer needs. This preferential carpool / vanpool parking area shall be identified on the site plan upon application for building permit, to the satisfaction of the City. A statement that preferential carpool / vanpool spaces for employees are available and a description of the method for obtaining such spaces must be included on the required transportation information board. Spaces will be signed / striped as demand warrants; provided that at all times at least one space for projects of 50,000 square feet to 100,000 square feet will be signed / striped for carpool / vanpool vehicles. B. Preferential parking spaces reserved for vanpools must be accessible to vanpool vehicles. When located within a parking structure, a minimum vertical interior clearance of 72" shall be provided for those spaces and accessways to be used by such vehicles. Adequate turning radii and parking space dimensions shall also be included in vanpool parking areas. C. Bicycle racks or other secure bicycle parking shall be provided to accomodate 4 • bicycles per the first 50,000 square feet of non-residential development and 1 bicycle per each additional 50,000 square feet of non-residential development. Calculations which result in a fraction of 0.5 or higher shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. A bicycle parking facility may also be a fully enclosed space or locker accessible only to the owner or operator of the bicycle, which protects the bike from inclement weather. Specific facilities and location (e.g., provision of racks, lockers, or locked room) shall be to the satisfaction of the City. (3) Non- Residential development of 100,000 square feet or more shall comply with Sections 3.B(1) and 3.B(2) above, and shall provide all of the following measures to the satisfaction of the City: A. A safe and convenient zone in which vanpool and carpool vehicles may deliver or board their passengers. B. Sidewalks or other designated pathways following direct and safe routes from the external pedestrian circulation system to each building in the development. C. If determined necessary by the City to mitigate the project impact, bus stop improvements must be provided. The City will consult with the local bus service providers in determining appropriate improvements. When locating bus stops and / P- 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 or planning building entrances, entrances must be designed to provide safe and efficient access to nearby transit stations / stops. D. Safe and convenient access from the external circulation system to bicycle parking facilities onsite. Sec. 8.5-4. MONITORING In order to assure compliance with this ordinance, Article 19, Section 1900 of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy from the building department. Sec. 8.5-5. ENFORCEMENT Enforcement of this ordinance shall be set forth in Article 19, Section 1902 and Article 20 of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code. 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. Prior to the expiration of fgifteen (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 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 9th day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY January 28, 1993 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission February 2, 1993 SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) ORDINANCE LOCATION: CITYWIDE INITIATED BY PLANNING STAFF PURPOSE: ' ADOPTION OF TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1992 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Staff Recommendation To recommend that the City Council adopt the attached Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance. Background Pursuant to the 1992 Congestion Management Program (CMP), all local jurisdictions in Los Angeles County are required to adopt a TDM ordinance by April 1, 1993. The purpose of the TDM ordinance is to require building .designs in all future nonresidential developments that encourage travel modes other than single occupant vehicles. These design elements include such features as bicycle parking, preferred parking for carpools and vanpools, direct building access from the street for pedestrians, and safe and convenient transit waiting areas near the building. Analysis The CMP for Los Angeles County was prepared by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) and adopted by the LACTC in November 1992. The CMP is a state -mandated program intended as the analytical basis for transportation decisions made through the State Transportation Improvement Program process. The requirements for the CMP became effective with voter approval of Proposition 111 in June 1990. Pursuant to AB 152, the existing LACTC and Southern California Rapid Transit District will be merged into the new Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). The new MTA will assume responsibility for all programs and services currently provided by LACTC, including implementation and administration of the CMP. While the MTA has the primary implementation responsibility for CMP implementation, local jurisdictions have the following implementation responsibilities: 1. Adopting and implementing a TDM ordinance. 2. Monitoring the attainment of level of service (LOS) and the collection of traffic data for CMP routes. - 10- 1 D 3. Submitting data from municipal transit monitoring by MTA. 4. Adopting and implementing a impacts of land use decisions. transit operators for CMP program to analyze the Each local jurisdiction is responsible for adopting and implementing a TDM ordinance that includes the following CMP required standards for new non-residential development projects. These TDM development standards are based on the gross square footage thresholds listed below. Projects exceeding each threshold must include the elements required at the lower thresholds. These requirements do not apply to: (1) projects for which a development application has been deemed "complete" by the local jurisdiction pursuant to Government Code Section 65943; (2) projects for which a Notice of Preparation for a draft environmental impact report has been circulated; and (3) projects for which an application for a building permit has been received, prior to the effective date of the TDM ordinance. All new non-residential developments of 25,000 square feet or more must provide the following: 1. A Transportation Information Area: The information may consist of a bulletin board, display case or kiosk featuring transportation information. The types of information that must be included are transit route maps, bicycle route maps, information numbers for local transit operators and the regional ridesharing agency, as well as a list of alternative transportation amenities at the site. All new non-residential developments of 50,000 square feet or more must provide the above item plus the following facilities: 1. Preferential Parking for Carpools and Vanpools: No less than 10% of all employee parking shall be set aside for carpools and vanpools. The preferential parking spaces must be provided upon request. 2. Access for Vanpool Vehicles in Parking Areas: parking areas must be designed to admit vehicles. A minimum interior clearance for structures shall be 7 feet 2 inches. Vanpool vanpool parking 3. Bicycle Parking Facilities: Bicycle parking facilities may include bicycle racks, bicycle lockers or locked storage rooms. All new non-residential developments of 100,000 square feet or more must provide the above items and the following facilities: 1. Carpool and Vanpool Loading Zone: A safe and convenient area for carpool and vanpool passengers to wait for, board, and disembark from their ridesharing arrangement. 9.� 2. Direct Access for Pedestrians: A pedestrian system which allows direct and convenient access to the development. 3. Bus Stop Improvements: If appropriate, improvements must be made to bus stop areas of bus routes impacted by the proposed development. Consultation with local bus service providers shall be required. 4. Direct Access to Bicycle Parking from Street: Safe and convenient access to development bicycle parking from the external street system for bicycle riders. Each local jurisdiction is responsible for adopting and implementing a. TDM ordinance that meets the minimum standards identified above by April 1, 1993. The CMP includes a model TDM ordinance that incorporates all of these minimum standards. Local jurisdictions which adopt this model ordinance without modification will receive automatic approval from the MTA. In adopting the language of this model ordinance, local jurisdictions are free to reformat it into a standardized ordinance format used by that jurisdiction. Local jurisdictions must consult with MTA staff regarding any proposed content changes to the local TDM ordinance prior to local adoption. The MTA will accept alternative TDM measures as substitutes for the the minimum TDM requirements only if such alternatives are determined by MTA staff to have equal or greater ability to reduce vehicle trips. Impact Staff believes that the minimum TDM requirements set forth by the CMP are not unreasonable for large scale commercial developments. The great majority of future commercial projects in the City would undoubtedly be under 50,000 square feet and therefore would only need to provide a transportation informational display, e.g. bulletin board, to comply with the CMP. The largest future commercial projects are likely to be less than 100,000 square feet (the Pavillion is between 80,000-90,000 square feet) and would therefore be required to include an informational display, a preferential parking area for carpools and vanpools that can adequately accommodate vanpool vehicles, and bicycle parking facilities. Therefore, the minimum TDM requirements from the model TDM ordinance recommended by the CMP would have a minimal impact on future commercial project design. CONCUR: Michael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Proposed TDM Ordinance kyHirs I Hirs Planning Aide p/pcsrtdm f sug withi Marks suggested a conformity of elevation signs sted the uniformity of signage within blocks be revi the future, to which Comm. Oakes agreed. MOTION ma APPROVE TEXT the following (B)(d) second para CHANGING Page 4 (6), with "alley or parking the applicable .pages have the C-2 and C-3 Zones, to re public/private parking lot, o may use the building side lot, open mall or landscaped with the last sentence ing by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm -1, Text Amendments to the Sign 0 anges: DELETION of Page 1 aph beginning with, ‘ "Si striking "stree ot" and addin the s AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chmn 'and ed. Oakes, to inance, with Section 28A-7 s erected..." and or highway", replace Page 27, Item (5) and terminology relating to sinesses fronting on a mall or landscaped open space such public/private parking open s•:ce as building frontage." deleted. Comms. Di Monda, Marks, ne None None Oakes Suard, Chmn. Merl Merl stated this item would be forwarded to C. cil. City C-8 -- TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADOPT CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN/ TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE/LAND USE ANALYSIS PROGRAM RESOLUTION.. Recommended Action: To recommend adoption of said ordinance/ resolution. Mr. Schubach noted a change in the Staff Report: the Land Use analysis was a procedural effort which will be included as part of the Resolution .by the City Council and will not be presented to the Commission. He stated local jurisdictions were required to adopt a TDM ordinance by April 1, 1993, with the CMP be adopted by the LACTC in November 1992 and noted there would be a merging into the new Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). He explained MTA's implementation responsibilities, noting local jurisdiction was responsible for adopting and implementing a TDM ordinance which met established minimum standards. Mr. Schubach then detailed the projects which would be exempt, as wellas the requirements for new non-residential developments of 25,000, 50,000 and 100,000 square feet. He stated Staff believed the minimum TDM requirements set forth by the CMP were •not unreasonable, noting the great majority of future commercial projects would probably be under 50,000 square feet; the largest future commercial project would probably be between 80,000-90,000 square feet and, therefore, the impact on future 5 P.C. Minutes 2-2-93 • c c commercial project design would be minimal. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended creation of the ordinance and then. placement within the Zoning Ordinance. Comm. Suard felt the requirement should be expanded to include smaller buildings. He proposed that two bicycle racks be required for the first 5,000 square foot of building, one for each added 5,000 up to 20,000 and 1 per 10,000 square feet after that point, which should encourage bicycle riding. Comm. Oakes recommended immediate addressing of this item, and then agendizing it in both commercial and 'residential. She - felt the Commission needed to look at where the bicycle racks should be located, to which the Commission agreed, which Chmn. Merl noting the City had more opportunity for bicycle usage than most cities. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 8:23 p.m. No one wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 8:23 p.m. MOTION made by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Chmn. Merl,' to ADOPT said ordinance/resolution relating to a Text Amendment to adopt Congestion Management Plan/Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Merl None None None HE •• NGS PDP 91-11/NR—.91-8 -- .REQUEST FOR EXTENSION DEVELOPMENT PLAN' -AT 850 15TH STREET. Recommended Action: T. •rant a six-monthextension Mr. Schubach noted the addre wa agenda, stating the address shoui City Attorney had stated thd'item c meeting. He noted Staff.%s- recommendati the proposed projecwas consistent with policies, with ,r6 reason for denial noted a correction to the be 840, 15th Street. The ld be heard during this for approval in that urrent codes and orimodification. Public Hearg opened by Chmn. Merl at 8:29 p.m. No o wished to speak regarding this item, and cl ed the Public Hearing at 8:29 p.m. Chmn. ' Mer -1 P.C. Minutes 2-2-93 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Recommendation: d/'4!> e4c71 '� March 3, 1993 City Council Meeting of March 9, 1993 MIDYEAR BUDGET REVIEW It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Reconsider the use of Fire Flow Funds and direct staff to return with an amendment to the Fire Flow ordinance to expand use of the funds for fire flow activities, specifically, for the lease/purchase payment on the fire engine. 2. Approve the personnel, salary and expenditure reductions reflected in Attachment A. Background: On February 23, 1993, the City Council directed Staff to return with alternatives to using 6% Utility Users Tax and Fire Flow Funds to offset the revenue shortfall. Without use of these funds, the target reduction is $165,319. Analysis: CHANGE IN FUNDING Fire Flow Funds ($39,772) The estimated balance as of 6/30/93 in the Fire Flow Fund is $476,393. Since the inception of the fees in 1987/88, $205,218 has been spent from the fund; $9,700 for the fire flow study and $195,518 on hydrant upgrades. In addition, California Water Service installs five hydrants annually, with no charge. The existing Fire Flow ordinance (Attachment B), strictly limits the use of Fire Flow Funds to activities relating to fire hydrants, valves and risers. In reading the ordinance, the purpose of the fee is to finance improvements in fire protection facilities; improvements to fire protection facilities and the overall fire protection system could reasonably include more than just fire hydrants. The attached memo from the City Attorney, indicates that use of the Fire Flow fees for directly related fire flow activities is appropriate. REDUCTIONS Fire Department Overtime ($30,000) On February 23, 1993, an additional appropriation of $53,963 was requested for Fire Department overtime based on expenditures for the first half of the year. This request is being reduced by an estimated $30,000 in anticipation of negotiating a change in minimum staffing requirements. Plan Check Services ($5,000) Plan Check contract services were reduced at the last City Council meeting. This further reduction places an increased emphasis on in-house plan checking. The potential impact, based on demand, may be slower plan check turn -around time. Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) ($14,740) The public information program for the SRRE will be delayed until 1993/94. Since the element is not scheduled for adoption until April 1993, this delay will not adversely affect the overall implementation plan. Police Contract Services ($2,000) This account can be reduced by $2,000 since no background investigations will be needed for the balance of the fiscal year. Prospective Expenditures ($8,367) This account, which is for unforeseen expenditures, is being reduced; the remaining balance will be $31,281. Freeze Management Merit Pay ($5,014) Department managers are eligible for up to 5% merit pay quarterly. The managers have voluntarily agreed that the one quarter remaining to be paid this fiscal year will be frozen. Reduction of City Manager Salary ($1,236) This is a voluntary reduction by the City Manager. Abolishment of Positions ($46,802) The reduction amounts shown on Attachment A represent salary and benefits for the period April - June 1993. Abolishment of positions for Deputy City Engineer and Data Processing Manager represent a "flattening" of the organization. Public Works currently has a Public Works Director who is the City Engineer, a Deputy City Engineer and two Assistant Engineer positions, one of which is frozen. With this recommendation, the 2 Deputy City Engineer will have the option of remaining in the unfilled Assistant Engineer position. The Data Processing Division has two employees, the Data Processing Manager and one Technical Aide. The Data Processing Manager has the option to drop back to the Technical Aide position; if so, the incumbent Technical Aide would be laid -off. Abolishment of one Police Services Officer requires the least senior Officer to be laid -off. The five remaining PSO's will be rescheduled to cover the duties. The incumbent Clerk Typist in the Building Department has the least seniority in that position city-wide, so will be laid off with abolishment of the position. Duties will have to be absorbed by other department personnel. The Advance Planner is a contract employee whose contract expires August 5, 1993. This early departure will require that the work on the revision of the remaining four elements of the General Plan be absorbed by the Planning staff, which will lengthen the completion time of the elements. The 3/4 Senior Account Clerk in the Finance Department has given notice, therefore this position will remain vacant. The duties of this position have a high priority since they are revenue related; duties of the other positions in the department will be re -prioritized when the duties are absorbed. Use of Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Funds ($12,388) With the early departure of the Advance Planner, time spent by the Planning Director (approximately 15%) and the Planning Aide (100%) in preparing the Air Quality Element will be paid from AQMD funds; this change in funding reduces General Fund appropriations by $12,388. SUMMARY Even though these are difficult, wrenching personnel decisions, they are a necessary step toward fiscal solvency. These - reductions represent approximately $200,000 annually toward our 93/94 budget shortfall, which likely will be sizeable if the State's intended actions prevail. With approval of these final Midyear Budget revisions, staff will begin work on the 93/94 budget. Respectfully submitted, Frederick R. Ferrin, City Manager 3 Viki Copeland, Finance Director SUMMARY OF REVISIONS Reduction Needed $165,319 Change in Funding Use Fire Flow Funds, ($ 39,772) Fire truck payment Reductions Reduce overtime request, Fire Department Reduce Plan Check services Delay public information program, Source Reduction and Recycling Element Reduce Police Contract Services, Background investigations Reduce Prospective Expenditures Account Freeze Management Merit Pay Reduce City Manager salary 5% Abolish the following positions: Deputy City Engineer Data Processing Manager Police Services Officer Clerk Typist, Building Department Contract Planner Freeze vacant position: ($ 30,000) ($ 5,000) ($ 14,740) ($ 2,000) ($ 8,367) ($ 5,014) ($ 1,236) ($ 2,328) ( 14,544) ( 8,541) (' .:7,620) ( 8,210) 3/4 Senior Account Clerk ($ 5,559) Pay Planning Department salaries from AQMD funds for preparation of Air Quality Element Planning Director ($ 2,536) Planning Aide ($ 9,852) Total Revision ($165,319) ATTACHMENT A midyear/michele 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 88- 931 AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ESTABLISHING A FIRE FLOW FEE TO UPGRADE FIRE PROTECTION AND TO ASSIST CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS TO MEET UNIFORM FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach recog- nizes the serious problems with the water system within the city which creates fire risks when new construction increases density and/or fire exposure; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach desires to establish a system in which improvements are made to the fire water flow protection system in order to increase the level of fire protection within the city; WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish a fire protec- tion water system for developments in which the burdens added to the system by new development are paid for by the developers of projects; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that all additions of new dwelling units and/or additional square footage to existing structures increases the demand on the fire protection system within the city; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the City of Hermosa Beach was originally developed as a less dense resort community and has since developed into a highly developed, densely packed ATTACHMENT B - 1 - (') 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 residential community which has placed additional burdens on the fire protection water system; WHEREAS, the City fire protection water development; Council recognizes that improvement of the system will benefit existing as well as new WHEREAS, the City Council finds that a relationship exists between new construction and the need to install, upgrade, and replace fire hydrants and other improvements to the fire protec- tion water system to improve fire protection and prevent the spread of fires from building to building; WHEREAS, the City Council finds a direct relationship between new development in all zones of the City and the need for fire system improvements overall; WHEREAS, the City Council finds the purpose of this fee is to finance improvements in fire protection facilities to reduce the impacts of increased density in residential, commercial and man- ufacturing areas brought on by the addition of buildings and the expansion of existing buildings within the city; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the fire protection fees collected pursuant to this interim ordinance shall be used to finance only the public facilities described or identified in Exhibit "A," attached hereto; WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows: A. After considering the study and analysis prepared by staff and the testimony received at this public hearing, the - 2 - (6) 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 fore, the City Council finds that immediate enactment of this ordinance is necessary to protect the citizenry. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Purpose. In order to implement the goals and objec- tives of the Safety Element of the General Plan of the City of Hermosa Beach and to mitigate the fire protection impacts caused by new development in the City of Hermosa Beach, certain public fire protection improvements must be or had to be constructed. The City Council has determined that a development impact fee is needed in order to finance these public improvements and to pay for the development's fair share of the construction costs of these improvements. In establishing the fee described in the following sections, the City Council has found the fee to be con- sistent with its General Plan and, pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.2, has considered the effects of the fee with respect to the city's housing needs as established in the Housing Element of the General Plan. Section 2. Fire Protection Improvement Fee. A Fire Protection Fee is hereby established on issuance of residential building permits for development in the city to pay for the fire protec- tion measures described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto. This development fee shall be paid by each developer prior to issuance of a building permit. Section 3. Fee Account. The revenues raised by payment of this fee shall be placed in a separate and special fund and such - 4 - (.7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 revenues, along with any interest earnings on that fund, shall be used solely to pay for the city's construction of facilities described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto in the manner specified under Section 7 set out below. Section 4. Fee Adjustments. A developer of any project subject to the fee described in Section 2 may apply to the City Council for a reduction or adjustment to that fee, or a waiver of that fee, based upon the absence of any reasonable relationship or nexus between the fire protection impacts of that development and either the amount of the fee charged or the type of facilities to be financed. The application shall be made in writing and filed with the City Clerk not later than (10) ten days after notice of the amount of fees in question given by the City to developer. The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the claim of waiver, reduction or adjustment. The City Council shall consider the application at a hearing held within 60 days after the filing of the fee adjustment application. The decision of the City Council shall be final. If a reduction, adjustment or. waiver is granted, any change in use within the project shall invalidate the waiver, adjustment or reduction of the fee. Section 5. Fee. (a) Residential Development That Adds Less Than Three Units. For new residential development, the fee shall be equal to fifty cents ($0.50) per square foot for the construction of two or less dwelling units. For a new residential dwelling unit which rep- laces an existing residential dwelling, the fee shall be equal to fifty cents ($0.50) per square foot for the additional square 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 footage of the new dwelling unit. Said square footage shall be calculated by subtracting the square footage of the demolished legally permitted structure from the square footage of the newly constructed dwelling unit. For existing residences that add floor space, the fee shall be equal to fifty cents ($0.50) per square foot of floor space added. Square footage shall be calcu- lated by using the methods found in the most recently approved edition of the Uniform Building Code adopted by the City of Her- mosa Beach. (b) All Other Developments. For residential developments that add three or more units to existing residential density, more than 5,000 sq. ft., or any non-residential development -- within the city, the development shall be liable for the actual cost of improvement which benefits the project or a fee equal to fifty cents ($0.50) per square foot of floor space, whichever is greater. The square footage shall be calculated in the same man- ner as subsection (a). Section 6. Alternative Requirements. For projects of less than three units which received a building permit after July 1, 1987 that must provide the fire protection improvements as a condition of approval, said developers may pay the fees established under this ordinance in lieu of providing the improvements required. Section 7. Use of Fee. The fee shall be solely used to pay (1) for the described public facilities to be constructed by the city; (2) for reimbursing the city for the development's fair share of those capital improvements already constructed by the city; or (3) for reimbursing other developers who have con- 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 structed public facilities as described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto, where those facilities were beyond that needed to miti- gate itigate the impacts of the other developers' project or projects. Section 8. Urgency. The immediate enactment of this ordinance is necessary to ensure that fire protection devices are adequate, that new facilities and upgrades keep pace with development, and for the safety of the general public and emergency personnel. By reason of Government Code Sections 36937, 65858 and 65962(c), this ordinance is designed to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Hermosa Beach and the general public and becomes effective immediately upon adoption by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council. Section 9. Clerk Prepared Synopsis. The City Council shall designate the City Clerk to prepare a summary (synopsis) of this ordinance to be published pursuant to Government Code Section 36933(c)(1) in lieu of the full text of said ordinance. Section 10. Publication of Synopsis. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause a synopsis (summary) of this ordinance to be pub- lished in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circu- lation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach. Section 11. Effective Period of Ordinance. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall en- ter 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 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1� 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 is passed and adopted. This ordinance shall remain in effect for a period of thirty (30) days. After notice and public hearing pursuant to Government Code Sections 54986 and 54992, as appli- cable, the City Council may extend the interim authority for an additional thirty (30) days. Not more than two extensions may be granted. Any extension shall also require a four-fifths vote. Section 12. Judicial Action to Challenge This Ordinance. Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this ordinance shall be brought within 120 days. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF MAY, 1988. ATTEST: _*.t;tize PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PROVED AS tra FORM: CLERK CITY ATTORNEY - 8 - EXHIBIT "A" FIRE PROTECTION MEASURES SUBJECT TO FIRE PROTECTION FEE 1. HYDRANTS 2. RISER CONNECTIONS FROM MAIN TO HYDRANT 3. NECESSARY VALVES AND ATTACHMENTS AS DETERMINED BY THE WATER COMPANY 4. REPAIRS TO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS STREETS AND SIDEWALKS NECESSITATED BY THE INSTALLATION OF HYDRANTS, RISERS AND NECESSARY VALVES AND ATTACHMENTS STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ) I, KATHLEEN ?4IDSTOKRE, City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 88-931 was duly and regularly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach at a regular meeting of said Council held at the regular meeting place thereof on the 24th day of May, 1988 and was published in the Easy Reader on June 9, 1988. The vote was as follows: AYES: Creighton, Rosenberger, Sheldon, Mayor Simpson NOES: Williams ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DATED: May 31, 1988 Kat leen Midstokke, ity Clerk (/3) WILLIAM S. BARR CHARLES S. VOSE CONNIE coOKE SANDIFER JAMES DUFF MURPHY ROGER W. SPRINGER EDWARD W. LEE 14ERIBERTO.F 0IAz JANIcE R. MIYAHIRA BETH 3, BERGMAN TO: FROM: DATE: RE: LAW OFFICES OLIVER, BARR & VOSE A PROFESSIONAL CORF•ORATION 1000 SUNSET BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 (213) 250-3043 MEMORANDUM Viki Copeland, Finance Director City of Hermosa Beach Charles S. Vose, City Attorney March 4, 1993 Use of Fire Flow Funds TELECODIER --- (2131 452.5335 A question has been raised as to whether or not the City Council can amend the existing fire flow ordinance to expand the listed activities for which fire flow funds can be used. In reviewing the statutory provisions which govern the use of these funds, it is clear that fire flow funds can be used for activities beyond those itemized in the existing fire flow ordinance. Therefore, it is within the discretion of the City Council to amend the fire flow ordinance in a manner which would expand the types of activities for which fire flow funds can be used. Should the City Council wish to proceed in this regard, we can prepare an ordinance which would expand the activities for which the fire flow funds can be used. It is my opinion that the lease purchase payment on the fire engine is an activity for which fire flow funds can be used if the fire flow ordinance is properly amended. CSV: ilf cc: Rick Ferrin, City Manager 14214 (Pi) CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY TREASURER RE: BUDGETARY DOWNSIZING DATE: MARCH 1, 1993 Because of revenue shortfall the City Manager has been instructed to immediately reduce City expenditures. I agree that expenditures must be cut, however, the "where and how" of these cuts is as important as the reductions themselves. I respectfully suggest that the City Manager be allowed time to review the consequences of the immediate downsizing the Council has ordered. The City can wait until 1993 fiscal year-end to downsize, and use part of the $800,000.00 P.E.R.S. windfall to cover any fiscal year-end revenue shortfall. The City's revenue summary provides a blue print of the City's financial activity. I suggest that a downsizing recommendation be made based on the City department's ability/inability to meet year end revenue projections. Logically speaking, if revenue is down in a particular area, labor intensive activity must be down in that area. Given the present financial climate, merit pay is a luxury expense that the City can no longer afford, and must be discontinued. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of these matters. Ci y Treasurer AlifiENIENTAL INFORMATION 8 February 22, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council March 9, 1993 RECOMMENDED USE OF ASSEMBLY BILL 702 RETIREMENT REFUND Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the prioritized list of uses for the AB702 Retirement funds as shown below, and designate such funds accordingly. Background: AB702 was passed as part of the 91/92 State budget process to help the State balance the budget. The bill eliminated two (2) special accounts which provided cost of living adjustments (COLAs) for PERS retirees. The accounts were funded from a specified portion of earnings on active PERS member contributions. The COLAs will now be funded through a different calculation of members' interest. The result of the bill was that PERS employers, including the State and most cities, were allotted funds which could be used to off -set employer contributions for retirement costs. However, a lawsuit challenging AB702 was filed by a coalition of twenty (20) individuals and employee organizations. Pending settlement of the lawsuit, the City Council, on 1/28/92, approved deferring use of the funds. Analysis: The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review the AB702 case, which, in turn, makes the funds available for use. The total allocation is $864,275. Were the economic future of the area better, and if Hermosa Beach's commercial base were such that a recovery within the next year or two could be expected, use of the funds to offset potential reductions in pass-through property tax (AB8), might be viable. Unfortunately, the economic forecast for this area does not envision a substantial recovery for as much as a decade. Use of this money to maintain the status quo, in light of future diminishing revenues, results only in the postponement of the inevitable, with ultimately nothing to show for it. These are "one time" monies, and it is prudent to use them as such - not as a supplement to regular revenue for ongoing operations. The funds need to be used for those one time purchases which will serve to increase efficiency, safety, productivity, and morale, since we will surely be expected to do more, with less or fewer, in the near future. The prioritized - 1 - 9 items were selected from submissions from each department director. Upon approval, the $400,000 for the Insurance Fund will be transferred to that fund and reserved. The other amounts will remain in the General Fund, designated for the use as approved by Council. Any plan to spend these funds will be submitted as part of the budget process; the department requesting the funds will simply indicate that funds are to be budgeted from this funding source. In light of these parameters, the following is recommended: 1. Insurance Fund Reserves $400,000 2. Complete Automation of City Hall $200,000 3. Purchase Equipment for Civil Unrest $ 14,000 4. Purchase Disaster Preparedness Supplies $ 20,000 5. Replace Antiquated Telephone Switch $ 60,000 6. Replace Fire Department Front Roll -up Door $ 6,000 7. Reserve for Equipment Purchases $164,275 Respectfully submitted, TOTAL $864,275 Rick Ferrin Viki Copeland City Manager Finance Director eD,-1 0 /Of . Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 3, 1993 City Council Meeting of February 9, 1993 STATUS REPORT ON PROPOSED EXCHANGE AND SALE OF PARKING LOTS WITH VASEK POLAK, INC. Background: A Council subcommittee comprised of Councilmembers Benz and Edgerton, with some assistance from City residents, and I have been working for several months to devise and coordinate a real estate transaction and realignment that will reconfigure the four parking lots to the immediate west of the business properties that extend from 2nd Street to 3rd Street along Pacific Coast Highway. The plan to which we are working is seen in Figure 1. In essence, this plan places Vasek Polak's auto storage and customer parking on lots 88 and 65 (he currently owns lot 89 and leases lot 88 from the City). The current arrangement, seen in Figure 2, while quite satisfactory to Mr. Polak, is unsatisfactory to several of the business owners who suffer from very limited access to the rear of their businesses. Additionally, the users of the public parking on lots 64 and 65 can only enter from and exit to 3rd Street, and because of its positioning immediately adjacent to multi unit residences, a significant portion of the parking is regularly used for residential parking and is often therefore unavailable to patrons of the businesses along that area of PCH. The planned reconfiguration serves to remedy several of the aforementioned problems. It puts Mr. Polak's lots into a linear configuration allowing for the City's provision on its lots of a thoroughfare connecting 2nd and 3rd Streets as well as 25 parking places compared to the 23 it currently provides. The business properties would now have unrestricted access to the backs of their properties not to mention a City parking lot immediately behind them. Despite what I perceive as a winning solution for the business owners and the City, there is a problem with the plan in that it requires and incorporates a 10' easement (the westernmost 10' of each property owner's lot), which must be granted the City by the business property owners. Despite my presentation of the plan and its benefits to the property owners, the owners of the two properties at either end of the block have either refused or are still considering the City's request for the easement. It is that 10' easement that allows for enough space to put in 25 parking spaces and a two way thoroughfare. The owners of lot 58 lease the property to the operators of a laundry. Though the operators clearly see the value of the plan, the owners are elderly and see more value to themselves in owning 1 /0 an unencumbered lot that is 120 feet in length than a 120 foot lot diminished by a 10 foot easement. I believe that they are looking at the property from a resale perspective vs. the increased commercial potential and value afforded them by the thoroughfare and public parking. They indicated that they would not grant the City an easement and the only way the City would acquire use of the 10 feet was to buy it. The owners of lot 63 are considering the City's request for the easement but are reluctant since it would reopen the rear of their property, which is currently enclosed by a wall. They cite their long history of property damage, ostensibly caused by patrons of the bar occupying the property on lot 62. The owners do appreciate the advantages afforded their property by the thoroughfare and the parking lot, but frightened by the potential for renewed damage, they have deferred on making a decision on the City's request until next week. An essential element of this plan was the performance of an appraisal which was completed by the firm of Richard D. Martin, ASI on December 28, 1992. The appraised market value of lot 65 (45' x 115') is $170,775. This is the lot that the plan envisions being sold by the City to Vasek Polak Inc. An option was to lease the property, but Mr. Polak has indicated his desire to purchase the lot. The other land exchange between the City and Mr. Polak is the trade of the City owned lot 88 for lot 89 which is owned by Vasek Polak Inc. Lot 88 is larger than lot 89 but the value per square foot of lot 88 is less than lot 89. Additionally, the plan envisions Mr. Polak keeping a 5' x 115' strip (west edge) of lot 89 and adding it to lot 88. The new dimensions of lot 88 will therefore be 55' x 115' and the new dimensions of lot 89 will be 35' x 115'. Though Mr. Polak will be gaining some square footage in this trade, he also takes on some significant inconvenience which we must eventually weigh against the gains in property before assessing any cost for the land difference in the trade portion of this plan. At this juncture, we have several potential options. I refer to the options as "potential" because we can not make a decision until I receive a decision on granting the easement from the owners of lot 63. For discussion purposes we should look at several options. Assuming that the owners of lot 58 refuse to grant an easement unless the City buys the 35.5' x 10' strip and the City refuses, the newly configured city lot will look like Figure 3 if the owners of lot 63 grant the easement, and it will have approximately 20 spaces. If the owners of lot 63 refuse to grant the easement the lot configuration will look like Figure 4 and have 15 or possibly 16 spaces. It is then our option to construct walls as shown in Figure 4 to separate the rear of the two properties from access to the public alley and parking lot. Of course the Council has the option to allow the City Manager to negotiate a fair price for the 35.5' x.10' strip with the owners of lot 58 and then if the owners sell the strip to the City and the owners of lot 2 63 grant the easement the plan's configuration will look like Figure 1. However, if then the owners of 63 refuse the easement the lot configuration will look like Figure 5. The following depicts our decision process from this point forward: - Decision from owners of lot 63 on granting the easement Decide if the City wishes to negotiate to buy the 35.5' x 10 strip from the owners of lot 58 and then select configuration Prepare the final plan to in- clude; lot configuration, ease- ment agreements with property owners, negotiate exchange and purchase agreement with Vasek Polak Inc. and present to City Council for approval Execute agreements and reconfig- ure lots as approved by Council One aspect of the variations of the plan which must be considered given the potential that two of the property owners may not grant easements is when the loss of parking spaces outweighs the benefits of the plan. It might be the decision of Council that if the available parking drops below 20 spaces, the plan does not provide sufficient benefit, i.e., both property owners in question refuse the easement. One last option which just recently came to mind and has not yet been drafted is to reduce the required width of the proposed thoroughfare by making it one way (north) and angling the parking spaces. I would estimate that we could still accommodate 22 to 23 cars depending on the severity of the parking angle. This plan would negate the need for the easement from the property owners, but the cost besides the loss of two or three parking spaces would be loss of the two way thoroughfare. In summation, we are within a few days of selecting a final course of action and preparing a final plan. ,e -2„Th Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager FRF/ld .. 3 • • • p° vo ov\iNie..p 712,A7E 1-102-5 662.F5 of Lar*t-061 4Iot o -P 1471'406 pt.tkorO4P mop 662. F -r (le— r2a4tAlt4it4 1725 (.)7.F.r., or Lo "r tfr-88 ..s. ri..04, 5175 Fr. or 1.-01111 11 b5). oc„ . . • 1 • yi rio:11 • a,i )p ( .7;4 • FT 13 • if .4 ' • 4 • • . • . • .... .; .4 • ". • ' 5.6 . ,-" • , •• 4. r1O1• f td • ' r • ,4, • L' • 014 i; 4 ?!•, ;. 1 .':e•1 e wt, $4,"!s'4so: 41.T. 4F. 'Af. „Aoltc'41 4.6 41 .4•,, • Dorokr. rir-OPERri 1.4ff flyz2N2 rptorp-iy 1446 r1010.1[D 0040 . 14.4C yr. PosTING 'Wintry LINE 10-T b -T T -T _ 1-- • YT - 6-7 1- •-r r0.0V4110 (..W•PITS Pro* 1,44.M. isobriNd. eowernr Maar- 90.1.1. t ar 4•' 4o, lew4.4 I /St" -01 ' urit:21 61-1YoNNEO L.tND roF, Ds-t7,--NTuD fvf3L1c- ALL' r/ap-14-1, PACIFIC coAsr HIGNWA/ PO-ligE I Yr eto 1001110 -TY UWE' • )414T1t-i& V. fol -AY- ov4K17At4.7 4olit = <-1&2, pr. 1 I1 11 •# lico4 I. I IL IS tr4 R% ‘;21 tt' 1 1uJ& GIT-/ l)4Het7 no' ss 11-111 171•0 , f!;.•! 7. 01 ml 08 I. • • 11 34 eq 11.11011§drisinkationisomm 4. I rienfte CY IONL. roc* 14 41 41 II 44 Al 10 SI ft 11 PWICArrtit 114.14116 I pi PILAW', Pil04,1C- o444sy 1' 2 tt, sntrsr 1 1 • T i -T T -T I -I' WW111.16. lkoal NW- LaT t-1' I 4 1' T- T s -T "if',., coMAP•1• Pia*, ',Mu. 1 I 1-T 6-T T -T I -T' 4-T 4 -1 I.r 1 1 . 1 i ---i. _I__ 4__• L__s_._ 1 46 41 4$ 41 $I I4 (ISTM riopvcre 411' acme marosiar 1.$4c % '4.i1/SI" " I' -ell 4,' PACIFIC COASTHIGFIW AY . • FIC.rui-az Z. • 4,1 pucrrio marmay lox -11 fPob!p mortuary • 1131 0 11101.0.6t, 4.4..66T6 6w -W VY4. A 12 2. 13 24 4 f 6 Lor 8B 12 k 17 N LL 4 J - 6Zr_J@3 V 10 B ail 3o to $1 12 3s II$ 13 W to 6/0,1.5 15 s6 16 IL IS 14 17 3B ti 14 P45-16 rAfWNA L4' o� GLFl1L lPIU1EP PJI%{G .BEY 16 II 0b w1— — N SI 1 54 61 7•r e T IM 'LOT 6 62 .;. 2-110royto:: AMGK $.6 LOT 6 40' 40' 40' SCALE! 1/22"..11-04 q 40 401 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY F/6.tiRE 3 41 qs Lor 1.5 Hr. to 47 of 41I ro W.u. 702.144066. 6'1 1/4,10.to Gat4041I 111.N'.K 84.8 115.3 epos vow Nor Au•nAop n a Co11PoIWi)s nrINb 04161-546, rgorGRN UNE r,.op-ro PV.'PE07'? LINE 0 oL •Eoro.i0 c.616/041 60400. VY.L 12 2. 13 14 7 28 0 21 30 )0 I2 1H 34 13 34 15 31P us' 16 17 59 4e 1a its 14 44 4e 20 Lor 45 417 4e al 4., 310 d v rr0e06eP c.NGP•IT8 114100154 -)T 01046 SI 3 em‘41.66611 • Pte- 0046 .;PLOT 65 L 15 •57:44.4.4 MICA NX3ua raRwNG li 13 I4 15 40 401 I 5-T 6-7 T 5-T _.y 40' 40' SWLG 1 1/421 aiNLIKre. •444..01/44. ., Loi 41 5.1 rroreicv cauacrr RLc W J. 34,e 1 1 94.01 -- r_ 6T i 7•T O T 54* eT I _— __ 01.0.01. ¶H4. L0T 60 ." 401 401 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY F/4,iE 4 36.51 fAcc Pecs mar ALCONNCA.tt eaNwEaWy /)►EKING LoT 5q. 410' 101 1 EXNG I6r1redrexr,' LINE ` rS-0Fme2 rearEfirY I.JNE WALL 7NICKNfs.G (W U. 7)441.41 666 144 • e 6r4IsTING flioPERY1.1140 O .o rR0R' *? reo1 1Y LINE 'b 0 • e Nom: EXI00i1NG PU1314G PaKWNG (K -Lar; 66 4 Lor'P 64 ) AccoHHo0ATEs 2s F444446 8T•LL5. e 3 13 1 1�1 13 26, 115 [4 6 7 e 4 10 II i2 10 pi 15 7' 8117Y 171 of /\ L01 ea 71 114 171 oI 17 16 21 30 31 33 a4 3 4 I 5 1 6 7 e P(toRo5w GON[.FEfE P5LOC44 *MU. 2"-° STKEET ((471146 N.041c *ALL LOT 63 scALE : I/3011. 11.011 1 2 3 20. Staub 1111141 0 I 17 la 1472,711 71 0° x 141 O WI 65• 89 40 10 II 1 41 N1 I• We) pw17I4arED Pulu-1c PAILFAG 43 44 15 1 I7 41 i-0 44 25' O &LEAF pEDIGATEP PUE1-I6- ,,..L / 4 5•T 6-f 7•T 6.• L0T 42 rPorosEp 0..o -s. WALL. LoT 41 1 45 17 44 50 10 - • o rAISTIN& F7o1TALTY LINE (a E rRom202n rRoPEM11Y LINm Th -+J' 3 it 1' 2 53.5 5 4 I 6451 5-1 ro•T 7-7 04 4-T 5-T 16•1i L_..L_.L_I_J L..•J._-l___I ► DT (.0 LoT 5E3 90' 40 4o' PACIFIC COAST' 4IC 4wb / F14-0 gE N v 0 a%IsT1Ne morairri L•NE rsoro*EP PRorsILTy LINE 0 N March 1, 1993 Mayor and Members of the City Council Regular Meeting of March 9, 1993 LA COUNTY BEACHES AND HARBORS CONTRACT Recommendation It is recommended by staff that Council approve the contract amendment to the City's agreement with the County of Los Angeles Department of Beaches and Harbors that will provide the City with beach lifeguard and maintenance services at no cost to the City through June 30, 1996 with an extension option through June 30, 1998. Background As Council will recall, the City's five (5) year contract with Los Angeles County Beaches and Harbors was set to expire on June 30, 1992. At that time, the County requested cost recovery from the City additional to the concessions provided for in the previous contract period (Attachment B). In recognition of the regional nature of beach services as well as the City's limited fiscal resources, Council did not approve any additional concessions on behalf of the City and instead requested a five (5) year renewal of the existing contract (Attachment C). The County responded by offering the City a one (1) year extension of the contract (through June 30, 1993) with additional extensions pending review by the Department of Beaches and Harbors staff Analysis The newly appointed Director of Beaches and Harbors, Eric Bourden, forwarded the attached letter (Attachment A) and extension agreement to the City Manager requesting the City's concurrence with his recommended amendment that will renew the contract with the City for three (3) additional years with a two (2) year extension option. At a minimum, this offer would guarantee that the City's original agreement with the County is extended four (4) years from the original expiration date of June 30, 1992 and at a maximum of six (6) years. The contract renewal as proposed recognizes the City's continued commitment to take care of Municipal Pier and Strand maintenance; to indemnify the County; and to work cooperatively with them on any recycling programs they may institute. It further establishes the County's continued provision of lifeguard and beach maintenance (trash, sanitation and contouring) services at no cost to the City. page 1 11 Clearly this offer from the County supports the Council's expectation that the responsibility for beach services is appropriately served at the regional level and although the request from the City for a five (5) year renewal was not met to the letter, this agreement seems to be well within the spirit of the Council's original request. With Council authorization, the agreement and extension will be forwarded to the County Board of Supervisors for their review and approval. Once completed, this extension will ensure that the City's beach visitors benefit from the County's exemplary lifeguard and maintenance services for the next several years. Fiscal Impact: Maintains status quo for City maintenance costs on Pier and Strand. No additional general fund commitment required. Respectfully submitted, Ma C oney unity Resources Director Concur: Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Director page 2 ERIC BOURDON DIRECTOR Attachment "A" COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF BEACHES AND HARBORS February 25, 1993 Mr. Frederick Ferrin, City Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Mr. Ferrin: JUDITH KENDALL DEPUTY DIRECTOR STAN WISNIEWSKI DEPUTY DIRECTOR By June 19, 1992 letter, my predecessor extended to June 30, 1993, the operating agreement by which the County provides lifeguard and maintenance services to the City of Hermosa Beach. I understand the City is unable to improve the County's cost recovery terms given current fiscal conditions faced by all levels of government. With your City's concurrence, I intend to present the attached contract amendment for approval by the Board of Supervisors. If you concur, please present the attached amendment for Council consideration. If approved, please return three executed copies and I will proceed to the Board. Please call me if you have any questions. TR:SW:jd Attachment Very truly yours, Eric Bourdon Director TELECOPIER (310) 821-6345 (310) 305-9503 13837 FIJI WAY, MARINA DEL REY, CALIFORNIA 90292 Attachment EXTENSION OF AND AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY RECREATION AGREEMENT COUNTY LIFEGUARD AND BEACH CLEANING SERVICES AT HERMOSA BEACH THIS AMENDMENT made and entered into this day of , 1993, BY AND BETWEEN AND CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a hereinafter referred to as the "CITY", COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY". WHEREAS, the City of Hermosa Beach ("City") and the County of Los Angeles ("County") entered into a Community Recreation Agreement on June 23, 1987; and WHEREAS, the County Recreation Agreement was extended to June 30, 1993; and WHEREAS, City and County wish to further extend and amend this agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1.01 The term of this agreement is extended for a period of three (3) years, commencing July 1, 1993 and terminating on June 30, 1996. 1.02 The parties agree to amend this section as follows: The term of this agreement may be extended for two additional one-year terms, with the mutual concurrence of the Director of the County Department of Beaches and Harbors and the City Manager of Hermosa Beach. The term may not, however, be extended beyond June 30, 1998 without further amendment or replacement of this agreement. 1.03 The parties agree to amend this section as follows: This agreement may be terminated at any time during the term or any extensions thereof by either party by giving 365 days written notice to the other party. In all other respects, the Community Recreation Agreement is ratified and extended. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, by action of its CITY Council, has caused this amendment to be duly executed, and the COUNTY of Los Angeles, by order of its Board of Supervisors, has caused this amendment to be executed on its behalf by the Chairman of said Board and attested by the Clerk thereof on the day and year above first written. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES By By Mayor Chairman, Board of Supervisors ATTEST: ATTEST: CITY Clerk LARRY J. MONTEILH Executive Officer -Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By By CITY Clerk Deputy APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: DEWITT W. CLINTON CITY Attorney COUNTY Counsel By OW Oe By CITY Attorney Deputy 02/25/93 day. of Attachment . %3 COMMUNITY RECREATION 'AGREEMENT COUNTY LIFEGUARD AND BEACH CLEANING. SERVICES AT HERMOSA BEACH 7. S AGREEMENT, made and entered into this L,t,,,Q, , 1987. BY AND BETWEEN AND CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH hereinafter referred to as the "CITY," COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY," WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the CITY owns a public beach, hereinafter referred to as the "BEACH", bounded on the north by the City of Manhattan Beach, on the south by the City of Redondo Beach, on the east by the Strand, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITY are desirous of entering into an agreement whereby the COUNTY will provide lifeguard and beach cleaning services to the BEACH; and WHEREAS, Section 10900 et seq. of the California Education Code authorizes cities and counties to enter into agreements and to cooperate in promoting and preserving the health and general welfare of the people of the State; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM 1.01 The term of this agreement shall be for a period of five (5) years, commencing on July 1, 1987 and terminating on June 30, 1992. 1.02 This agreement may be terminated prior to June 30, 1992 by either party after giving 365 days written notice to the other party of its intent to cancel. 1.03 In the event that this agreement remains in force and effect for its full term, the parties agree to negotiate an extension of this agreement, or a new agreement, during the fifth year of the term. 2. OBLIGATIONS OF COUNTY 2.01 Subject to the availability of funds, personnel and equipment, the COUNTY shall furnish the services described in paragraphs 2.02 and 2.03. 2.02 The COUNTY shall furnish all necessary lifeguard services to the BEACH. 2.03 The COUNTY shall furnish all custodial maintenance to the BEACH. The custodial maintenance obligation of the COUNTY shall be limited to the following work: Cleaning of the public restrooms at 2nd, 10th (just north of 10th and south of Pier Avenue), 15th, and 22nd Streets, including the furnishing of necessary cleaning and paper supplies, twice daily from Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend, and once daily during the remainder of the year. b) Necessary daily raking and sanitizing of the sand areas of the BEACH. c) Raking and burial of kelp, and burial of dead animals, as needed. (11) Furnish and empty all necessary refuse containers :on the BEACH at least five (5) times per week between. Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day weekend, and at least three (3) times per week during the remainder of the year. Contour:the BEACH 'by grading and leveling the sand, once each year. f) Cleaning of the lifeguard headquarters and towers on the BEACH. g) Minor repairs, meaning jobs that can be completed within eight hours. of work, by the workforce customarily assigned to the job by the COUNTY, to the public restrooms at 2nd, 10th (north of 10th and south of Pier Avenue) 15th, and 22nd Streets. These repairs may include, by way of illustration and not limitation, fixing broken sinks, faucets, toilets, windows and doors; replacing light bulbs and fixtures; patching cracks and holes. h) All maintenance and repairs to the lifeguard headquarters and towers on the BEACH. 3. OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY 3.01 Subject to the availability of funds, personnel, and equipment, the CITY shall furnish the services described in paragraphs 3.02 through 3.08. 3.02 The CITY shall be responsible for all maintenance, upkeep, and repair of the Hermosa'Beach Municipal- ler` including the public restrooms, concession facilities, and refuse removal from the pier. 3.03 The CITY shall furnish all tree trimming services on the BEACH. 3.04 The CITY shall furnish all animal control services on the BEACH, including the removal of small dead animals, birds and fish. 3.05 The CITY shall support the COUNTY's goal of reducing the cost of the COUNTY's obligations by exercising the CITY's best efforts to establish a beach litter patrol program, commencing July 1, 1988, as well as Court referral and other volunteer programs to reduce the COUNTY's need to provide beach maintenance labor. 3.06 The CITY shall furnish all major repairs, meaning repairs requiring more than eight hours to complete, to the public restrooms at 2nd, 15th, 10th (north of 10th Street and south of Pier Avenue) and 22nd Streets. These repairs shall include, by way of illustration and not limitation, repair or replacement of structural components, e.g., walls, floors, roofs, plumbing and lighting fixtures, and repainting of the interiors and -exteriors of the buildings. 3.07 TheCITY_',shall:be responsible for all maintenance, upkeep,,. repair. and'replacement of the Strand, the wall on the west side of the Strand, and any lighting systems appurtenant to the Strand, as well as for any playground equipment, volleyball courts, or similar facilities on the BEACH. 3.08 The CITY shall be responsible, under the terms of a separate agreement with the COUNTY, acting on behalf of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, dated December 30, 1986, for all maintenance of the BEACH adjacent to, and affected by, all storm drain outlets on the BEACH. 5 4. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS 4.01 The CITY shall provide the COUNTY with thirty (30) days written notice prior to any work of public improvement being done by the CITY, its agents or contractors, on the BEACH. 4.02 The COUNTY shall undertake no physical construction, alteration, or other work of public improvement on the BEACH, except such work as is described in Article 2 or any emergency work that may be required to protect the BEACH and facilities from storm damage, without the prior written consent of the CITY. 5. BEACH ASSET REPLACEMENT 5.01 The CITY shall create a Beaches Capital Asset Replacement Fund for the purpose of accumulating grants, donations, and other monies to be appropriated for preservation, repair, rehabilitation and replacement of public improvements owned by the CITY, or for which the CITY has responsibility under Article 3 of this agreement, e.g., restrooms, on the BEACH. 6. SPECIAL EVENTS 6.01 The CITY has the sole right to issue permits for special events on the BEACH. The CITY shall notify the COUNTY of all CITY permitted events. 6.02 The COUNTY shall be fully reimbursed by the CITY, within sixty (60) days of the CITY's receipt of a COUNTY invoice, for all costs, including overhead, incurred by the COUNTY in providing extraordinary services requested by the CITY for any special event. 6 6.03 The COUNTY may request CITY permission to conduct special events on the BEACH. CITY permission shall not be unreasonably. withheld. 7. COUNTY MARKETING PROGRAM 7.01 The CITY program sponsor or tideboards, refuse authorizes the COUNTY to display marketing donor names, or their product names, on COUNTY containers, and other lifeguard equipment. only be displayed on equipment trucks, uniforms, rescue boats, Name/product identification shall that is involved in providing a public service and shall not directly product. The COUNTY shall not permit displays involving alcoholic beverage solicit the sale of any name/product identification or tobacco related products. The COUNTY shall not display the name of any marketing program sponsor or donor, or of their products, on any beach under this agreement, in any fashion other than as is described in this paragraph, without prior written approval from the city council. 8. INDEMNIFICATION 8.01 COUNTY agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the CITY harmless from and against any and all liability and expense, including defense costs and legal fees, caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of the COUNTY, its agents, officers, and employees to the extent that such liability is imposed upon the CITY by the provisions of §895.2 of the Government. Code of the State of California, including, but not limited to, personal injury, bodily injury, death, and property damage occurring on - 7 - and within the BEACH, and arising out of any negligent or wrongful act or omission in the performance of the custodial maintenance and lifeguard obligations that have been assumed by the COUNTY in this agreement. In addition when liability arises pursuant to Chapter 2, Part 2, Division 3.6 of Title 1, commencing with Section 830 of the California Government Code, by reason of (1) a dangerous condition of the public restrooms, lifeguard headquarters and towers on the BEACH that is created by an act or omission of the agents, officers and employees of the COUNTY in the performance of the custodial maintenance obligation that has been assumed by the COUNTY for these structures under the agreement, or (2) a dangerous condition of the public restrooms on the BEACH that is created by a condition of disrepair for which it is the obligation of the CITY under the agreement to protect, repair, remedy or correct, and of which the COUNTY has actual notice but fails to give the CITY notice of the condition of disrepair prior to the date the condition of disrepair causes injury or damage to the third party tort claimant, the COUNTY agrees to assume the entire liability for the dangerous condition, and defend, indemnify and hold the CITY harmless from liability for the dangerous condition, including the alleged -act or omission of the CITY, its agents, officers and employees, to protect against, repair, remedy, or correct the dangerous condition, to provide safeguards against the dangerous condition, or warn of the dangerous condition. It is understood and agreed by the CITY that the foregoing assumption of liability by the COUNTY for liability arising pursuant to Chapter 2, Division 3.6 of Title 1, commencing with Section 830 of the Government Code shall not be deemed, to be either an expressed or implied, acceptance by the COUNTY of an obligation to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the CITY for liability arising pursuant to Section 830, et sec. of the Government Code, by reason of a dangerous condition of the BEACH that is created by (1) a condition of the piers and groins, (2) a condition of the public restrooms for which it is the obligation of the CITY under the agreement to protect, repair, remedy or correct and of which the CITY has actual notice or of which the COUNTY does not have actual notice or of which the CITY and COUNTY do not have actual notice prior to the date on which the condition causes injury or damage to the third party tort claimant, (3) or a natural condition or hybrid natural and artificial condition of the upland, the accretions to the upland, the tide and submerged land, and the ocean, including the alleged act or omission of the COUNTY, its agents, officers and employees, to protect against, repair, remedy, or correct the dangerous condition, to provide safeguards against the dangerous condition, or to warn of the dangerous condition. 8.02 CITY agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the COUNTY harmless from and against any and all liability and expense, including defense costs and legal fees, caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of the CITY, its agents, officers, and employees to the extent that such liability is imposed upon the COUNTY by the provisions of Section 895.2 of the Government Code of the State of California, including, but not limited to, 9 personal injury, bodily injury, death, and property damage occurring on and within the BEACH caused by the negligent act or omission of the agents, officers and employees of the CITY in the performance of the obligations assumed by the CITY in this agreement. In addition, when liability arises upon any cause of action pursuant to Section 830 et sea.,of the Government Code, by reason of a dangerous condition of the BEACH that is created by either (1) a condition of the piers and groins or (2) a condition of the public restrooms for which it is the obligation of the CITY under the agreement to protect, repair, remedy or correct and of which the CITY has actual notice or of which the COUNTY does not have actual notice or of which the CITY and COUNTY do not have actual notice prior to the date on which the condition causes injury or damage to the third party tort claimant, or (3) a natural condition, or a hybrid natural and artificial condition of the upland, the accretions to the upland, the tide and submerged land and the ocean, the CITY agrees to and shall assume liability and shall defend, indemnify, and hold the COUNTY harmless from liability for the dangerous condition, including but not limited to, any alleged failure of the COUNTY, its agents, officers and employees, to protect against, repair, remedy, or correct the dangerous condition, to provide safeguards against the dangerous condition, or to warn of the dangerous condition. The term "natural condition" is defined to mean a condition of the land and ocean that has not been physically changed by some work of improvement having been made, such as by way of illustration and not limitation, cliffs, rocks, ravines, rip currents, shallow water, bottom slope, depressions, trenches, sand bars, wave break and refraction. The term "hybrid natural and artificial condition" is defined to mean a condition that is created by a combination of a natural condition of the land and water and an alleged act or omission of the COUNTY, its agents, officers and employees, that is either not performed or inadequately performed with respect to the protection, repair, remedy, correction, safeguard or warning of the natural condition. 8.03 Any dispute between the parties over their respective obligations for indemnification that cannot be resolved by mutual agreement of the parties shall be submitted for determination by arbitration under the California Arbitration Act or any or reenactments of the Act over the term of the However, the foregoing notwithstanding, it is agreed a final determination has been made, the respective for indemnity shall be performed in accordance with amendments agreement. that until obligations the provision of paragraph 8.03.01. Once the determination has been made, the arbitrator shall determine the rights of the parties to any reimbursement for the respective costs that are incurred pending final resolution of their dispute based upon whether there was a prevailing party in the arbitration to resolve the dispute, and if so, which party prevailed. 8.03.01 The costs of the judgment, settlement and defense of the third party tort claimant's claim and lawsuit, inclusive of the costs of attorneys, witnesses, experts, investigation, discovery, trial and appeal, shall be equally shared between the parties with the COUNTY assuming fifty percent of the costs of the claim and lawsuit, and the CITY assuming the other fifty percent of such costs. The county counsel and the city attorney shall provide joint representation for the named party defendants in the litigation that is commenced and exercise joint control over the defense of the case in the trial and appellate courts. In the event of a disagreement between the two attorneys over how the defense of the case should be conducted in the trial and appellate courts, the disagreement shall be resolved by allowing the attorney who wishes to engage in the course of action on which there is disagreement to proceed at the sole cost of the party that the attorney customarily represents which in the case of the county counsel is the COUNTY and in the case of the city attorney is the CITY. However, the foregoing procedure for joint representation of named party defendants and joint control of litigation notwithstanding, the county counsel shall represent all named party defendants who have been named in the litigation that has been commenced, whenever the city attorney determines in the exercise of his sole discretion that it would be to the best interest of the CITY for the county counsel to represent all the named party defendants in the case. In the event of a representation of all the named party defendants by the county counsel, it is agreed by the COUNTY. that the county counsel shall keep the city attorney advised on the status of the case, control the defense of the case in the trial and appellate courts subject to a right of consultation by the city attorney on the decisions that are made, obtain the prior approval of the city attorney before hiring private attorneys and expert witnesses to assist in the defense of the case, and pay for the costs of the defense as incurred; and, it is agreed by the CITY that the city attorney shall assist the county counsel in producing such witnesses and documents under the control of the CITY that may be required in the defense of the case, shall not unreasonably withhold his right of approval over private attorneys and expert witnesses selected by the county counsel, and shall approve all correct invoices submitted by the county counsel for reimbursement by the CITY of the CITY's proportionate share of the costs of defense that have been paid by the COUNTY. Any claim and lawsuit shall require the joint approval of the COUNTY and the CITY before an agreement for the release of the claim and a dismissal of the lawsuit can be made and entered with the third party tort claimant. In the case of settlements and final judgments each party shall pay its proportionate share of the total amount directly to the third party tort claimant. 8.04 The obligations assumed by the parties in article 8 shall survive the termination of the agreement, whether by expiration of term or otherwise, as to claims arising for personal injury, bodily injury, death or property damage, occurring on or before the date of termination. 8.05 The indemnity provided in 8.01 and 8.02 shall be excess to any other indemnity coverage protecting the parties from third party tort liability arising out of their acts or omissions and .dangerous conditions on the BEACH. 8.06 In the event that there is indemnity for the third party tort liability under both paragraphs 8.01 and 8.02, it is agreed that the liability shall be equally shared between the parties with the COUNTY assuming fifty percent of the costs of the judgment, settlement and defense of the claim and lawsuit, and the CITY assuming the other fifty percent. it is further agreed that the control over the claims and lawsuits that are subject to the combined indemnity described in this paragraph shall be handled in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 8.03.01. 8.07 This agreement of indemnity shall supersede any and all other agreements of indemnity between the. parties with respect to their liability for the BEACH by reason of -their being parties to an agreement as defined in Section 895 of the California Government Code that is still in force and effect on the effective date of this amendment to this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The CITY of Hermosa BEACH, by action of its CITY Council, has caused this agreement to be duly executed, and the COUNTY of Los Angeles, by order of its Board of Supervisors, has caused this agreement to be executed on its behalf by the Chairman of said Board and attested by the Clerk thereof on the day and year above first written. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH By OUNTY OF LOS ANGLES yor ATTEST: KATHY MIDSTOKKE CITY Clerk By ITY Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: JAMES P. LOUGH ' CITY Attorney /1h/I TY A• or ey YP 2/14 Chairman, Board of Supery ATTEST: LARRY J. MONTEILH Executive Officer -Clerk o the Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM: DEWITT W. CLINTON COUNTY Counsel �.: J/ By /, ; - �` ;' ' ! ':;i� , r; Deputy. ADOPTED BOARD Cr SUPE?VISORS COUNTY OF LOS AUCELES x34 JUN 1987 c -D- ,-„.",_2% LA.• /tY J. .4.10:41 E!LH EXECUTIvE OFFICER Attachment •�° City of .21ennosaTeach_ Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254.3885 Nr • July 2, 1992 Mr. Ted Reed, Director County of Los Angeles Department of Beaches and Harbors 13837 Fiji Way Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 Dear Mr. Reed: In response to your letter dated June 19, 1992 that confirmed the extension of the previous contract for lifeguard and beach maintenance services in Hermosa Beach for a period of one (1) year, the City Council voted to request the County's approval of this extension for a period of five (5) years (see attached draft of minutes). Enclosed you will find a newly proposed contract that contains the same terms as were listed in the contract drafted in June, 1987. The City Council respectfully requests that the County respond to this offer prior to the end of July, 1992. As indicated in the previous letter from the Mayor, the Council remains firm in their conviction that the concessions the City made in 1987 were substantial and that the Hermosa Beach taxpayers should not bear any additional burden for what is appropriately a regional responsibility. We look forward to the possibility of bringing this negotiation to resolution so that the beach visitors can be assured that the exemplary lifeguard and beach maintenance services provided by the County will remain intact for years to come. If you have any additional questions or concerns about this contract please do not hesitate to call. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, `,0•T Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager cc: Supervisor Dean Dana Leah Jeffries, Sr. Deputy for Supervisor Dana City Council Enclosures To: From: Subject: Date: /-0- City of Hermosa Beach Memorandum Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Lindsay Hirsh, Planning Aide 1 - Fiesta de las Artes Transportation Provisions March 2, 1993 Attached is a request from the Chamber of Commerce to use the WAVE vehicles to help transport persons between the fiesta and the remote parking areas. The City Council has approved similar requests for the past two years. The vehicles are available for this use, and Proposition C funds are available and eligible for this type of use. Proposition A funds have been used in the past, however Proposition C funds are available instead and will be used since Proposition A funds can be exchanged for General funds whereas C funds cannot. It should be noted that the projected cost of this years event is approximately $1,000 more per event than last year's estimate of $3,500. CONCUR: Michael Schubach Planning Director Frederick Ferrin City Manager NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT Viki Copeland Finance Director 12 HERMOSA BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 323 PIER AVENUE • P.O. BOX 404 HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 (310) 376-0951 • FAX (310) 798-2594 March 2, 1993 Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members: The Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce Fiesta Committee has been busy planing for the upcoming Fiesta de las Artes, scheduled to take place May 29, 30 & 31, and September 4, 5 & 6, 1993. We would like to request the following item to be put on the agenda for the next available Hermosa Beach City Council Meeting. The purpose is to get council approval allowing a small amount of Proposition A Transportation funds to be used for both the Memorial Day and Labor Day Fiesta de las Artes. For the past two years, the City Council approved the utilization of WAVE vehicles for transporting fair goers to and from designated parking areas and at the same time offer the WAVE Bus program maximum exposure to the community. Approximately 100,000 people visit downtown Hermosa Beach during the three days of the event of which a large percentage are Hermosa Beach and surrounding area residents. We found that by using a larger number of small vehicles, trip frequency increased dramatically while decreasing the .traffic problems associated with large school buses, pedestrian traffic and vehicle traffic. With WAVE shuttle arrangement, we then used the full Fiesta budgeted transportation dollars, which is over $4,000 to rent an increased number of smaller school buses for the shuttle service to and from our second designated fair parking lot at Mira Costa High School. The system proved to be a tremendous improvement contributing much towards our virtual elimination of grid lock in the community and long lines at Fiesta shuttle stops. Z J. VIIErer Hermosa Beach Chamber - Page 2 The cost to operate the WAVE for this service will be approximately $4500 per event. According to Mr. Schubach surplus funds are available and the contract allows for such use of Proposition A funds. Thank you for your prompt consideration. Sincerely, Carol Hunt Executive Director HERMOSA BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 3 EST. 1964 Ownership Listing Service March 8, 1993 Notifications Radius Maps Owner Lists Permits Elevations Site & Floor Plans The City of Hermosa Beach Mr. Albert Wiemans Mr. Sam Y. Edgerton Mr. Robert Benz Mr. Robert Essertier Ms. Kathleen Midstroke RE: 300' Radius Public Noticing Bid. '1/ :--J <. (- 97j MARO9 €993 City Clerk City of Hermosa 001301`` Fi T—r �� ' LLY Dear Council Members: Having read the Planning Staffs' recommendation I feel I must comment. The bid 1 filed was very responsible and not solely to initiate business with the City. The profit margin and cost of work was estimated correctly. I estimated costs to be in the S68.00 to $75.00 range per job, giving an estimated average profit of S150.00 per job. I have been in business for over nine years with many Cities as clients @ a per notice profit ranging from 60 to 80 cents. City of Hermosa Beach: Average noticing Estimated Profit Profit per notice 230 notices S150.00 S000.65 While the staff states that Mr. Jack Wood of Triad Design indicates that he will use the next for months to gauge if he makes a profit, l have related to the staff that being totally computerized and able to produce most addresses with a simple keystroke makes 60-65 cents profit per notice perfectly acceptable. While I am sure that the staffs judgment of the bid as unrealistic, is their honest assessment generated through an internal cost estimate, I believe that the above breakdown in addition to my experience within this business and excellent reputation belie that view. I thereby request that you will give my bid serious consideration during the City Council meeting of March 9, 1993. cc: Ms. Elaine Doerfling Mr. Charles S. Vose Cathy McDermott, Owner Sin erely, (- 17)7 IYPV Cathy McDermott 5595 Paseo Joaquin Yorba Linda, CA. 92686 7141970-6157 ,SUPPLEMENTAL INF ORM ATinhI 13 s4/q3 MAR 09 i993 Cfty Clerk City of Hermosa OaLc•1 • 6E- 4- TeX -A1_ 6 iG 3E JEJ L 1 t i( 3 6UP l JCS J�' /L)o-n c ri c 1m N\L t P, oS (AIM ciwytti -7)4- -601 G-/-7 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE COMMUNICATIONS TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL DATE: MARCH 2, 1993 RE: CABLE TELEVISION BOARD ABSENCES FROM: MARY C. ROONEY BOARD MEMBER DAVE REIMER DIRECTOR COMMUNITY RESOURCES **************************************************************** **************************************************************** Per Section 2-64 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, two absences from a regular Commission Meeting within one calendar quarter or four absences within a calendar year create an automatic vacancy. The City Council may waive application of this section if it is deemed appropriate to do so. Cable Television Board Member Dave. Reimer has been absent from two Commission meetings during the January/February/March, 1993 quarter. He notified staff in advance of his anticipated absences which were scheduled for business reasons. With the Council's permission, Board Member Reimer would like to remain in his post as a Commissioner through his scheduled term. Mary ey, Director Comm ity Resources Dept. Noted: 1 Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager 15a ITEM 15(b) WILL BE AVAILABLE ON MONDAY 7"/NZ r � 23 March 1, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council March 9, 1993 SUBJECT: 300' RADIUS PUBLIC NOTICING INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL PURPOSE: TO AWARD THE CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC NOTICING Recommendation Direct staff as deemed appropriate: 1. Accept the low bid 2. Accept the lowest responsible bid Background At the City Council meeting of January 26, 1993, the City Council opted to rebid the 300 foot public noticing required for various discretionary application submittals to the Planning Commission and to the City Council on appeal. The amounts of the seven sealed bids received by the City Clerk on or before February 25, 1993, are listed in the attached log sheet. Analysis The lowest bid was received from Triad Design Associates, for the amount of $200.00 for first notices and $85.00 for second notices. The remaining bid amounts ranged from $218.00 to $490 for first notices. The previous contractor was charging $230.00 for first notices. The citycharges applicants $373.50 for noticing (this amount is based on the $230 charge for the 300' noticing, plus $125 for the Easy Reader ad, plus an estimated $18.50 for staff time) . Staff believes that the two low bids were submitted to initiate business with the City since the cost of postage and copying alone, on the average, is estimated to be $70 and staff's total estimates of cost are much higher. Also, Mr. Jack Wood of Triad Design has indicated that he plans to use the next four months to gauge whether it will be profitable at that price. Staff - 1 - 13 - believes that these prices may be unrealistic and that they will be forced to renegotiate to continue beyond the four months. As such the lowest responsible bid Srour and Associates of $280.00 for the second notice. However, the $800 over the next four months with CON UR: Frederick R. Ferrin City Manager NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: Viki Copeland Finance Director Attachments 1. Bid log sheet 2. Notice to invite bids 3. Contract is probably the submittal by the first notice and $140 for City will save approximately the lowest bid. Respectfully s lomi ted, - 2 - Michael Schubach Planning Director p/ccsrbid BID OPENING PROJECT NO. BID OPENING LOG SHEET pktud)thki6__ oc) /Jo-Fre...4 iJG— BIDDERS NAME BID BOND AMOUNT OF BID 1ST pc DER T1 WIJE14 nflip IsrrOG JE./41 c qoARE_ HaRIG _SERVIe-E_ I R 1.4.1) t-t)UcaERsiiip 1,-1 ST WC., SPooR 76.-.5.5cc afi-TF___f_ a.) FA -Di Os H.Aps 1\)1EVEs c) 'DAT-1°401cl: (TO I FOR M Ti 0 02)3D • . 1 E F3 •r) • CPty CJerk Olt" of Hermosa Boosts TA -AP - 3 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK • 1315 Valley Drive • Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH NOTICE TO INVITE BIDS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed proposals for providing the City with the 300' radius ownership and occupant lists will be received at the office of the City Clerk, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254, until Thursday, February 25, 1993 at 2:00 P.M. At which time the bids will be publicly opened and read aloud. 1. Description - To provide the required 300' radius public noticing for all applications for Planning Commission and City Council review of private projects. Number of applications is unknown. This provision involves the following: a) Preparation of ownership and occupant list of all properties within 300' radius of subject property. b) Preparation of radius maps with numbered parcels corresponding to ownership occupant list. c) Field inspection of businesses, apartments, and condominium projects, or other addresses as needed• to ensure proper mailing. d) Copying and mailing the City prepared public notice to owners and occupants on said list. e) Signing affidavit that verifies mailings were done. f) A minimum of monthly updated property owners lists available at all times. 2. Period - For all applications scheduled for public hearing between March 9, 1993 to June 30, 1993 that are subject to 300' radius noticing requirement. If the City is satisfied with the service being provided at the end of this period, the contract may be extended from July 1, 1993 for' a maximum period of three years, provided the prices remain the same or changed by mutual agreement. 3. Submit bid as a fixed amount for each application, incorporating costs for postage and xeroxing. 4. Submit separate bid for mailing of second notices for second public hearing before City Council. City Council notification is necessary when a Planning Commission decision is appealed, or second public hearing required by ordinance and would require reproduction of the list, and postage. Bids shall be enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed to: City Clerk, City of Hermosa Beach, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254, and shall be identified on the lower left corner of the envelop: SEALED BID FOR 300' RADIUS NOTICING. C The City of Hermosa Beach reserves the right to reject any or all bids, to waive any irregularities in a bid, and to award the sale to the supplier providing the product best meeting the City's needs. The bids must guarantee service delivery on March 9, 1993. The cost of workers' compensation insurance shall be borne by the bidder. Complete bid sheet may be obtained in Planning Department in the City of Hermosa Beach. Michael Schubach Planning Department 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (310) 318-0242 s- p/bidnote CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CONTRACT AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC NOTICING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of 1993, by and between the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ("City") and ("Contractor"). RECITALS A. City desires to retain the services of Contractor to provide services for the following: 1. To provide the required 300' radius public noticing for all applications for Planning Commission and City Council review of private projects. This involves the following: a) Preparation of ownership and occupant list of all properties within 300' radius of subject property. b) Preparation of radius maps with numbered parcels corresponding to ownership occupant list. c) Field inspection of businesses, apartments, and condominium projects, or other addresses as needed to ensure proper mailing. d) Copying and mailing the City prepared public notice to owners and occupants`on said list. e) Signing affidavit that verifies mailings were done. f) Cost forpostage and photocopying. g) Monthly updated property owners lists available at all 6- times 2. Period - For all applications submitted from March 9, 1993, to June 30, 1993 that are subject to 300' noticing requirement. This contract may be extended thereafter, for a maximum of three years, provided the prices are maintained as set forth in the Proposal, or, a new price is negotiated to the satisfaction of the City and Contractor. Number of applications is unknown. City Council notification is necessary when a Planning Commission decision is appealed, or second public hearing required by ordinance and would require reproduction of the list, and postage. B. Contractor has represented to City that it has the expertise, experience and qualifications to perform the services described in Paragraph A, above, and those services which are more fully described below. NOW, THEREFORE, :in consideration of the foregoing and the covenants and agreements set forth below, City and Contractor agree as follows: 1. Contract Documents. The contract documents for the aforesaid services shall consist of the Notice to Contractors, Bid Proposal, and all referenced specifications, together with this Contract Agreement and all required insurance certificates, permits, notices and affidavits; and also including any and all addenda or supplemental agreements clarifying, amending, or extending the work contemplated as may be required to insure its completion in an acceptable manner. All of the provisions of said contract documents are made a part hereof as though fully set forth herein. 2. Services. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees to furnish all materials and perform all work required for the above -stated services, and to fulfill all other obligations as set forth in the aforesaid contract documents. Contractor agrees to receive and accept the prices set forth in the Proposal as full compensation for furnishing all materials, performing all work, and fulfilling all obligations hereunder. Said compensation shall cover all expenses, losses, damages, and consequences arising out of the nature of the work during its progress or prior to its acceptance including those for well and faithfully completing the work and the whole thereof in the manner and time specified in the aforesaid contract documents; also including those arising from actions of the elements, unforeseen difficulties or obstructions encountered in the prosecution of the work, suspension or discontinuance of the work, and all other unknowns or risks of any description connected with the work. 3. Method of Payment. Payment shall be made after completion of .each job assignment. Contractor shall submit invoice for payment. 4. Hire by City. City hereby promises and agrees to hire and does hereby hire Contractor to provide the materials, do the work, and fulfill the obligations according to the terms and conditions herein contained and referred to, for the prices aforesaid, and hereby contracts to pay the same at the time, in the manner, and upon the conditions set forth in the contract -8 - documents. 5. Worker's Compensation. Contractor acknowledges the provisions of the State Labor Code requiring every employer to be insured against liability for worker's compensation, or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and certifies compliance with such provisions. Limits shall be not less than those specified in the insurance requirements contained in the General Provisions of the Project Specifications 6. Insurance. The CONTRACTOR shall carry General Liability insurance in an amount of not less than $500,000. The CONTRACTOR shall provide the. CITY with certificates verifying such coverage or endorsement acceptable to the CITY before commencing services under this Agreement. The CITY shall be named as an additional insured under said coverage. The insurance policy shall further provide that CONTRACTOR's insurance is primary for any losses, injuries or damages and that neither the CITY nor -its insurers shall be obligated to contribute to such losses, injuries or damages. Such policy shall require thirty (30) days notice to the CITY in writing. prior to cancellation, termination or expiration of any -kind. 7. Indemnity. Notwithstanding the existence of insurance coverage required of Contractor pursuant to this contract, Contractor shall save, keep, indemnify, hold harmless, and defend City and its appointed and elected officials, officers, employees, and agents, from every claim or demand made and every liability, loss, damage or expense of any nature whatsoever and all costs or expenses incurred in connection therewith, which arise at any time, by reason of damage to the property of, or personal injury to, any person, occurring or arising out of the Performance of Contractor, its officers, agents or employees, including, but not limited to, its subcontractors (hereinafter collectively "Contractor"), of the work required pursuant tothis contract, occasioned by an alleged or actual negligent or wrongful act or omission by the Contractor, including any such liability imposed by reason of any infringement or alleged infringement of rights of any person or persons, firm or corporation, in consequence of the use in the performance of Contractor of the work hereunder of any articley or material supplied or installed pursuant to this contract. a. Contractor will defend any action filed in connection with any of said claims, damages, penalties, obligations or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees incurred in connection herewith; b. Contractor will promptly pay any judgement rendered against City, its officers, agents or employees for any such claims, damages, penalties, obligations or liabilities; and, c. In the event City, its officers, agents or employees is made .a party to any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Contractor for such damages or other claims arising out of or in connection with the sole negligence or wrongful acts of Contractor hereunder, Contractor agrees to pay City, its officers, agents, or employees, any and all costs and _/c - expenses incurred by City, its officers, agents or employees in such action or proceeding, including but not limited to, reasonable attorney's fees. 8. Assignment. This contract is not assignable nor the performance of either party's duties delegable without the prior written consent of the other party. Any attempted or purported assignment or delegation of any of the rights or obligations of either party without the prior written consent of the other shall be void and of no force and effect. 9. Attorney's Fees. In any action brought to declare the rights granted herein or to enforce any of the terms of this contract, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees in an amount determined by the court. 10. Independent Contractor. Contractor is and shall at all times remain as to City, a wholly independent contractor. Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control of the conduct of Contractor or any of the Contractor's employees, except as herein set forth. Contractor shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or amy of its agents or employees are ina ny manner agents or employees of City. 11. Notices. All notices and communications shall be sent to the parties at the following addresses: City: Michael Schubach, Planning Director City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Contractor: 12. Authorized. Signature. Contractor affirms that the signatures, titles, and seals set forth hereinafter in execution of this contract agreement represent all individuals, firm members, partners, joint venturers, and/or corporate officers having a principal interest herein. 13. Entire Agreement Modification. This contract supersedes any and other agreements either oral or written, between the parties and contains all of the convenants and agreements between the parties pertaining to the services described in Paragraph A of the Recitals herein above. Each party to this contract acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that any other agreement, statements or promise not contained in this contract shall not be valid or binding. Any modification of this contract will be effective only if signed by the party to be charged. 14. Termination. This contract agreement may be terminated without cost by either party with a thirty day written notice. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto for themselves, their heirs, executive administrators, successors, and assigns do hereby agree to the full performance of the convenants herein contained and have caused this Contract Agreement to be executed -/2- to triplicate by setting hereunto their names, titles, hands, and seals this day of Contractor: , 199 . Agency Business License No. Federal Tax Identification No. Subscribed and sworn to this day of 19 Notary Public Agency: Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach Date Attested: City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach Date Approved as to form: City Attorney of the City of Hermosa Beach Date p/contract