Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/09/94,i/rt4 # K54,95 c 9V '/i -s "If we can ever make red tape nutritional, we can feed the world." - Robert M. Schaeberle AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 9, 1994 - Council Chambers, City Hall Regular Session - 7:00 p.m. MAYOR Sam Y. Edgerton MAYOR PRO TEM Robert Benz COUNCIL MEMBERS John Bowler Julie Oakes J. R. Reviczky CITY CLERK Elaine Doerfling CITY TREASURER John M. Workman CITY MANAGER Stephen R. Burrell 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 Department, Fire Department, Public Library, the Office of the City Clerk, and the Chamber of Commerce. During the meeting, a packet is also available in the Council foyer. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEMPORE: A. B. C. RECESS Designate Mayor for a term ending June 13, 1995; Designate Mayor Pro Tempore for a term ending June 13, 1995; and, Intergovernmental agencies requiring appointment of Mayor as delegate. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated July 25, 1994. 7 Where there is no vision the people perish HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WELCOME! By your presence in the City Council Chambers you are participating in the process of representative government. Your government welcomes your interest and hopes you will attend the City Council meetings often. Meetings are televised live on Multivision Cable Channel 3 and replayed the next day (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 orally. 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 compilation, they will be distributed prior to the Council meeting. Oral communications with Councilmembers may be accomplished on an individual basis in person or by telephone, or at the Council meeting. Please see the notice under "Public Participation" for opportunities to speak before the Council. It is the policy of the City Council that no discussion of new items will begin after 11:30 p.m., unless this rule is waived by the Council. The agenda is developed with the intent to have all matters covered within the time allotted. ElIn compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act ifneed special Y ou P assistance to participate in this meeting, you should contact the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204. Please provide enough time to enable us to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. 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) %�..!' M i 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. The following explanations may help you to understand the terms found on most agendas for meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council. GLOSSARY 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 opportunity to appear and formally express their views regarding the matter being heard. Additionally, letters may be filed with the City Clerk, prior to the Hearing. 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 ordinances take effect 30 days after the second reading. Emergency ordinances are governed by different provisions and waive the time requirements. Written Communications ... The public, members of advisory boards/commissions or organizations may formally communicate to or make a request of Council by letter; said letters should be filed with the City Clerk by 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 coordinates departmental reports and brings items to the attention of, or for action by the City Council. Verbal reports may be given by the City Manager regarding items not on the agenda, usually having arisen since the agenda was prepared on the preceding Wednesday. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Council ... Members of the City Council may place items on the agenda for consideration by the full Council. Other Matters - City Council ... These are matters that come to the attention of a Council member after publication of the Agenda. • PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Under the provisions of the California Government Code, the City Council is prohibited by law from taking immediate action on any Public Participation unagendized item unless it can be demonstrated to be of an emergency nature. (a) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 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. (b) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Letter from James Lissner dated July 20, 1994 regarding helicopter altitude minimums. 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. * Council member requests to remove items from the Consent Calendar. (Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 3.) * Public comments on the Consent Calendar. (a) Recommendation to approve minutes of the regular meeting of the City Council held on July 26, 1994. (b) Recommendation to ratify Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) Recommendation to extend the City's(ontrac)with Multi Vision Cable from the previous extension through August 31, 1994 to a new date of October 311 1994. Memorandum from Assistant City Manager Mary Rooney dated August 1, 1994. (e) Recommendation to approv(ease agreement)between the City and Hope Chapel for Rooms 5 and 6A in the Community Center. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated August 1, 1994. (f) Recommendation to authorize additional appropriation for the 1993-94 Crossing Guard budget. Memorandum from Sergeant John Kearin, Community Services Division, dated August 2, 1994. (g) Recommendation for reappropriation of funds from 1993-94 Budget. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated August 2, 1994. (h) Recommendation to amend (ontract>with Specialty Maintenance to include Hermosa Avenue between 14th Street and 15th Street. Memorandum from Public Works Director Amy Amirani dated August 4, 1994. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. a. (ORDINANCE NO. 94-1114 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CAL ORNIA, TO ADD THE MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE TEXT, SECTION 7-1.1, PERTAINING TO SEISMIC STRENGTHENING FOR UNREINFORCED MASONRY BEARING WALL BUILDINGS. For adoption. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated August 4, 1994. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. * Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 7:30 P.M. 4. SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Memorandum and Ordinance for introduction from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated July 27, 1994. 4)192:),,c° 3 HEARINGS 5. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 13 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES. (Continued from meetings of 4/12, 4/26 and 5/10/94) Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated July 28, 1994. 1 MUNICIPAL MATTERS 6. BILTMORE PARK DESIGN. Memorandum from Public Works Director Amy Amirani dated August 1, 1994. 7. DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE BALLOT MEASURES WITH RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION CALLING, GIVING NOTICE AND REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION AND CERTAIN OTHER RESOLUTIONS NECESSARY FOR A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION, NOVEMBER 8, 1994 FOR MEASURES PERTAINING TO OIL DRILLING AND THE BILTMORE SITE AND THE POSSIBLE ADDITION OF OTHER ADVISORY MEASURES AS MAY BE DIRECTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated August 3, 1994. a. INITIATIVE MEASURE SUBMITTED BY PETITION PROHIBITING OIL DRILLING. Supplemental memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated July 28, 1994. b. COUNCIL INITIATIVE MEASURE: 60% COMMERCIAL / 40% OPEN SPACE FOR BILTMORE SITE.. Supplemental list: Potential Projects: Proceeds from sale/lease of Biltmore Site. c. ADVISORY MEASURE: BILTMORE PARK DESIGN 8. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE INSTALLATION OF CROSSWALKS AT INTERSECTION OF GOULD AVENUE & MORNINGSIDE DRIVE AND DENY INSTALLATION OF A CROSSWALK AT THE INTERSECTION OF 28TH STREET & MANHATTAN AVENUE. Memorandum from Public Works Director Amy Amirani dated August 2, 1994. 9. INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO FORM CALIFORNIA UNDERGROUND UTILITIES DISTRICT 94-1. Memorandum and Resolution for adoption from Public Works Director Amy Amirani dated August 2, 1994. 4 fr2 (,) 10. REQUEST FOR THE AWARD OF A SOLE SOURCE BID FOR RECORDS MANAGEMENT - VAULT STORAGE EQUIPMENT. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated July 28, 1994. 11. BUS PASS SUBSIDY INCREASE. Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated August 2, 1994. 12. REQUEST FROM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR STREET FAIR APPROVAL. Memorandum from Public Works Director Amy Amirani dated August 4, 1994. 13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER NONE 14. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL NONE 15. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Council members 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 Council action tonight. a. Request by Council member Bowler for consideration of changing/moving Parking Enforcement time from 6:OOam to 8:OOam. Supplemental memorandum from Sergeant John Kearin, Community Services Division dated August 1, 1994. 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 5FEflD' OL j)IINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF TEE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on May 24, 1994, at the hour of 7:09 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - ROLL CALL: Present: Benz, Bowler, Oakes, Reviczky, Mayor Edgerton Absent: None APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEMPORE. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated July 25, 1994. A. Designate Mayor for a term ending June 13, 1995. Action: To appoint Mayor Pro Tempore Benz as Mayor for a term ending June 13, 1995. Motion, second A&D. B. Designate Xavor Pro Tempore for a term ending June 13. 1995. Action: To appoint Councilmember Bowler as Mayor Pro Tem ore for a term ending June 13, 1995. Motion (j , second ..jC- C. Intergovernmental agencies requiring appointment of Mayor as delegate. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) appoint Mayor Benz to the Los Angeles County - City Selection Committee; 2) appoint Mayor Benz to the south Bay Cities anitation District Board of Directors and Mayor Pro Tem Bowler as alternate; and, appoint Mayor Benz as delegate to the Inglewood Fire Training Authority and Mayor Pro Te Bow er as alternate. ion second . So ordered. City Council Minutes 08-09-94 Page 8589 • (7 "'A`1 ?f; cAr) / 3�� / � The meeting recessed at 7:X-7 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 7:31 P.M. • PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Under the provisions of the California Government Code, the City Council is prohibited by law from taking immediate action on any Public Participation unagendized item unless it can be demonstrated to be of an emergency nature. (a) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 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 may also 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 " . Bn.. Citizens with comments regarding City management of departmental operations are requested to submit those comments to the City Manager. Coming forward to ddress the Council at this time were: '`µ- �,, a y ____c____ v e_,Ase,_Ar _.... )--- .0)-c_t ..., ..---) ).- ?,-,, ---- 914--:>/-)p)-1 - 4)- 02 7-Z --_,' `t ) 6 „0.-), --- .4 -----).re- I/". - p„ -p c......„ --;-,,, 2 , r, 6_..„-, L_e , ---6.„----- ,...,, „or, C -- 3 � a pe--v4-e-L,-, / e --7-44..12.c/ ) , - J ,.,.- 26# .,.- 2.. w �� ! I C=r V "702-0 -- j_. 1 - III ‘_, 93 ' Ai-- ?? ,,,--- ems` - ir,�/L� t 7: P.M. the order of the agenda was suspended to go to the public hearings starting with item 4. (b) WRITTEN COMMUNICATION City Council Minutes 08-09-94 Page 8590 • 1/4At ° "I V 1/4) • • 1) Letter from James Lissner dated July 20. 1994 regarding helicopter altitude minimums. Coming forward to address the Council on htis item was: Jim Lissner - 2715 El Oeste Drive, Action: Toreceive and file. i%4'14 Motionti? , second So ordered. /i -q efv 4 c� 1. CONSENT CALENDAR The following more routine matters will e 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. Council member requests to remove items from the consent calendar. (Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 3.) Public comments on the Consent Calendar. Action: To approve the consent calendar recommendations (a) through (h), with the exception of the following items which were removed for discussion in item 3, but are shown in order for clarity: (a) Motion , second . So ordered. No one came forward to address the Council on items not removed from the consent calendar. (a) RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING MINUTES: 1) Minutes of the Regular Meeting held on held on July 26, 1994. Action: To approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 26, 1994 as City Council Minutes 08-09-94 Page 8591 • (b) RECOMMENDATION TO RATIFY THE DEMANDS AND WARRANTS Nos. 47963 through 48002 inclusive, noting voided warrants Nos. 47963 and 47964. Action: To ratify the demands and warrants as presented. (a) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE TENTATIVE FUTURE reyi AGENDA ITE =. Action: To receive and file the tentative future agenda items as presented. 1111. (d) RECOMMENDATION TO EXTEND THE CITY'S CONTRACT. WITH MULTIVISION CABLE FROM THE PREVIOUS EXTENSION THROUGH AUGUST 31. 1994 TO A NEW DATE OF OCTOBER 31. 1994. Memorandum from Assistant City Manager Mary Rooney dated August 1, 1994. • Action: To approve the staff recommendation to extend the Citys contract with MultiVision Cable TV from the previous extension through the end of August 31, 1994 to a new date of October 31, 1994 due to the full agenda for the august 9, 1994 meeting and the cancellation of the August 23, 1994 meeting, the original timeline for public hearings could not be met. (e) RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE LEASE AGREEMENT\ BETWEEN THE CITY AND HOPE CHAPEL FOR ROOMS 5 AND 6A IN THE COMMUNITY CENTER., Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated August 1, 1994. Action: To approve the Park, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission and staff recommendation to: 1) approve the one-year lease agreement between the Hope Chapel and the City for the use of Rooms 5 and 6A in the Community Center at a rate of $832 per month (924 sq.ft. X $.90 per sq -.ft.) from September 1, 1994 through June 14, 1995, and $859 permonth (924 sq.ft. x $.93 per sq.ft.) from July 1, 1995 City Council Minutes 08-09-94 Page 8592 • through August 31, 1995 for a total rental income of $10,038; and, 2) authorize the Mayor to sign the lease. (f) RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE 1993-94 CROSSING GUARD BUDGET. Memorandum from Sergeant John Kearin, Community Services Division, dated August 2, 1994 Action: To approve the staff recommendation to authorize the appropriation of $17,360 for the 1993/94 Crossing Guard budget to cover the cost of the three additional guards needed due to the reopening of the Hermosa View School on Prospect Avenue to Kindergarten and first grade students. • (g) RECOMMENDATION TO FOR REAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM 1993- 94 BUDGET. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated August 2, 1994. • Action,: To approve the staff recommendation to reappropriate certain unspent amounts included in the 1993-94 budget to the 1994-95 budget. (h) RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND CONTRACT•' WITH SPECIALTY MAINTENANCE TO INCLUDE HERMOSA AVENUE BETWEEN 14TH STREET AND 15TH STREET. Memorandum from Public Works Director Amy Amirani dated August 4, 1994. This item was removed from the consent calendar by Councilmember Bowler for separate discussion later in the meeting. Public Works Director Amirani presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Shirley Cassell - Hermosa Beach,.._ City Council Minutes 08-09-94 Page 8593 • • • Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) approve an amendment of the Specialty Maintenance Company contract to include sweeping and trash removal on Hermosa Avenue, between 14th Street and 16th Court on a daily basis and steam cleaning the sidewalk eight times per year for an additional cast of $125 per month; and, 2) appropriate $1,500 to cover the cost of the contract amendment. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES 7;55 (a) ORDINANCE NO. 94-1114 HAN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. TO ADD THE MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE TEXT, SECTION 7-1.1. PERTAINING TO SEISMIC STRENGTHENING FOR UNREINFORCED MASONRY BEARING WALL BUILDINGS. For adoption. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated August 4, 1994. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 94-1114. Motion , second AYES: Bowler, Edgerton, Oakes, Reviczky, Mayor Benz NOES: None 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION Items 1( ), ( ), ( ), and ( ) were heard at this are shown in order for clarity. Public comments on items removed from the calendar are shown under the appropriate item. PUBLIC HEARINGS time but consent 4. SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT ---REGARDING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Memorandum and Ordinance for City Council Minutes 08-09-94 Page 8594 • introduction from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated July 27, 1994. Community Development Director Blumenfeld presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. &/71 la, .a. �4'L The public hearing opened at $ :5 P.M. Coming forward to address the Council on this item was: e k d - Hermosa Beach, ` 4j _ / /a 64,1_ 6301* -7 • The public hearing closed at SP:08 P.M. ‘451- 2c: g Action: To approve the Planning Commission and staff recommendation to introduce Ordinance No. 94-1115, which reduces the required setback to five feet when commercial uses abut residentially zoned property in the C-1 and C-2 zones and adds a statement that existing commercial structures that do not meet this setback reuierment are not considered nonconforming buildings. Motion god , seconder. The motion carried by a unanimous vote = A) 0 Final Action: To waive further reading of Ordinance No. 94-1115, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO AMEND PORTIONS OF SECTION 8-5, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO REDUCE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECTS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND ADOPTION OF 4 NEGATIVE ECLARAO ." Motion, second • AYES: _Q-4-,' _) NOES: None (O , -0 1 ti 15 Bowler, Edgerton, Oakes, Reviczky, Mayor Benz City Council Minutes 08-09-94 Page 8595 J • HEARINGS S. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 13 OP THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES. (Continued from meetings of 4/12, 4/26 and 5/10/94) Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated July 28, 1994. • Community Development Director Blumenfeld presented the staff report and responded to Co i • estions. 3--o.-_-- -Y The hearing o e ed at : • C fo ing rwar to address the Council this item was: 4 13-yn ShirleyShirl9y Cassell - Hermosa % - ach, The hearing closed at P.M. Action: To approve the draft text amendments 13, "Nonconforming Buildings and Structures", the item to the Planning Commission. Motion , second . The motion carried, dissenting votes of to Article and refer noting the Action: To approve the draft text amendments to Article 13, "Nonconforming Buildings and Structures", as amended and refer the item to the Planning Commission. Motion , second . The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of City Council Minutes 08-09-94 Page 8596 • MUNICIPAL MATTERS 6. BILTMORE PARK DESIGN. Memorandum from Public Works Director Amy Amirani dated August 1, 1994. Public Works Director Amy Amirani presented the sta f report and responded to Council questions.: Ly✓ Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: ,g4.„__„u,...44.4,4,_,_->-1AL i fit/''_ en,--, i i z.2 Shirley Cassell - Hermosa Beach, ..._S_A—tc---/1/4-4-"-)roc------� CI A (...14 %...,c. -`,- 2 6J-7 u 3 v-oe) A ?A-7 • Actions To approve the modifications to the previously submitted Biltmore Park design and approve the Biltmore Park Construction Documents. Motion , second . The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of 9 '59 10, 7. DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE BALLOT MEASURES WITH RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION CALLING. GIVING NOTICE AND REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION AND CERTAIN OTHER RESOLUTIONS NECESSARY FOR A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION, NOVEMBER 8, 1994 FOR MEASURES PERTAINING TO OIL DRILLING AND THE BILTMORE SITE AND THE POSSIBLE ADDITION OF OTHER ADVISORY MEASURES A8 MAY BE DIRECTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated August 3, 1994. a. INITIATIVE MEASURE SUBMITTED BY PETITION PROHIBITING OIL DRILLING. Supplemental memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated July 28, 1994. City Manager Burrel presented the staff report and responded to Coil questior�s. y� �-� / ) 7 ') neol) / gtis City Council Minutes 08-09-94 Page 8597 Kt.12-15.,-7-1.-4--FA75-6& 6/Q -&-f•-•,S4,. `--e q yea'" 199 troy r /-( o-- -> 52- 4 Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: 6/!", /,e4 -0-1P 2___ lz).6 6, 9 di eye--A-- Action: To call a special election to be consolidated with the November 1994 statewide general election Ai 4S.17- /ii„ /” % S 14(4-)1 C .- te&,6-7P0 .mac-2dCe Further Action: To adopt Resolution No. 94- entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1994, FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS OUESTIONS RELATING TO OIL DRILLING AND TO THE BILTMORE SITE." Motion , second . The motion , noting the dissenting votes of Further Action: To adopt Resolution No. 94- entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO CONSOLIDATE A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF SAID CITY TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1994, WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION City Council Minutes 08-09-94 Page 8598 33302 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE FOR SHE SUBMITTAL OF CERTAIN MEASURES TO THE ELECTORATE." Motion , second . The motion , noting the dissenting votes of i. " 1Jurtber Action: To adopt Resolution No. 94- )I_entitled, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY �y'1 101 OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR :p .rS FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY SN IS TO PREPARE• AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS ON CITY MEASURES TO BE Foi2c,o, f0. SUBMITTED AT THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON 4, NOVEMBER 8. 1994." )�� Motion , second The motion , noting the ././f/ .'dissenting votes of ce)))1 �l Final Action: To adopt Resolution No. 94- , entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FGOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARFUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TURSDAY, NOVEMBER' 8, 1994." Motion , second . The motion , noting the dissenting votes of b. COUNCIL INITIATIVE MEASURE: 60% COMMERCIAL / 40% OPEN SPACE FOR BILTMORE SITE. Supplemental list: Potential Projects: Proceeds from sale/lease of Biltmore Site. Supplemental letters from Gordon B. Evans, Edie Webber, Howard Longacre, Parker Herriott, Eloise Butler, Chris Howell, and Patricia Fuehring. cfit,. ,/Q < —� c.��-7 6,f ,c qc-C1'"'I 4 )ec; `"'‘-/ Coming forward to address tti Council on is item were: /t City Council Minutes 08-09-94 Page 8599 \-\ \k)i I TN I 11 (j)k `t� S\ \;1\trk\:11(N\‘) I P\ *1 \ 11\1 \‘)\* t \Z-1 =QX( q4 /1/4 %\ 4 • • ( • • Action: To a. ADVISORY Action: To /11-711 7‹ MEASURE: BILTMORE PARK DESIGN. 8. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE INSTALLATION OF CROSSWALKS AT INTERSECTION OF GOULD AVENUE & MORNINGSIDE DRIVE AND DENY INSTALLATION OF A CROSSWALK AT THE INTERSECTION OF 28TH STREET & MANHATTAN AVENUE. Memorandum from Public Works Director Amy Amirani dated August 2, 1994. Public Works Director Amirani presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. ad_J- Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: City Council Minutes 08-09-94 Page 8600 1) approve the installation of crosswalks at the intersection of Gould Avenue and Morningside Drive; and, 2) not approve the insdtallation of a crosswalk at the intersection of 28th Street and Manhattan Avenue. Motion , second . The motion , noting the dissenting votes of 9. INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO FORM CALIFORNIA UNDERGROUND UTILITIES DISTRICT 94-1. Memorandum and Resolution for adoption from Public Works Director Amy Amirani dated August 2, 1994. Public Works Director Amirani presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Coming forwardto address the Co cil on this item were:• A -4r0_ Action: To approve the staff recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 94- , entitled, HA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH. CALIFORNIA. INITIATING PROCEEDINGS TO FORMUNDERGROUND UTILITY DIBTRISCT 94-1 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE.n Motion , second The motion , noting the dissenting votes of 10. REQUEST FOR THE AWARD OF A SOLE SOURCE BID FOR RECORDS MANAGEMENT - VAULT STORAGE EQUIPMENT. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated July 28, 1994. City Clerk Doerfling presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to approve the award of a sole source bid -te Tab Products for Records Management, Vault Storage and City Clerks Offices equipment in the amount of $16,510.60 (with a City Council Minutes 08-09-94 Page 8601 • • • possible 5 percent contingency) for a mobile, horizontal filing system with adjustable cabinets for the storage of permantent City documents and records from monies approved in the 1993-94 budget (reappropriated in item 1(g)). Motion , second . The motion , noting the dissenting votes of Action: To 11. BUS PASO SUBSIDY INCREASE. Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated August 2, 1994. Community Development Director Blumenfeld presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Proposed Action: To approve the staff recommendation to increase the bus pass subsidy for seniors, hadicapped and highschool sudents by $2.00, and $5.00 for college vocational sudents, to cover the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) fare increse which goes into effect August 25, 1994, increasing the current estimated expenditure by $1,315 from $5,050 to $6,365. Motion , second . The motion , noting the dissenting votes of Proposed Action: To maintain the subsidy by the same percent of 60 percent for seniors and disabled, and 56 percent for high school students and vocational students by incresing the estimated expenditure from $5,050 to $6,078. Motion , second The motion , noting the dissenting votes of 12. REOUEST FROM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR STREET FAIR APPROVAL. Memorandum from Public—Works Director Amy Amirani dated August 4, 1994. City Council Minutes 08-09-94 Page 8602 • Com Public Works Director Amirani presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. ng forward to address the Council on this item were: sv—)sfe;i & , )"`") �, 1_� ?rte ActiolL: Business to: 1) 02) To approve the recommendation of the Downtown Area Enhancement District Advisory Commission hold a street fair on Saturday, August 27 and 28, 1994, in conjunction with the Association of Volleyball Professionals Tourname following dates: /71 a) b) c) d) Sunday, September 18, 1994; Sunday, October 9, 1994; Friday, November 25, 1994; Sunday, December 4, 1994; i)ev d) Sunday, December 11, 1994; d) Sunday, December 18, 1994; and, direct staff to take steps to amend Resolution No. 94-5679 to allow for the sale and consumption of alcohol on City streets during Council approved street closures. Motion d, second moo"`'? dissenting votes of The motion , noting the 6 / /;!:V _,2 G ‘,43-4- N , 13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER - None (.�Ar-i/D, 14. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL - None • 15. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL City Council Minutes 08-09-94 Page 8603 • • Requests from Council members 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 Council action tonight. a) Request by Councilmember Bowler for consideration of changing/moving Parking Enforcement time from 6:00 A.M. to 8:00 A.M.. Supplemental memorandum from Sergeant John Kearin, Community Services Division dated August 1, 1994. Councilmember Bowler discussed his request. Action: To 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 City Council Minutes 08-09-94 Page 8604 ACTION SHEET REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 9, 1994 - Council Chambers, City Hall Regular Session - 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: 7:11 PM PLED.GE OF ALLEGIANCE: Garrison Frost, Jr., Beach Reporter ROLL CALL: All present APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEMPORE: A. Designate Mayor for a term ending June 13, 1995; JR/JB NOMINATE RB FOR MAYOR, SO ORDERED. B. Designate Mayor Pro Tempore for a term ending June 13, 1995; and, RB/JR NOMINATE JB FOR MAYOR PRO TEM, SO ORDERED. PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE TO OUTGOING MAYOR EDGERTON. C. Intergovernmental agencies requiring appointment of Mayor as delegate. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated July 25, 1994. JB/SE MOTION TO APPOINT MAYOR TO LA CO. CITY SELECTION COMM., SO. BAY CITIES SANITATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND INGLEWOOD FIRE TRAINING AUTHORITY. MAYOR DIRECTED WITH CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL TO APPOINT JB AS ALTERNATIVE TO ABOVE. JR DELEGATE/RB ALTERNATE TO WEST BASIN WATER ASSOCIATION JR DELEGATE/RB ALTERNATE TO SISTER CITIES ASSOCIATION JB DELEGATE/JR ALTERNATE TO SOUTH BAY CITIES ASSOCIATION RECESS: 7:18 PM RECONVENE: 7:39 PM 1 CITY ATTORNEY REQUESTED THAT COUNCIL ADD ANEMERGENCYITEM TO AGENDA # 13a REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF A PHONE SYSTEM JB/JR MOTION TO ADD EMERGENCY ITEM TO AGENDA #13a, VOTE 5-0. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: (a) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Bill Bastian, Owner, End Zone: Requested council implement RUDAT ideas. John Hales: Questioned Parking Enforcement procedures in dealing vehicles parked on street for extended periods of time and not being cited MAYOR DIRECTED WITH CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL FOR STAFF TO REPORT BACK ON THIS ISSUE., SO ORDERED. Paul Casiobo: Wants to open new business in Hermosa Beach, requests council to amend zoning code to allow a tattoo shop. JB/JO MOTION TO DIRECT PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TO ALLOW TATTOO BUSINESSES, SO ORDERED. Lex Honiak: Hennessey's Tavern: Spoke in favor of Streetscene. Juan ??, Owner of High -5: Spoke in support of Streetscene. Kurt Oshura: Shop Owner: Spoke in support of Streetscene. (b) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ti 1. Letter from James Lissner dated July 20, 1994 regarding helicopter altitude minimums. James Lissner: Spoke to his letter and requested council support for one of the two proposals before the FAA regarding minimum fixed -wing altitude. SE/JB MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE WITH DIRECTION FOR STAFF TO KEEP COUNCIL APPRISED OF FAA DECISION IN THIS MATTER, SO ORDERED. 2 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: (a) Recommendation to approve minutes of the regular meeting of the City Council held on July 26, 1994. (b) Recommendation to ratify Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. PULLED BY JO STRAW VOTE TO REINSTATE MEETING OF 8/23/94. JR/JO-YES RB/JB/SE-NO SE/JB MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE, SO ORDERED. (d) Recommendation to extend the City's contract with MultiVision Cable from the previous extension through August 31, 1994 to a new date of October 31, 1994. Memorandum from Assistant City Manager Mary Rooney dated August 1, 1994. JO/SE MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, SO ORDERED. (e) Recommendation to approve lease agreement between the City and Hope Chapel for Rooms 5 and 6A in the Community Center. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated August 1, 1994. (f) Recommendation to authorize additional appropriation for the 1993-94 Crossing Guard budget. Memorandum from Sergeant John Kearin, Community Services Division, dated August 2, 1994. (g) Recommendation for reappropriation of funds from 1993-94 Budget. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated August 2, 1994. (h) Recommendation to amend contract with Specialty Maintenance to include Hermosa Avenue between 14th Street and 15th Street. Memorandum from Public Works Director Amy Amirani dated August 4, 1994. PULLED BY JR 3 JR/JO MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE WEST SIDE OF HERMOSA AVE. BETWEEN 8TH AND 10TH FOR ADDITIONAL $125 PER MONTH. VOTE 4-0 (JB -ABSTAIN) JB/SE MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON BALANCE OF CONSENT CALENDAR, SO ORDERED. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. a. ORDINANCE NO. 94-1114 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO ADD THE MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE TEXT, SECTION 7-1.1, PERTAINING TO SEISMIC STRENGTHENING FOR UNREINFORCED MASONRY BEARING WALL BUILDINGS. For adoption. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated August 4, 1994. JB/JO MOTION TO ADOPT, VOTE 4-0 (SE -ABSTAIN). 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. * Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 7:30 P.M. 4. SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Memorandum and Ordinance for introduction from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated July 27, 1994. JO SUGGESTED CHANGING VERBIAGE ON PAGE 4, LINES 17-19, "...DO NOT COMPLY SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED "NON -CONFORMING"" TO BE MORE CLEAR. JR: CONCERNED THAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW A 30 FOOT, SOLID BLOCK WALL 5 FEET FROM THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. JO POINTED OUT THAT FIRE CODES PROHIBIT THE INSTALLATION OF WINDOWS WITHIN 10' OF PROPERTY LINE AND THAT MOST REMODELS WILL WANT TO PLACE WINDOWS FOR AIR AND LIGHT PURPOSES THEREBY PROHIBITING THEM FROM BUILDING A 30 FOOT HIGH, SOLID BLOCK WALL 5 FEET FROM A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. 4 PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 8:08 PM Chuck Sheldon: Owns a building at 10th & Hermosa Ave.. This ordinance would allow him to remodel this building without having to cut 4' off the back of the building PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:11 PM SE/JO MOTION TO INTRODUCE. VOTE 4-1 (JR -NO) JB/SE MOTION TO WAIVE FULL READING, SO ORDERED HEARINGS 5. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 13 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES. (Continued from meetings of 4/12, 4/26 and 5/10/94) Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated July 28, 1994. SUGGESTED CHANGES: • PAGE 3, SEC. 240, ??? • PAGE 5, EXPANSION/REMODEL ALLOWED, ITEM #2, CLARIFICATION OF "CONTINUED". • PAGE 6, SECTION 13-4, CHANGE LAST SENTENCE TO READ "...USE IS LESS INTENSIVE ARE MADE BY THE PLANNING DEPT. NOT PLANNING COMMISSION. • SECTION 13-6 ADD THAT ALL CURRENT BUILDING AND FIRE CODES MUST BE ADHERED TO. • DEVELOP SPECIFIC METHOD FOR DETERMINING VALUE JO/SE MOTION TO REFER TO PLANNING COMMISSION WITH SUGGESTIONS, SO ORDERED. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 6. BILTMORE PARK DESIGN. Memorandum from Public Works Director Amy Amirani dated August 1, 1994. Sheila Miller: Ordinance does not include hardscapetbenches only. Eleanor Perish: Santa Monica allowed for homeless in parks. People love the park in Laguna. 5 JR/JO MOTION TO GO BACK TO P&R TO REVIEW CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVE 3 (DELETE SEATWALLS EXCEPT ALONG STRAND AND DELETE LIGHTING) AND RETURN TO COUNCIL NO LATER THAN 9/27/94, SO ORDERED. 7. DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE BALLOT MEASURES WITH RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION CALLING, GIVING NOTICE AND REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION AND CERTAIN OTHER RESOLUTIONS NECESSARY FOR A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION, NOVEMBER 8, 1994 FOR MEASURES PERTAINING TO OIL DRILLING AND THE BILTMORE SITE AND THE POSSIBLE ADDITION OF OTHER ADVISORY MEASURES AS MAY BE DIRECTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated August 3, 1994. a. INITIATIVE MEASURE SUBMITTED BY PETITION PROHIBITING OIL DRILLING. Supplemental memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated July 28, 1994. JR LEFT DAIS AT 8:21 PM DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST CITY ATTORNEY RESTATED THAT LEGAL COUNCIL HAS RECOMMEND THAT ITEM BE SCHEDULED FOR ELECTIONS OF NOVEMBER 1995. Rosamond Fogg: Urge council to allow people to vote in a timely manner. Tom Morley: Feels people are more familiar with what an oil drilling project entails and should be given the chance to vote immediately. States that legal opinions presented in packet reveal that making a decision to place the issue on ballot immediately will not effect council as far as the contract with Macpherson is concerned. Sheila Donahue Miller: Legislature nor citizens have power to cancel a contract. Feels this should be decided in a court. Scott Alden: Spoke regarding the Biltmore site comments by Benz and Bowler that issue should be put on ballot, questioned whether the people understood the oil issue any better than they understood the park issue. JB/RB MOTION TO PLACE ON NOVEMBER 1995 BALLOT. VOTE 2-2 (SE/JO- NO) (JR -ABSTAIN) NO ACTION JO/SE MOTION TO PLACE ON NOVEMBER 1994 BALLOT. VOTE 2-2 (RB/JB- NO) (JR -ABSTAIN) NO ACTION 6 DUE TO NO ACTION VOTES, ITEM BECOMES MINISTERIAL. CITY CLERK MUST ABIDE BY ELECTION CODE AND PROCEED FOR PLACEMENT ON 1995 BALLOT. b. COUNCIL INITIATIVE MEASURE: 60% COMMERCIAL / 40% OPEN SPACE FOR BILTMORE SITE.. Supplemental list: Potential Projects: Proceeds from sale/lease of Biltmore Site. JB STATED THAT IN 1992 WHEN BILTMORE WAS VOTED ON, LIBRARY WAS OPEN 6 DAYS A WEEK; LIFEGUARDS WERE ASSUMED TO BE HERE FOREVER; PARK FUND HAD 2.5 MILLION IN 1991, FUND BALANCE WAS 332,095 IN 1992, AND -0- IN 1994; GENERAL FUND DOWN 16% SINCE 1992, COUNTY TAKES 11% + 60,000 IN FINES AND FORFEITURES + WE PAY COUNTY 75,000 TO COLLECT TAXES FOR US; CITY STAFF HAS BEEN REDUCED; 12.5% REDUCTION IN POLICE STAFF; SOUTH SCHOOL PARK ONLY 50% FUNDED; -0- DOLLARS AVAILABLE FOR VALLEY PARK REPAIRS; -0- FOR PIER REPAIRS; CITY HAS 19 PARKS IN 1.3 SQUARE MILES. WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT WITH ALL THESE CHANGES SINCE 1992 VOTE, THE CITIZENS STILL WANT TO MAKE THIS PROPERTY 100% OPEN SPACE. Sheila Miller: Cannot abandon park by putting something else on the ballot. Steps must be taken in the government code. Must show first that the park that has beet; dedicated by the zoning, has been abandoned. Gary Pollard: Reprimanded council for trying to override the vote of the people. if council proceeds, will file a writ of mandate. Cathy McCurdy: Requested that council, if decision is made to put on ballot, dedicate funding to current issues and not the general fund. ??: Commends council for bringing subject up again, feels money should not be wasted on Biltmore park when our library is closing. John Landon: Supports park, asked Council to have the courage to follow the will of people. ??: Noted council's feeling regarding the contractual agreement with Macpherson, and felt that they should view this as a contractual agreement with people. Jim Rosenberger: Recommended that council take their time on this issue, perhaps place it on 1995 ballot. ??: Supported park and was shocked that council decided to place on ballot again. Feels peoples vote should count for something. 7 W. Shaw: Feels issue should go on the ballot and that Council should wait until financial times improve so that a hotel can be developed Susan Blaco: Questioned why this vote should be more sacred than any other votes on this issue. Stated that in 1992 some of the people supporting this issue were telling people that there would be no park, just the ability to make a zone change in the future, then when the measure passed they started pushing for a park. Bunny Seawright: Questioned need for park when our beaches are our park. A park will not bring in income which we need Debbie Lou: If issue goes on ballot, feels people should informed: Will development work with RUDAT?, What kind of development?, etc. Roger Carlson: Suggested that if this issue must be considered for another two years, at least through down some grass seed Sherman ??: Where will city get money to maintain park? Would rather see something that will bring in income to city. Marlin Vicks: Questioned who would use park and how will it be maintained? Would rather see it left like it is as opposed to spending money only to remove park for development. Eleanor Finney: Feels issue should be on ballot and that public be informed Michael Stephano: Feels issue should be on ballot. JB/RB MOTION TO PLACE ISSUE ON NEXT BALLOT 60/40 BILTMORE PARK WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO EARMARKING FUNDS IN THIS PRIORITY 1. LIBRARY 2. SOUTH SCHOOL 3. VALLEY PARK REPAIRS 4. PIER. VOTE 2-3 (JR/SE/JO), MOTION FAILS. NO ACTION TAKEN c. ADVISORY MEASURE: BILTMORE PARK DESIGN NO ACTION TAKEN 8. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE INSTALLATION OF CROSSWALKS AT INTERSECTION OF GOULD AVENUE & MORNINGSIDE DRIVE AND DENY INSTALLATION OF A CROSSWALK AT THE INTERSECTION OF 28TH STREET & 8 MANHATTAN AVENUE. Memorandum from Public Works Director Amy Amirani dated August 2, 1994. REQUEST TO MOVE ITEM TO 9/13/94, SO ORDERED. 9. INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO FORM CALIFORNIA UNDERGROUND UTILITIES DISTRICT 94-1. Memorandum and Resolution for adoption from Public Works Director Amy Amirani dated August 2, 1994. Debbie Lou: Suggested council get input from citizens regarding project boundaries. James Lissner: Opposed to Beach Drive area for following reasons: 1. Other public areas that need pole removal for public safety. 2. Other residential areas that also qualify for undergrounding: Strand north of 24th, Monterey near 20th, 2nd St. east of P.C.H., 14th St. east of P.C.H.. Do project in area that will put in the highest proportion of the funds. Take some time to open issue up for bids. JB/JR MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION, SO ORDERED. 10. REQUEST FOR THE AWARD OF A SOLE SOURCE BID FOR RECORDS MANAGEMENT - VAULT STORAGE EQUIPMENT. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated July 28, 1994. JB/JR MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION, SO ORDERED 11. BUS PASS SUBSIDY INCREASE. Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated August 2, 1994. JR/JO MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE #2 OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION VOTE 4-1 (RB -NO) 12. REQUEST FROM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR STREET FAIR APPROVAL. Memorandum from Public Works Director Amy Amirani dated August 4, 1994. Carol Duff, Chamber of Commerce: Submitted petitions from business owners showing support and a list of business owners that did not sign petition against street closure issues. Stated that chamber will monitor more closely that only Hermosa businesses will be included in this event. Leslie Newton: Urged council to approve request. Helene Frost: Ask council to deny chamber's request. Stated that if businesses are so anxious to sell on Hermosa Ave., let them rent a building on Hermosa Ave. and pay the rent. 9 Jerry Newton: Feels same people will object when report comes in from IBI regarding revitalization. Urges council to approve request. Garrison Frost; Coast Drug: Clarified for Council that he supported RUDAT, and RUDAT diagram supports parking as well as pedestrianism. Objected to types of ' businesses/products that were allowed to sell directly across from his store. Dallas Yost; Pacific screen Print: Bringing in merchants from other parts of town makes Pier Ave. merchants uncomfortable. Objected to types of businesses/products that were allowed to sell directly across from his store. SE/JB MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH NO VEHICLES ALLOWED AT BOOTHS, AND GIVE COMMUNITY RESTAURANTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE BOOTHS. VOTE 5-0 13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER • EMERGENCY ITEM RE: PHONE SYSTEM SE/JB MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION. VOTE 4-1 (RB -NO) 14. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL NONE 15. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL a. Request by Council member Bowler for consideration of changing/moving Parking Enforcement time from 6:OOam to 8:OOam. Supplemental memorandum from Sergeant John Kearin, Community Services Division dated August 1, 1994. JB/RB MOTION TO PLACE ON AGENDA, SO ORDERED. CITIZEN COMMENTS NONE SE/JO MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT AT 11:58 PM 10 SCRH T FOR ROTATION OF MAYOR te&)/i*. 1. OUTGOING COMMENTS BY MAYOR EDGERTON 2. MOTIONS TO APPOINT ROBERT BENZ AS MAYOR AND JOHN BOWLER AS MAYOR PRO TEMPORE FOR TERMS ENDING JUNE 13, 1995. 3. ROTATE SEATS: CURRENT: JO JR SE RB JB NEW: JR SE RB JB JO 4. PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE TO OUTGOING MAYOR EDGERTON BY MAYOR BENZ. 5. MOTIONS TO...(SEE 3 ACTIONS RECOMMENDED IN CITY CLERK'S MEMO) 6. MAYOR TO ANNOUNCE THAT HE WOULD APPRECIATE COUNCIL SUBMITTING THEIR PREFERENCES FOR COMMITTEE AND LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS AND HE WILL HAVE READY FOR SEPTEMBER 13, 1994 MEETING. 7. INCOMING COMMENTS BY MAYOR BENZ 8. BREAK - REFRESHMENTS 9. REFER TO AGENDA - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FACSIMILE COVER SHEET Total number of pages including this cover sheet Time / Date ALM ( C To7tt44/1,41-1 Cai at fax number Vq/ gy voice phone number 3 (0 3/S02/6 Sender: James Lissner, Box 264, Manhattan Beach, CA 90267 voice and fax number (310) 376-4626 If you are faxing manually, press 5 * after answering machine answers. umale4v Cmc% `{o Message /sub e c t Ci�-.lr�aid Ivey D 1� Etie4 rui r lLt-S' -�f-C.L� tried� MI -to ape ay 14)(/ ✓Yfrn!m-u 0( /Od • 1 ,e- fir,J � ul iia tozcsorpt h .- mint in/u44,=:4. aotek .See !VI ft eU nLif,41& e Sa, ilkiLMCV �S�1J r s 16-0o' ad m nu' coram o �f *-r*-4 I will S'agif - t� -��u Ara c7 ri �o o ' ta-dtiir &' " u - .6rel1 t ed e o ctd C_.reG e to _ 07) U' hth /eAA Ce e.- pe/Uf' 'i?,t;a ? ‘Ji f✓) IMPORTANT: The contain confide information is entity named as intended recipi distribution, o prohibited. If please notify u to retrieve tbi pages comprising this facsimile transmission Lt ntial information from James Lissner. This intended solely for use by the individual or the recipient hereof. If you are not the ent, be aware that any disclosure, copying, r use of the contents of this transmission is you have received this transmission in error, s by telephone immediately so that we may arrange s transmission at no cost to you. bl AP Are you disturbed by helicopter noise? Act by Aug. 25, 1994 411 '‘I"AW —W1114 Now is the time to contr••1 low (dying helicopters! If you live near an airport that operates helicopters, you can do something to reduce helicopter noise, Stop the Noise! (Homeowners of Encino) has filed a Rule Change with the FAA regarding low flying helicopters. This Rule Change, published in the Federal Register on June 27, 1994, would require helicopters to follow the same minimum altitudes as does general aviation. The public has only 60 days to comment on the issue before the FAA makes a determination. FAR 91.119 states that "except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft .,. over any congested area of a city, town or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, below an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizon- tal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft." However, helicop- ters may be operated at "less than the prescribed mini- mums as long as the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface." We believe. that FAR 91.119(d), which controls heli- copter flights, should be changed to eliminate this excep- tion. If you agree, then write to the FAA at the address below, and support the proposed Rule Change. The helicopter noise problem is growing worse. Helicopter noise affects millions of people every day. It disturbs sleep, interferes with telephone conversions, TV, and other activities. People have complained, news articles have been written, and meetings held by both resident and aviation groups seeking to address the heli- copter noise problem. It is abundantly clear that addi- tional measures must be taken by the FAA to mitigate the helicopter noise problem. The FAA receives numerous complaints concerning low flying aircraft over noise -sensitive populated areas. The quiet of our national parks is spoiled by constant PROPOSED RULE CHANGE Stop the Noted (Homeowners of Encino) has requested the PU to amend Section 91.119 of Part 91 of 14 CFR pertaining to minimum safe altitudes to stripe out the following language In sob -section (d) thereof: "(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimum prcaczO ed in paragraph (h) or (o) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface." This amendment shall add the following AAogaage in place of that deleted above: "(d) Helicopters, Helicopters operated by any municipal, county, *tate or federal authority for emergency services, rescue operations, police or are protection. may be operated at lees than the inimum prescribed in paragraph (b) os (e) of this section if the operation 11 conducted without hazard to persona or property on the surface." SEE RULT..8 DOCKET 27371 helicopter sightseeing flights. You may be aware of the in- creased number of low flying helicopters in your,cornmu- nity. Noisy sightseeing flights are conducted over residen- tial communities, beaches, parks, national monuments, and even movie stars' homes. Allowing helicopter operators to voluntarily avoid con- gested areas has failed. The long-standing exemption of helicopters from minimum altitudes is an anachronism that we can no longer live with. Helicopter operators seem oblivious to the resulting discomfort, inconvenience, and interference with the use and enjoyment of private prop- erty, and ignore the well-documented adverse affect on wildlife. The recent spectacle over the Los Angeles freeways during the O. J. Simpson chase involved dozens of low flying media helicopters that interfered with the police and endangered the public. Who operate these helicopters? Flights over popu- lated areas are conducted by companies who rent helicop- ters for sightseeing tours, particularly at night. Still others are used for real estate caravan "flybys" or to show homes to prospective customers from the air. Some helicopters are used for short distance business travel. Radio, TV, and other media use helicopters at all hours of the day and night to report on traffic, events, or to promote goods and services from the air. In all these cases, the helicopter exemption under section FAR 91.119 permits flagrant abuse of the public. The problem exists in any residential community where helicopters constitute part of the air traffic. Understandably, helicopters operated by the police and fire departments, rescue operations, and the like, should be permitted to operate atless than the minimum altitudes, as long as such operations are conducted without hazard to persons or property en the surface. - What cit you do to help? Write to: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Council, Attn: RULES DOCK= NO, 27371, 900 Independence Ave., Washing - tan, DO 20591, Your comments must be submitted in triplicate to the PAA by Aug. 25, 1994. Also contact members of homeowners groups, environ- mental organizations, and your neighbors --encourage them to write a letter of support. Please help us by sending a $26.00 check to: °� e#,cc41w-A'ai4.e! P.O. lriox 260205, Encino, CA 91426 3 Q !© 10 V .-f FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:38:43 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R AIR TOUCH CELLULAR CELL PHONE CHOS/JUN 94 R AIR TOUCH CELLULAR CELL PHONE CHOS/JUN 94 *** VENDOR TOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/25/94 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 03209 001-400-2201-4304 00615 4104.19 06/30/94 FIRE /TELEPHONE 03209 001-400-4202-4304 00879 *53. 17 06/30/94 PUB WKS ADMIN /TELEPHONE R AIR TOUCH CELLULAR DISCOUNT OFFERED 09130 R AIR TOUCH CELLULAR DISCOUNT TAKEN 09130 R AIR TOUCH CELLULAR CELLULAR PHONE/PUB WKS 09130 *** VENDOR TOTAL 05728 001-202-0000-2021 00691 06/30/94 05728 001-202-0000-2022 06/30/94 PAGE 0001 DATE 07/25/94 INV/REF PO * CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $157.32. $25.00 DISCOUNTS OFFERED 00684 $29. 00CR /DISCOUNTS TAKEN 05728 001-400-4202-5401 00072 *296.90 06/30/94 PUB WKS ADMIN/EQUIPMENT-LESS THAN $900 R JONATHAN*ALBIN CITE REFUND/ADMIN REVIEW 90192 *** VENDOR TOTAL 05863 110-300-0000-3302 06/30/94 59616 $296.50 $20.00 /COURT FINES/PARKING R ARATEX SERVICES. INCORPORATED UTILITY RAGS/RUGS-JUN 94 R ARATEX SERVICES. INCORPORATED UTILITY RAGS/RUGS-JUN 94 R ARATEX SERVICES, INCORPORATED UTILITY RAGS/RUGS-JUN 94 R ARATEX SERVICES. INCORPORATED UTILITY RAGS/RUGS-JUN 94 R ARATEX SERVICES. INCORPORATED UTILITY RAGS/RUGS-JUN 94 R ARATEX SERVICES. INCORPORATED UTILITY RAGS/RUGS-JUN 94 00152 001-400-2101-4309 00733 06/30/94 POLICE 00152 001-400-2201-4309 01652 06/30/94 FIRE 00152 001-400-3104-4309 01205 06/30/94 TRAFFIC SAFETY 00152 001-400-4204-4309 02881 06/30/94 BLDG MAINT 00152 001-400-4205-4309 00813 06/30/94 EQUIP SERVICE 00152 110-400-3302-4309 00963 06/30/94 PARKING ENF *20. 00 $153.33 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *89. 40 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $19. 00 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $331.18 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $55.50 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *7. 68 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 01053 47965 $0. 00 07/25/94 01053 47965 $0.00 07/25/94 409130 08815 47966 $0.00 07/25/94 409130 08815 47966 *0.00 07/25/94 409130 08815 47966 $0.00 07/25/94 990192 08922 47967 $0.00 07/25/94 00017 47968 $0.00 07/25/94 00017 47968 $0.00 07/25/94 00017 47968 $0.00 07/25/94 00017 47968 $0.00 07/25/94 00017 47968 $0.00 07/25/94 00017 47968 $0.00 07/25/94 r • • i• • I FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:38:43 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION •** VENDOR TOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/25/94 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROD * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PAGE 0002 DATE 07/25/94 INV/REF PO * CHK AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $656. 09 AT & T 03423 170-400-2103-4304 00139 $0.28 21302009900 00106 47969 MOBILE PHONE LD/MAY 94 09900 06/30/94 SPEC INVESTGTNS /TELEPHONE •0.00 07/25/94 *** VENDOR TOTAL $0.28. R STATE*BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 02411 001-400-1207-4251 00060 $21.65 102358 00079 47970 SALES TAX ROLLS/MAY-JUN 02358 06/30/94 BUS LICENSE /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 07/25/94 •** VENDOR TOTAL $21.65 R JENNIFER*CARREON 05866 110-300-0000-3302 59613 $20.00 7704656 08917 47971 CITE REFUND/ADMIN REVIEW 04656 06/30/94 /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 07/25/94 *** VENDOR TOTAL $20.00 R COOPERATIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES 03674 001-400-1203-4201 01243 $834.00 770 08451 47972 MAINT I EXAM BOOKLETS 770 06/30/94 PERSONNEL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/25/94 0 *** VENDOR TOTAL $834.00 • • • • ,• • R PAUL*CUNNINGHAM 05854 001-300-0000-3893 05618 $100.00 84189 08741 47973 SUMMER CLASS REFUND 84189 06/30/94 /CONTR RECREATION CLASSES •0.00 07/25/94 •** VENDOR TOTAL $100.00 R DANIEL FREEMAN LAX MED. CLINIC 02390 001-400-1203-4320 00527 $685.00 01090 47974 EMPLOYEE EXAMS/JUNE 94 06/30/94 PERSONNEL /PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXAMS $0.00 07/25/94 •** VENDOR TOTAL $685. 00 R J.F.*DAVIDSON ASSOC., INC. 05355 125-400-8513-4201 00017 $427.50 38248 08850 47975 CONTRACT SERV/RODAWAY PK 38248 06/07/94 CIP 89-513 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/25/94 *** VENDOR TOTAL $427. 50 R DEL AMO MOTORS 00303 705-400-1210-4324 00141 $4,696.99 93014495 08264 47976 MOTORCYCLE REPAIR 14495 06/30/94 AUTO/PROP/BONDS /CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS $0.00 07/25/94 • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:38:43 • I• • • • • I• I• • • RIP PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL R DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CTY SHARE SIGNAL REPAIR 11695 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/25/94 VND M ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION R DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CTY SHARE SIGNAL REPAIR 11693 R DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CTY SHARE SIGNAL REPAIR 11697 *** VENDOR TOTAL PAGE 0003 DATE 07/25/94 INV/REF PO M CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $4,696.99 00267 105-400-2601-4251 00232 $69.11 07111695 08847 47977 06/17/94 STREET LIGHTING /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 07/25/94 00267 105-400-2601-4251 00233 $37.39 07111693 08848 47977 06/17/94 STREET LIGHTING /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 07/25/94 00267 105-400-2601-4251 00234 $72.96 07111697 08849 47977 06/17/94 STREET LIGHTING /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 07/25/94 R EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY COPIER MAINT/JUNE 94 $159.46 02840 001-400-1208-4201 01149 $314.00 006M45400 01025 47978 45400 06/30/94 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/25/94 02840 001-400-1208-4201 01150 $240.10 006M45400 01025 47978 06/30/94 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/25/94 R EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY COPIER USAGE/MAY 94 45400 *** VENDOR TOTAL R EFRAM MOBIL GASOLINE CHCS/JUNE 94 *** VENDOR TOTAL 01400 001-400-2101-4310 28791 06/30/94 POLICE $554.10 00465 $37.62 N426791 01028 47979 /MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES $0.00 07/25/94 R EMMA CORPORATION PMT 10/STRAND PROJECT *** VENDOR TOTAL $37. 62 05181 115-400-8144-4201 00072 *11.489.00 06/30/94 STRAND WALL/CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVATE R HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SOFTWARE SUPPORT/JUNE 94 N1N98 0** VENDOR TOTAL $11,489.00 08872 47980 $0.00 07/25/94 00149 001-400-1206-4201 01297 $701.34 11N1N98 00032 47981 06/30/94 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/25/94 R KIRKPATRICK ASSOCIATES PAYMENT 1/PIER PROJECT 342.1 $701.34 05861 109-400-3301-4201 00282 $4,710.48 9342.1 08754 47982 06/30/94 DNTN ENHANC COMM/CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/25/94 r FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:38:43 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/25/94 PAGE 0004 DATE 07/25/94 PAY VENDOR NAME VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK * DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION $4,510.48 AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP R MARK*LEED9 05865 110-300-0000-3302 59614 •30.00 7702298 08919 47983 CITE REFUND/ADMIN REVIEW 02298 06/30/94 /COURT F1NES/PARKING $0.00 07/25/94 *** VENDOR TOTAL *30. 00. R SHARON*LOEFFLER 05853 001-300-0000-3893 05619 $50.00 01107 09740 47984 SUMMER CLASS REFUND 01107 06/30/94 /CONTR RECREATION CLASSES $0.00 07/25/94 *** VENDOR TOTAL $50.00 LONG BEACH UNIFORM CO. 01320 001-400-2101-4187 00629 *548.83 1405065/31500 08256 47985 INITIAL UNIFORM/AVERILL 31500 06/30/94 POLICE /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE $0.00 07/25/94 *** VENDOR TOTAL $548.83 R MEL*MAGALLANES 05842 001-300-0000-3115 06792 $225.00 04380 47986 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 06/28/94 /BUSINESS LICENSE $0.00 07/25/94 R MEL*MAGALLANES 05842 001-300-0000-3207 02144 *43. 50 04380 47986 BUILDING PERMIT REFUND 06/28/94 /OCCUPANCY PERMITS $0.00 07/25/94 *** VENDOR TOTAL $268.50 R KENNETH A.*MEERSAND 04138 001-400-1132-4201 00171 $5,600.00 08292 47987 LEGAL SERV/JUNE 94 06/30/94 CTY PROSECUTOR /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/25/94 • *** VENDOR TOTAL • • $5,600.00 R DAVID*OMINSKY 05864 110-300-0000-3302 59615 $40.00 6402794 08920 47988 CITE REFUND/ADMIN REVIEW 02794 06/30/94 /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 07/25/94 *** VENDOR TOTAL *40.00 R R0 -BART CORPORATION 05868 001-300-0000-3893 05617 $455.00 00221 08727 47989 SUMMER CLASS REFUND 00221 06/22/94 /CONTR RECREATION CLASSES $0.00 07/25/94 • • • • • • • • • • •• 1• • • FINANCE-8FA340 TIME 14:38:43 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT CITE SURCHARGE/APRIL 94 R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 50% EOUIP CITES/SEP-NOV CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/25/94 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT HANDICAP CITES/SEP-NOV93 *** VENDOR TOTAL PAGE 0005 DATE 07/25/94 INV/REF PO * CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $455.00 00118 110-300-0000-3302 59610 *19,145.00 06/30/94 /COURT FINES/PARKING 00118 110-300-0000-3302 06/30/94 59611 $29.334.50 /COURT FINES/PARKING 00118 110-300-0000-3302 59612 $552.80 06/30/94 /COURT FINES/PARKING R SOUTH BAY WELDERS TANK RENTAL/JUNE 94 09933 R SOUTH BAY WELDERS TANK RENTAL/JUNE 94 09933 *** VENDOR TOTAL 00018 06/30/94 00018 06/30/94 001-400-3103-4309 01682 $49.032.30 $15.00 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 001-400-3104-4309 01206 $15. 00 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS R SOUTHERN CAL. TREE & LANDSCAPE TREE TRIMMING/VALLEY PRK *** VENDOR TOTAL $30.00 03416 001-400-6101-4201 00377 $3.800.00 06/30/94 PARKS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. ST LITE HILLS/JUNE 94 *** VENDOR TOTAL $3.800.00 00442 105-400-2601-4303 00498 *11,441.20 06/30/94 STREET LIGHTING /UTILITIES R SPECIALTY MAINTENANCE CO SWEEPING SERV/JUNE 94 3027 *** VENDOR TOTAL $11.441.20 00115 109-400-3301-4201 00283 *2,550.00 06/30/94 DNTN ENHANC COMM/CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT R SPORTMART COMM RES SUPPLIES/JUN 94 10980 $2,550.00 08911 47990 $0.00 07/25/94 08911 47990 $0.00 07/25/94 08911 47990 $0.00 07/25/94 009933 01065 $0.00 009933 01065 $0.00 47991 07/25/94 47991 07/25/94 08837 47992 $0.00 07/25/94 00012 47993 $0.00 07/25/94 3027 00027 47994 $0.00 07/25/94 03479 001-400-4601-4308 00997 $142.80 10863/10980 01069 47995 06/30/94 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS *0.00 07/25/94 FINANCE-5FA340 TIME 14:38:43 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL R SOUEEKERS & HERB STAFF SHIRTS/COMM RES CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/25/94 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION R SOUEEKERS & HERB TENNIS TOURNEY T-SHIRTS *** VENDOR TOTAL PAGE 0006 DATE 07/21/94 INV/REF PO $ CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $142.80 03480 001-400-4601-4308 00995 $199. 14 1591 06/22/94 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS 03480 001-400-4601-4308 00996 $206.32 1567 06/13/94 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS R SRECO FLEXIBLE SYSTEMS RODS/SEWER RODDING MACH 10351 *** VENDOR TOTAL * * * $405. 46 01207 160-400-3102-4309 00907 $1,413.10 06/30/94 SEWER/ST DRAIN /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS R STATE OF CALIFORNIA FINGERPRINT APPS/JUN 94 34724 VENDOR TOTAL 00364 001-400-2101-4251 06/30/94 POLICE $1,413.10 00556 $356.00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT R PETER M.*SULLIVAN CITE REFUND/ADMIN REVIEW 04844 *** VENDOR TOTAL 05867 110-300-0000-3302 06/30/94 *356. 00 59609 *20. 00 /COURT FINES/PARKING R T2 SYSTEMS, INC. BAR CODE READERS/CITES *** VENDOR TOTAL $20.00 1591 08726 47996 $0.00 07/25/94 1967 08722 47996 $0.00 07/25/94 10351 08835 47997 $0.00 07/25/94 934724 00023 47998 $0.00 07/25/94 7704844 08921 47999 *0.00 07/25/94 05869 001-400-1206-5401 00033 $797.00 94624004 04098 48000 24004 06/24/94 DATA PROCESSING /EQUIP -LESS THAN $500 $0.00 07/25/94 R ELIZABETH*WIELAND CITE REFUND/ADMIN REVIEW 03854 *** VENDOR TOTAL 05862 110-300-0000-3302 59617 06/30/94 $797. 00 $20.00 /COURT FINES/PARKING $20. 00 3003854 08918 $0.00 48001 07/25/94 R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-1208-4201 01191 $314.16 042602992 00007 48002 COPIER MAINT/VSE-JUNE 94 02992 06/30/94 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 07/25/94 S,,) ' FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:38:43 J PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION •'J 3 0 0 • ,J R AIR TOUCH CELLULAR CELL PHONE CHOS/JUN 94 R AIR TOUCH CELLULAR CELL PHONE CHOS/JUN 94 ♦e* VENDOR TOTAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/25/94 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 03209 001-400-2201-4304' 00615 06/30/94 FIRE $104.15 /TELEPHONE 03209 001-400-4202-4304 00879 $73.17 06/30/94 PUB WKS ADMIN /TELEPHONE R AIR TOUCH CELLULAR DISCOUNT OFFERED 09130 R AIR TOUCH CELLULAR DISCOUNT TAKEN 09130 R AIR TOUCH CELLULAR CELLULAR PHONE/PUB WKS 09130 •w• VENDOR TOTAL 05728 001-202-0000-2021 00691 06/30/94 05728 001-202-0000-2022 00684 06/30/94 PAGE 0001 DATE 07/25/94 INV/REF PO * CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *157.32. $25.00 DISCOUNTS OFFERED *27. OOCR /DISCOUNTS TAKEN 05728 001-400-4202-5401 00072 *296. 50 06/30/94 PUB WKS ADMIN/EQUIPMENT-LESS THAN $700 R JONATHAN*ALBIN CITE REFUND/ADMIN REVIEW 90192 *** VENDOR TOTAL 05863 110-300-0000-3302 06/30/94 $296.50 59616 $20.00 /COURT FINES/PARKING R ARATEX SERVICES, INCORPORATED UTILITY RAGS/RUGS-JUN 94 R ARATEX SERVICES, INCORPORATED UTILITY RAGS/RUGS-JUN 94 R ARATEX SERVICES, INCORPORATED UTILITY RAGS/RUGS-JUN 94 R ARATEX SERVICES, INCORPORATED UTILITY RAGS/RUGS-JUN 94 R ARATEX SERVICES, INCORPORATED UTILITY RAGS/RUGS-JUN 94 R ARATEX SERVICES, INCORPORATED UTILITY RAGS/RUGS-JUN 94 00152 001-400-2101-4309 06/30/94 POLICE 1120.00 00733 *153.33 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00152 001-400-2201-4309 01652 06/30/94 FIRE 00152 001-400-3104-4309 01205 06/30/94 TRAFFIC SAFETY 00152 001-400-4204-4309 02881 06/30/94 BLDG MAINT 00152 001-400-4205-4309 06/30/94 EQUIP 9 00152 110-400-3302-4309 06/30/94 PARKING $89.40 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $19.00 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $331.18 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00813 $55.50 ERVICE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00963 $7.68 ENF /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 01053 47965 $0.00 07/25/94 01073 47965 $0.00 07/25/94 409130 08815 47966 $0.00 07/25/94 409130 08815 47966 *0.00 07/25/94 409130 08815 47966 $0.00 07/25/94 990192 08922 47967 *0.00 07/25/94 00017 47968 *0.00 07/25/94 00017 47968 $0.00 07/25/94 00017 47968 *0.00 07/25/94 00017 47968 *0.00 07/25/94 00017 47968 *0.00 07/25/94 00017 47968 *0. 00 07/25/94 16 .• I• • • • • • • • • • • S • 4 FINANCE-9FA34O TIME 14.38:43 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 07/29/94 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN N AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *w* VENDOR TOTAL***********0******w***********************0*******************+rte*w** *** PAY CODE TOTAL *w* TOTAL WARRANTS Ailiik PAGE 0007 DATE 07/29/94 INV/REF PO * CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 3314. 16 $102,681.68 $102,681.68. 1 HEREDY CERTIIY THAT THE DEMANDS OR CLAIMS COVERED BY IHE WARRANTS LISTED ON P ES L TO.._ INCLUSIVE, OF THE TARRANI RLOISTER FDI: _ 9 soy _ ARE ACCURATE, AND ARE IN CONFORMANCE FUNDS ARE AVAI // IU J L UUDL'ET. BY DATE FINAACE�'D RECT� 7 y August 4, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of August 9, 1994 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS August 23, 1994: NO MEETING September 13, 1994: Ordinance Revisions: Storm Water and Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Controls Public Hearing: Cable Television Franchise Renewal - MultiVision Cable Public Hearing: Underground Utility District Lease renewal: Association for Retarded Citizens for space in Community Center Lease renewal: Easter Seal Society for space in the Community Center Lease renewal: South Bay Center for Counseling for space in the Community Center Constitutionality of Opening Prayer at City Council meetings (Continued from 7/26/94) Public Hearing: Special study and text amendment to the zoning ordinance in regard to the 17 foot garage setback, and adoption of an environmental negative declaration. Extension of Landscape Contract Renewal of contract for City Prosecutor Services UPCOMING ITEMS NOT YET CALENDARED Initiated by: Council Alternatives for funding underground utilities Public Works Director Assistant City Manager Public Works Director Community Resources Director Community Resources Director Community Resources Director City Attorney Community Development Director Public Works Director City Manager Public Works Director UPCOMING ITEMS NOT YET CALENDARED (Continued) Council Council Council Emergency generator capability in local grocery stores with incentive program to be provided Revision of HBMC provisions pertaining to construction of public street improvements (Public Hearing) Bring back Ordinance on Fire Flow condition and consider revision or abolishment of Fire Flow Fee. Ordinance for new Chapter 19 of HBMC entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic" Caltrans utility maintenance agreement Adopt Cable Operator Ordinance Council Amendment to Circulation Element to include the North portion of the Strand bikeway and pedestrian path for improvements. Council Report on parking permit grace period 3rd Quarter General Plan Amendments: Air Quality Element 2 Police Chief Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Assistant City Manager Community Dev. Director Finance Director Planning Director August 1, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of August 9, 1994 IFRANCHISE RENEWAL EXTENSION Recommendation It is recommended by staff that Council extend the City's contract with MultiVision from the previous extension through the end of August 31, 1994 to a new date of October 31, 1994. Background At the April 26, 1994 City Council meeting, Council voted to extend the existing Franchise agreement in order to accommodate negotiations between the Cable Television Advisory Board and MultiVision Cable. At their July 18, 1994 meeting, the Board approved the ordinances related to franchise renewal and voted to forward them to Council for final review and approval. Analysis Due to the full August 9th agenda and the cancellation of the August 23rd meeting, the original timeline for the City Council public hearing could not be met. Furthermore, due to the complexity of the new ordinances, staff thought it would be prudent to allow Council Members sufficient time to review them prior to the public hearing. The new public hearing date is set for September 13, 1994. If Council introduces the ordinances and subsequently adopts them at the September 27, 1994 meeting, the new ordinances will be in effect on October 28, 1994. Respectfully Submitted, Mar}'QR6oney Assistant City Manager id i August 1, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council August 9, 1994 LEASE RENEWAL BETWEEN THE CITY AND HOPE CHAPEL FOR SPACE IN THE COMMUNITY CENTER (Rooms 5 and 6A) Recommendation The Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission and staff recommend that Council approve the attached lease agreement between the City and Hope Chapel for Rooms 5 and 6A in the Community Center and authorize the Mayor to sign the attached lease. Background Hope Chapel presently leases Rooms 5, 6A and 13 in the Community Center. They have been tenants in the Center since September, 1986. The Community Center rooms are used for storage and activities they hold in the Community Center, a nursery for Sunday services, counseling and youth activities. All of their services are provided free of charge. Analysis The combined lease space for Rooms 5 and 6A is 924 sq. ft. with a monthly rental of $832 ($.90 sq. ft.). The attached lease conforms to the present square footage rental policy approved by Council on February 9, 1993 with all other conditions of the former lease remaining the same. Estimated Fiscal Impact FY 1994-95: $10,038 Concur: Respectfully submitted, Ma sha Ernst Administrative Aide Community Resources Dept. Noted for Fiscal Impact: ooney Viki Copeland, Director Community Resources Director Finance Dept. HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER LEASE AGREEMENT This Leasing Agreement is made and entered into on this, the 9th day of August, 1994, by and between the City of Hermosa Beach, a Municipal Corporation (City) and Hope Chapel (Lessee). A. Recitals: 1. The City is the owner of a recreational/civic service facility generally referred to as the Hermosa Beach Community 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 Development as set forth in a document entitled Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Property and dated the 28th day of February 1978. These documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City and are public documents and by reference are incorporated into this leasing agreement and are referred to herein as the HUD and SCHOOL DISTRICT AGREEMENTS. 3. The Lessee desires to use a portion of the facility on the terms and conditions set out herein. NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Term. The term of this lease shall be for a period of One (1) year commencing on the 1st day of Sept., 1994, and ending on the 31 th day of August , 1995. 2. Description of Premises. The Lessee is leasing from the City that portion of the facility described as: Rooms 5 and 6A - 924 sq. ft. in the Community Center 3. Rent. Lessee agrees to pay to the City rent according to the following schedule: Sept. 1. 1994 through June 30, 1995: $832 per month ($.90) sq. ft. July 1. 1995 through August 31, 1995: $859 per month ($.93) 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 payment on the first day of the following month. 3A. Other Conditions. The following additional conditions are agreed to by the Lessee: 1. Lessee shall not mark, drill or deface any walls, ceilings, floors, wood or iron work without Lessor's written consent. 2. No signs or awning shall be erected or maintained upon or attached to the outside of the premises/building or placed in any windows. 3. All window treatments must receive prior approval of the Lessor. 4. All remodel work shall receive prior approval of the Lessor. 4. Use. The Lessee agrees to use the premises only for the following purpose or purposes: Hone Chapel related activities 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 combined 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 Worker's Compensation and Employers Liability insurance and furnish the City (or Agency) with a certificate showing proof of such coverage. Such insurance shall not be cancelled or materially changed without a thirty (30) day prior written notice to: City Manager, City of Hermosa Beach. Insurance Companies. Insurance companies must be rated (B:XIII) or better in Best's Insurance Rating Guide. 6. Condition of the Premises Upon Termination of the Lease. Lessee agrees to keep and maintain the premises in good condition and repair and to return to the City the premises upon termination of this lease in the same condition as when Lessee 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 demand the reasonable sums to repair the premises in the event of a violation of this provision. 7. Construction. Lessee is prohibited from making any,alterations 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 premises, 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 of repair if such reconstruction 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 terminated 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 direct or indirect act or any omission of the Lessee, its officers, 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 action, suits or other proceedings that may be brought or instituted against the City on any such claim or demand, and pay or satisfy any judgment that may be rendered against the Lessor on any such action, suit, or legal proceedings as a result hereof. 10. Rules, Regulations and Ordinances. The Lessee agrees to comply strictly with all applicable laws and any uniform Community 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 pursuant 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 pursuant to the provisions of this lease may be either personally 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, CA. 90254 Lessee: HOPE CHAPEL 2420 Pacific Coast Hwy. Hermosa Beach, California 90254 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 sublease all or any portion of the premises without the written consent of the City, which consent may be granted or denied 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 herein above set forth. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH a Municipal Corporation, Lessor By Mayor ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY DATE: LESSEE: Executive Director August 2, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of August 9, 1994 CROSSING GUARDS ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Police Department and Community Services Division Staff that Council : 1. Authorize the appropriation of $17,360. for the 1993/94 Crossing Guard budget. BACKGROUND: The Hermosa Beach Police Department's Community Services Division is responsible for the administration and supervision of the Crossing Guard Program. The budget for crossing guards is prepared by the division commander and submitted with the budget recommendations and requests of the police department. The Funding of the Crossing Guard Program is provided by a tax assessment of property owners in the City. The Public Works Department is responsible for submitting the cost of the program to Los Angeles County Tax assessor. ANALYSIS: After a six year closure, the Hermosa View School located at 1800 Prospect Avenue, reopened in September of 1993. The school provided only kindergarten and first grade. With the reopening of the Hermosa View School it was necessary to hire three additional crossing guards. The cost of the three additional crossing guards and their equipment exceeded the original crossing guard budget. Also, the reorganization of the Community Services Division resulted in the pay off of a former employee who had a percentage of his salary and accruals charged to the crossing guard budget, which contributed to the budget short fall. Funds are available in the crossing guard fund because the higher level of expenditure was assumed in the calculation of the available fund balance for year end 1993-94. It was an unintentional oversight that the request for the appropriation of these funds was not submitted to the Council prior to the end of the fiscal year. FISCAL IMPACT The additional appropriation necessary is $17,360. The funding source is the Crossing Guard Fund. Respectfully s_ • • ed, ohn J ' earin, Sergeant Community Services Division ed for Fiscal Impact Viki Copeland, Finance Director Concur: 2e.A.Je Stephdn R. Burrell City Manager lf August 2, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council August 9, 1994 REAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM 1993-94 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council reappropriate amounts listed below from the 1993-94 Budget to the 1994-95 budget. Background: Budget appropriations for 1993-94 expired June 30, 1994. Equipment and supplies or services must have been received by June 30th in order to be charged to the 93-94 budget. Some departments, have items or services that were budgeted and ordered in 93-94, but were not delivered or complete by year-end. In these cases, unspent amounts for those items or projects need to be reappropriated, since they were not included in the 94-95 budget. Analysis: Reappropriations GENERAL FUND Department Account Amount Item/Reason Police Vehicles $17,196 Patrol vehicle, delivery August/ September Equipment over $500. 2,526 Set-up equipment for above vehicle Public Works Auto Maintenance 763 Painting of mechanic van, not complete CIP 145/Underground Utilities 4,500 Engineer's report, BSI City Clerk Contract Services/Private 24,853 Records Management System; Vault Storage Equipment Data Processing Contract Services/Private 52,161 Remaining payments for software installations/conversions DOWNTOWN ENHANCEMENT FUND DEC Advertising 5,348 Banners, not received • . . . Department Account Amount Item/Reason PARKING FUND Parking Enforcement Office Supplies $5, 749 Citations ordered, not received PARKING FUND Parking Enforcement Vehicles 21,068 Electric Go -4 vehicle, delivery AugustSeptember STATE GAS FUND Public Works C/P 141/Street Rehabilitation. 22,455 Engineering services for Hermosa Avenue PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES Public Works C/P 515/South Park 13,845 Contract balance remaining, design services C/P 523/Biltmore Park 1,000 Contract balance remaining, design services ASSET SEIZURE/FORFEITURE FUND Police C/P 619/PD Remodel 6,000 Unfinished cabinet work CONCUR: ,63,4.,(4) Ste • hen R. Burrell, City Manager Viki Copeland, Finance Director Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council August 1, 1994 Regular Meeting of August 9, 1994 AMENDMENT OF THE SPECIALTY MAINTENANCE CONTRACT TO INCLUDE A PORTION OF HERMOSA AVENUE Recommendation: 1. Approval of the amendment of the Specialty Maintenance Company contract to include sweeping and trash removal on Hermosa Avenue, between 14th Street and 16th Court on a daily basis and steam cleaning the sidewalk 8 times per year for an additional cost of $125 per month. 2. Appropriate $1,500.00 to lower the cost of the contract amendment. Background: At the City Council meeting of February 23, 1993, a recommendation to award a contract to Specialty Maintenance Company for cleaning the downtown area for an amount of $22,925 was approved. The contract ends on June 30, 1995. The limits of the current sidewalk cleaning contract on Hermosa Avenue extends between 10th street on the south and 14th street toward the north. Several business owners on Hermosa Avenue between 14th street and 15th street requested that the Downtown Enhancement Commission consider extending the limit of the contract to include this area. The Downtown Enhancement Commission, at its regular meeting of August 3, 1994, recommended that the area between 14th street and the alley past 15th street be added to the existing contract. Analysis: Public Works Department review of the $125/month cost increase for the proposed area has found this change to fall under the original contract's price per lineal foot. For this reason it is recommended that the Specialty Maintenance contract for sidewalk cleaning be amended to include the area on Hermosa Avenue between 14th Street and 16th Court. 1h Fiscal Impact: The additional cost to provide sidewalk cleaning services on Hermosa Avenue between 14th Street and 16th Court is $1,500 per year. Funding Source: The Downtown Maintenance Contract is funded by the Downtown Enhancement Commission Fund. Respectfully submitted, Concur: Joseph C. Mank.wich Amy Amir6i Capital Improvement Program Engineer Director of Public Works Noted For Fiscal Impact: 1 Viki Copeland Director of Finance sideclg.cc Stepheh R. Burrell City Manager August 4, 1994 City Council Meeting August 9, 1994 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 94-1114 - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO ADD TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE TEXT, SECTION 7-1.1, PERTAINING TO SEISMIC STRENGTHENING FOR UNREINFORCED MASONRY BEARING WALL BUILDINGS." Submitted for adoption is Ordinance No. 94-1114, relating to the above subject. At the meeting of July 26, 1994, this ordinance was presented to Council for consideration, was amended, and was introduced by the following vote: AYES: Bowler, Oakes, Reviczky, Mayor Pro Tempore Benz NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Edgerton ABSTAIN: None Elaine Doerfling, Cit Clerk Noted: AMA, � tephen R. Burrell, City arfager 2a 29 ORDINANCE 94-1114 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO ADD TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE TEXT, SECTION 7-1.1, PERTAINING TO SEISMIC STRENGTHENING FOR UNREINFORCED MASONRY BEARING WALL BUILDINGS WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting on July 26, 1994, to consider amendment to Section 7-1.1 and to receive oral and written testimony and made the following Findings: A. Amending the Municipal Code is necessary to promote public safety and welfare by reducing the risk of death or injury that may result from the effects of existing unreinforced masonry bearing wall buildings; B. Section 7-1.1 shall apply to all existing buildings having at least one unreinforced masonry bearing wall; C. This ordinance is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA guidelines, as it mandates the rehabilitation and minor alteration of existing facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain that the Municipal Code be amended as follows: SECTION 1. Amend Section 7-1 to add the following: SEISMIC STRENGTHENING PROVISIONS FOR UNREINFORCED MASONRY BEARING WALL BUILDINGS A. GENERAL (a) Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to promote public safety and welfare by reducing the risk of death or injury that may result from the effects of earthquakes on existing unreinforced masonry bearing wall buildings. The provisions of this chapter are intended as minimum standards for structural seismic -1- i resistance. The provisions are established primarily to reduce the risk of life loss or injury. Compliance with these provisions will not necessarily prevent loss of life or injury or prevent earthquake damage to rehabilitated buildings. (b) Scope. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all existing buildings having at least one unreinforced masonry bearing wall. Unreinforced masonry bearing wall buildings constructed of hollow concrete blocks or hollow clay tiles that do not exceed two stories in height may be strengthened using these provisions. Bonding of hollow concrete block or hollow clay tile walls shall be verified to the satisfaction of the Building Official. It shall be shown by testing that the tile or block units are of bearing type and the capacity of the wall in bearing and shear based on net area in contact through bed joints is not less that those allowed for solid bricks. Except as provided herein, all other provisions of the 1991 Uniform Building Code, hereinafter referred to as the Building Code, shall apply. The Appendix Chapter I of the 1991 Uniform Code for Building Conservation is hereby adopted. All buildings regulated by this ordinance shall conform to the provisions of Appendix Chapter 1 of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation. When a permit for reroofing of any building regulated by this ordinance is applied for, the requirements for parapet bracing and tension wall anchors between the roof and all exterior walls shall be complied with. Exceptions: This chapter shall not apply to: 1. Detached one or two family dwellings and detached apartment houses containing less than 5 dwelling units and used solely for residential purposes. 2. Essential and Hazardous Facilities as defined in Table 23-K of the Building Code. Such structures shall comply with the Building Code. B. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the applicable definitions in the Building Code shall also apply. HIGH RISK BUILDING is any building, other than an essential or hazardous building, -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 `12 13 14 15 16 17 tff 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 having an occupant load of 300 occupants or more as determined by Section 3302(a) of the Building Code. Exception: A high risk building shall not include the following: Any building having exterior walls braced with masonry crosswalls or woodframe crosswalls spaced less than 40 feet apart in each story. Crosswalls shall be full -story height with a minimum length of 1-1/2 times the story height. Any building used for its intended purpose, as determined by the Building Official for less than 20 hours per week. LOW RISK BUILDING is any building, other than an essential or hazardous building, having an occupant load as determined by Section 3302(a) of the Building Code of less than 25 occupants. MEDIUM RISK BUILDING is any building, not classified as a high risk building or an essential or hazardous building, having an occupant load as determined by Section 3302(a) of the code of 25 occupants or more, including buildings of greater than 300 occupants used less than 20 hours per week. (b) Rating Classifications. The rating classifications identified in Table Al -E are hereby established and each building within the scope of this chapter shall be placed in one such rating classification by the Building Official. The total occupant load of the entire building as determined by Section 3302(a) of the Building Code shall be used to determine the rating classification. Exception: For purposes of this chapter, portions of buildings constructed to act independently when resisting seismic forces may be placed in separate rating classifications. (c) Compliance Requirements. 1. The owner of each building within the scope of this chapter shall, upon service of an order and within the time limits set forth in this chapter, cause a structural analysis to be made of the building by an engineer or architect licensed by the state to practice as such. If the building does not comply'with earthquake standards specified in this chapter, the owner shall cause it to be structurally altered to conform to such standards or shall cause the building to be demolished. 2. The owner of a building within the scope of this chapter shall comply with the -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 29 requirements set forth above by submitting to the Building Official for review: i. Within 270 days after service of the order, a structural analysis, which is subject to approval by the Building Official, and which shall demonstrate that the building meets the minimum requirements of this chapter, or ii. Within 270 days after service of the order, the structural analysis and plans for structural alterations of the building to comply with this chapter; or iii. Within 180 days after service of the order, plans for the installation of wall anchors in accordance with the requirements specified in Section 1 A(b); or iv. Within 270 days after service of the order, plans for the demolition of the building. 3. After plans are submitted and approved by the Building Official, the owner shall obtain a building permit then commence and complete the required construction or demolition within the time limits set forth in Table No. A I -G. These time limits shall begin from the date the order is served in accordance with Section 1 B(d) 2, except that the time limit to commence structural alteration or demolition shall begin to run from the date the building permit is issued. 4. Owners electing to comply with paragraph 2 iii of this subsection are also required to comply with paragraph 2 ii or 2 iv of this subsection provided, however, that the 270 -day period provided for in Paragraph 2 ii or 2 iv and the time limits for obtaining a building permit and to complete structural alterations or building demolition set forth in Table A 1-E shall be extended in accordance with Table No. Al -G. Each such extended time limit shall begin to run from the date the order is served in accordance with Section 1 B(d), except that the time limit to commence structural alterations or demolition shall begin to run from the date the building permit is issued. (d) Administration. 1. Order - Service: i. The Building Official shall, in accordance with the priorities set forth in Table No. A 1-0, issue an order as provided in this section to the owner of each building within the scope of this chapter. ii. Prior to the service of an order as set forth in Table No. A 1-G, a bulletin may be issued to the owner as shown upon the last equalized assessment roll or to the -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 person in apparent charge or control of a building considered by the Building Official to be within the scope of this chapter. The bulletin may contain information the Building Official deems appropriate. The bulletin may be issued by mail or in person. 2. Order - Priority of Service. Priorities for the service of the order for buildings within the scope of this chapter shall be in accordance with the rating classification as shown on Table No. A 1-E. Within each separate rating classification, the priority of the order shall normally be based upon the occupant load of the building. The owners of the buildings housing the largest occupant loads shall be served first. The minimum time period prior to the service of the order as shown on Table No. A 1-G shall be measured from the effective date of this chapter. The Building Official may, upon receipt of a written request from the owner, order such owner to bring his building into compliance with this chapter prior to the normal service date for such building set forth in this chapter. 3. Order - Contents. The order shall be in writing and shall be served either personally or by certified or registered mail upon the owner as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, and upon the person, if any, in apparent charge to control of the building. The order shall specify that the building has been determined by the Building Official to be within the scope of this chapter and, therefore, is required to meet the minimum seismic standards of this chapter. The order shall specify the rating classification of the building and shall be accompanied by a copy of Section 1 B(c), which sets forth the owner's alternatives and time limits for compliance. 4. Appeal from Order. The owner of the building may appeal the Building Official's initial determination that the building is within the scope of this chapter to the Board of Appeals, established by Section 204 of the Building Code. Such appeal shall be filed with the Board within 60 days from the service date of the order described in Section 1 B(d) 3. Any such appeal shall be given a written decision by the Board within 90 days, with the grounds thereof stated clearly and concisely. Appeals or requests for modifications from any other determinations, orders or actions by the Building Official pursuant to the chapter shall be made in accordance with the procedures established in Sections 105 and 106 of the Building Code. 5. Recordation. At the time that the Building Official serves the aforementioned -5- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 order, the Building Official shall also file with the office of the County Recorder a certificate stating that the subject building is within the scope of this chapter and is a potentially earthquake hazardous building. The certificate shall also state that the owner thereof has been ordered to structurally analyze the building and to structurally alter or demolish it where compliance with this chapter has not been demonstrated. If the building is either demolished, found not to be within the scope of this chapter, or is structurally capable of resisting minimum seismic forces required by this chapter as a result of structural alterations or an analysis, the Building Official shall file with the office of the County Recorder a form terminating the status of the subject building as being classified within the scope of this chapter. 6. Enforcement. If the owner in charge or control of the subject building fails to comply with any order issued by the Building Official pursuant to this chapter within any of the time limits set forth in Section 1 B(c), the Building Official shall verify that the record owner of this building has been properly served. If the order has been served on the record owner, then the Building Official shall order that the entire building be vacated and that the building remain vacated until such order has been complied with. If compliance with such order has not been accomplished within 90 days after the date the building has been ordered vacated or such additional time as may have been granted by the Board of Appeals, the Building Official may order its demolition in accordance with the provisions of Section 203 of the Building Code. Table Al -E -Rating Classifications Type of Building Classification Occupant Load Essential or Hazardous Building I n/a High Risk Building II >300 Medium Risk - A III -A 100 to 299 Medium Risk - B III -B 50 to 99 Medium Risk - C III -C 25 to 49 Low Risk Building IV <25 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Table Al -G Schedule of Seismic Strengthening of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings ' Building Risk Classification 'Occupant Load 2Install parapet bracing and wall anchors at roof 3Complete strengthening after parapet bracing 4'5Complete strengthening without parapet bracing being done first II >300 July 1, 1995 Jan 1, 1998 Jan 1, 1996 III -A 100 to 300 Jan 1, 1996 Jan 1, 1999 Jan 1, 1997 BI -B 50 to 99 Jan 1, 1996 Jan 1, 2000 Jan 1, 1998 DI -C 25 to 49 Jan 1, 1996 Jan 1, 2001 Jan 1, 1999 IV <25 Jan 1, 1996 Jan 1, 2002 Jan 1, 2000 'Building risk classifications are based on the building occupant load as determined by the Uniform Building Code. 2Parapet bracing includes bracing the parapets on all walls of the building and installing tension anchors from the wall to the roof on all walls. See special requirements for work required when a reroofing permit is applied for. 3Complete strengthening includes the remainder of the strengthening work as required by the City's ordinance. Parapets and wall anchor installation was completed in an earlier phase. ''Complete strengthening includes all strengthening required by the City's Ordinance including parapet bracing and wall anchors. XII building regulated by this chapter, undergoing a change of occupancy, may be strengthened in accordance with these provisions. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective and in 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 -7- 1 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 ADOP IE) this 9th day of August, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY -8- 8-Y July 27, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council August 9, 1994 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 94-4 PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: 1. SETBACKS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONES (IN THE C-2 AND C-1 ZONES) 2. EXPANSIONS TO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS WITH SUBSTANDARD SETBACKS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONES INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation To introduce the attached ordinance to reduce setback requirements and to allow expansions to existing buildings with substandard setbacks. Background The Planning Commission at their meeting of July 5, 1994 recommended approval of the text amendments. The City Council initiated the study on April 12, 1994, because of concern that citywide commercial standards are not necessarily applicable to the downtown area, and were thus inhibiting opportunities for commercial expansion and revitalization. For further background please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report. Analysis The recommended changes are summarized as follows: 1 4 • Reduce the required setback to five (5) feet when commercial uses abut residentially zoned property in the C-1 and C-2 zones. Currently the setback requirement is 8 feet with an additional 2 feet for each additional floor above the first floor. • Add a statement that existing commercial structures that do not meet this setback requirement are not considered nonconforming buildings. The proposed changes were made in recognition of the typically small lot sizes found in the C-1 and C-2 zone, and the fact that many existing structures on these lots do not comply with the current setback standard. Further, the changes will create opportunities for expansion which would otherwise not be possible unless existing buildings are demolished. When the setback requirement was formulated the allowable height was 30 and 35 feet in the C-1 and C-2 zones, and most projects were not subject to any discretionary review of the overall design. Now the maximum height is 30 feet in both zones, and most projects are subject to a precise development plan review by the Planning Commission where overall design, attractiveness, and neighborhood compatibility are considered for each individual project. For further analysis please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report, which includes a summary and identification of all lots that would be affected by this change. CONCUR: of : lumenfe Community D -velopment Director Stephen R. Burrell City Manager Attachments 1. Proposed Ordinance 2. P.C. Staffreport/minutes 7/5/94 3. C.C. Resolution of Intent 2 Ken Robertson Associate Planner KR/pcsrcomm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 , 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ORDINANCE 94 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA, TO AMEND PORTIONS OF SECTION 8-5, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO REDUCE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECTS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on August 9, 1994 to consider oral and written testimony and made the following Findings: A. The purpose of the current setback requirement of 8 feet for the first floor plus 2 feet for each additional floor for commercial projects which abut residential zones is to provide an adequate buffer to protect the abutting residential uses; B. Several existing properties have been developed in a manner that does not comply with this setback requirement, which precludes building remodeling or expansion due to nonconformity with required commercial setbacks; C. Since the adoption of the setback requirement additional limitations have been placed on commercial property to reduce the allowable height limits and require the submittal of precise development plans; D. Commercial parcels in the C-1 and C-2 zones are especially adversely effected by this setback requirement because such parcels are often fully developed on reletively small lots; E. An opportunity should be provided to allow expansion and remodeling of commercial structures that would otherwise prohibited only because of a nonconformity to the commercial/residential setback requirement; F. Reducing the setback requirement in the C-1 and C-2, while maintaining at least a 5 foot minimum setback, is a reasonable modification that might encourage remodeling and 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 29 enhancement of existing commercial structures, and perhaps the redevelopment of some of these small commercial parcels; G. An initial study has been prepared by the Staff Environmental Review Committee and it was determined that the proposed amendment would result in a less than significant impact on the environment; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby ordain that the zoning ordinance text be amended as follows: SECTION 1. Amend Section 8-5(9) by adding the underlined as follows: "Rear and side yard setback adjacent to residential zones: C-3 zone: A minimum rear and/or side yard setback of eight (8) feet shall be provided, and an additional two (2) feet of setback shall be provided for each story over the first story for structures that abut residential zones, except where public rights-of-way, twenty (20) feet or greater in width, separate the commercial zone from the residential zone. C-1 and C-2 zones: A minimum rear and/or side yard setback of five (5) feet shall be provided, except where public rights-of-way twenty (20) feet or greater in width, separate the commercial zone from the residential zone Existing Buildings: Existing commercial buildings that do not comply with the above setback requirement adjacent to residential zones shall not be considered "nonconforming buildings" under the terms of Article 13. Therefore, such buildings may be remodeled or expanded as long as any new constructions conforms with the above setback requirements." SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective and in 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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1994, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: AB STAIN: AB SENT: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY K/PCRSCOMM.DOC S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 c r RESOLUTION 94-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA, TO RECOMMEND AMENDING PORTIONS OF SECTION 8-5, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO REDUCE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECTS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 5, 1994 to consider oral and written testimony and made the following Findings: A. The purpose of the current setback requirement of 8 feet for the first floor plus 2 feet for each additional floor for commercial projects which abut residential zones is to provide an adequate buffer to protect the abutting residential uses; B. Several commercial parcels in all commercial zones were already developed in a manner that does not comply with this setback requirement at the time it was established, and because of this "nonconformity" these building cannot be remodeled or expanded without complying with the setback requirement; C. Since the adoption of the setback requirement additional limitations have been placed on commercial property to reduce the allowable height limits and require the submittal of precise development plans; D. Commercial parcels in the C-1 and C-2 are especially adversely effected by this setback requirement because of existing development, and their small lot sizes; E. An opportunity should be provided to allow expansion and remodeling of commercial structures that would otherwise prohibited only because of a nonconformity to the commercial/residential setback requirement; F. Reducing the setback requirement in the C-1 and C-2, while maintaining at least a 5 foot minimum setback, is a reasonable modification that might encourage remodeling and b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 enhancement of existing commercial structures, and perhaps the redevelopment of some of these small commercial parcels; G. An initial study has been prepared by the Staff Environmental Review Committee and it was determined that the proposed amendment would result in a less than significant impact on the environment; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach recommends that the zoning ordinance text be amended as follows: SECTION 1. Amend Section 8-5(9) by adding the underlined as follows: "Rear and side yard setback adjacent to residential zones: C-3 zone: A minimum rear and/or side yard setback of eight (8) feet shall be provided, and an additional two (2) feet of setback shall be provided for each story over the first story for structures that abut residential zones, except where public rights-of-way, twenty (20) feet or greater in width, separate the commercial zone from the residential zone. C-1 and C-2 zones: A minimum rear and/or side yard setback of five (5) feet shall be provided, except where public rights-of-way twenty (20) feet orgreater in width, separate the commercial zone from the residential zone Existing Buildings: Existing commercial buildings that do not comply with the above setback requirement adjacent to residential zones shall not be considered "nonconforming buildings" under the terms of Section 13-7. Therefore; such buildings may be remodeled or expanded as long as any new constructions conforms with the above setback requirements." VOTE: AYES: Comms.Dettelbach,Di Monda,Marks,Chmn.Merl NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm.Suard CERTIFICATION 24 25 I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 94-21 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular 26 me- i •f u 5, 1994. 27 ��f� 28 d-Mairman-- Joseph Di Monda Michael Schubach, Secr- ary �( 9 Vice Chairman 29 � Date r) K/PCRSCOMM.DOC MO- ON by Comm. Dettelbach, Seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to APPROVE, SS - , eci 1 study and to s endment to the zoning ordinance in regards to the 17 -foo age set back, and adoption of an Environ : ' al Negative Declaration, including the p e to Item B to read, "...from the exterior edge of the sidewalk... AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAJN. Comms. Dettelbach, D' None Co . - uard None nda, Mar s, • s n. Merl 10. SS 94-4 -- SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION (continued from June 21, 1994 meeting). Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said text amendment and adoption of the Environmental Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated Staff proposed a lesser set back in the Cl and C2 zones would be acceptable because when the ordinance was passed, buildings were allowed to be 35 feet rather than 30 feet tall. Also an exemption was being proposed for non -conforming buildings regarding this set back; those buildings not having the new set back requirement would not be considered non -conforming buildings in regards to the set back. Alcoholic sales would be passed over to another study being conducted. He discussed possible impacts to buildings with Comm. Di Monda. Chmn. Merl opened the Public Hearing at 8:07 p.m. Chuck Sheldon, 1800 The Strand, property owner of 101 Hermosa Avenue, stated he planned to remodel and expand this property, which has a five-foot setback at the rear with a 35 -feet tall apartment building adjacent to the rear of the property. This text amendment would allow the proposed remodel. He supported this text amendment. No one else wished to speak, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 8:09 p.m. Comm. Di Monda referenced the draft Resolution, paragraphs E, noting relettering of the paragraphs was necessary. The second paragraph E, line 27 should be changed to read, "... at least...". Comm. Dettelbach commented paragraph F, line 3 should read, "...prepared by..." MOTION by Comm. Dettelbach, Seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to APPROVE, SS 94-4, Special study and text amendment regarding commercial development standards, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration, to include changes in relettering in text as discussed. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Dettelbach, Di Monda, Marks, Chmn. Merl None Comm. Suard None Page g PC Minutes 7-5-94 PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. \ SS 94-3 -- SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONI RDINANCE IN REGARDS TO THE SEVENTEEN FOOT GARAGE SET : CK, AND,ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLAR ION. To continue to July 5, 1994 meeting. Comm. Suard, in the interest o - xpediency, suggested the Commission e forward with a decision. Comm. Dettelbach suggested, b d upon previous discussions . mong the Commissioners, a continuation to allow input from the ant Commissioners. Comm. Marks opened the Public Hearing at 7' ..m. 1 o one wished to speak, and Comm. Marks closed the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Marks, Seconded b ' omm. Dettelbac , o CONTINUE SS 94-3, special study and text amendment to the zoning o • mance in regards to the : enteen foot garage setback, and adoption of an Environmental -gative Declaration, to the Planet : Commission's July 5, 1994 meeting. AYES: Co s. Dettelbach, Marks, Suard NOES: one ABSENT: Comm. Di Monda, Chmn. Merl ABSTAIN: None i 8. SS 94-4 -- SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Staff Recommended Action: To continue to July 5, 1994 meeting. Comm. Marks opened the Public Hearing at 7:43 p.m. No one wished to speak, and Comm. Marks closed the Public Hearing at 7:43 p.m. MOTION by Comm. Suard, Seconded by Comm. Dettelbach, to CONTINUE, SS 94-4, special study and text amendment regarding commercial development standards, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration, to the Planning Commission's July 5, 1994 meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Dettelbach, Marks, Suard None Comm. Di Monda, Chmn. Merl None Page 9 PC Minutes 6-21-94 June 13, 1994 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission June 21, 1994 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 94-4 AND TEXT AMENDMENT PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: 1. SETBACKS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONES (IN THE C-2 AND C-1 ZONES) 2. EXPANSIONS TO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS WITH SUBSTANDARD SETBACKS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONES 3. DISTANCE REQUIREMENT FOR OFF -SALE ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation To continue to the meeting of July 5, 1994, to allow consideration by the full Planning Commission. To incorporate the issue of distances for alcohol establishments into the study of definitions and standards that relate to markets and liquor stores. ALTERNATIVE: To adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council amend Section 8-5(9). Background At the meeting of May 17, 1994, the Planning Commission was presented with alternatives for modifying setback requirements for situations where commercial buildings abut residential property. For further background please refer to the previous staff report. C Analysis COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the following two changes to commercial setbacks: • Reduce the required setback to five (5) feet when commercial uses abut residentially zoned property in the C-1 and C-2 zones. • Add a statement that existing commercial structures that do not meet this setback requirement are not considered "nonconforming" buildings, As previously discussed the only setback requirement for commercial buildings is when the commercially used property abuts residentially zoned property. In considering reducing the setback requirement staff believes it is important to look at how many parcels would be effected, the restrictions on building height, and design considerations. The following is a summary of the parcels in the C- 1 and C-2 zones that abut residentially zoned property: C-1: 8 parcels 50' avg. Depth 2 parcels less than 50' depth C-2.: 22 parcels 85' avg. Depth 2 parcels less than 50' depth The attached parcel maps identify each parcel that would benefit from a reduced requirement. When the setback requirement was formulated, allowable building height in the C-1 and C-2 zones was 30 and 35 feet, respectively. Now the maximum height is 30 feet in both zones. Further, the requirement for discretionary review through a precise development plan had not been established at the time these setback requirements were adopted. With this discretionary Planning Commission review, the overall design and attractiveness of the architecture, as well as compatibility with neighboring properties can be considered in each individual project. Also, staff believes that existing commercial structures that are nonconforming to the existing or proposed setback requirement should not be considered nonconforming under the provisions of Article 13, nonconforming buildings and uses. Section 13-7 is very restrictive as it does not allow expansions to nonconforming commercial buildings. The more general issue of whether Article 13 should retain these restrictive provisions on commercial structures is to be further studied by the City Council as part of the comprehensive review of Article 13. If that provisions is changed and, for example, nonconforming commercial structures are allowed to expand 50%, staff would still recommends an exception from this setback requirement be clearly stated in the commercial development standards so that when a setback 11 is the only "nonconformity" the options of expanding more than 50% are still available. Staff believes this is justified because of the limited commercial opportunities in the city; the typically small parcel sizes; other development restrictions; and the requirement for a Precise Development Plan. Within the C-3 and S.P.A. Commercial zones located along Pacific Coast Highway and Aviation Boulevard, almost all the commercial properties abut residentially zoned property. The commercial lots, are typically larger and the allowed uses more intense. As such, the commercial/residential buffer of 8 feet that is currently required is more easily provided, and provides needed protection to the residential properties. However, staff believes that the exception for existing buildings nonconforming setbacks should also apply to the C-3 zone. Staff is providing this information for your review and consideration. It is recommended, however, that final consideration of this matter be withheld until the next meeting when all Planning Commissioners will be present. DISTANCE REQUIREMENT FOR OFF -SALE ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS The topic of food and beverage markets, including definitions to distinguish markets that sell liquor from "liquor stores", and the elimination of the C.U.P. requirement for stores that close by 10:30 P.M., is scheduled to be considered as a separate study. The question of the distance requirement is closely related to this issue, and thus should be incorporated into that study. This study is scheduled for public hearing at the July 59i meetin CONC ichael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. P.C. Minutes 5/17/94 KR/pcsrcomm VKen Robertson Associate Planner .3 13 SHEET 1 100" 199 3 Z rs I.VIVUVMIIVIUM 4340 CONDOMINIUM PARCEL MAP CONDOMINIUM PARCEL MAP CONDOMINIUM PARCEL MAP P. M.212- 17 P M. 229-82-83 P. M. 245-26 10 }-IERMO SA 16114CT O FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH M. B. I - 59 -60 TRACT NO. 1069 TRACT NO. 1124 159-23 & 2a'; a183 -II L 12 M,B._17- 136 M. B. 17-141 15'14 Cr. TRACT NO 1125 CONDOMINIUM TRACT NO. 3094- CONDOMINIUM 094CONDOMINIUM TRACT NO.36407 CONDOMINIUM PARCEL MAP •' i eJ a• „r u v .( O M. B. 17 - 141 M.B. 848-41 -42 M. B. 937-47-48 .P M. 137.. 89 • x1ts f y, i02b'e t3TH - 5T. CONDOMINIUM PARCEL MAP CONDOMINIUM PARCEL MAP CONDOMINIUM TRACT NO. 42255 CONDOMINIUM PARCEL MAP x e• ', s \i�� 'x ..•' L .Yt.'YI..7Y r.... �w•.. t1.dVIl.1:.> .1 1 83020. 83090/4. JZO1/603 93033/97a 1), M.141 .1v1.IE?-64 • M. B.10:'3-4-44 pM.ret _39 4183 SHEET 1 .CALE 1" = 60' 1992 CONDOMINIUM CONDOMINIUM CONDOMINIUM PARCEL MAP PARCEL MAP PARCEL MAP PM. 219 — 47 P M. 208-64 P.M.246-22 CONDOMINIUM TRACT NO. 45183 M. B.I127-57-58 337 /Op c FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH M.B. 1-59-60 HISS ADDITION TO ;:4 SiFOR PREY ASSMT. SEE 159 - I a 27+ 1• .r 1 ...e fi t xY.s .N T+,^S,�(?.,a .u..yc:, - ..yc°:+ 'h?:.,u�+, at �.r^ .y1,C'? iT �.+":t,..�.` v .. M B - 4 — 19..,..,..4.4.....-4........,' ...Y1{- I':4',!ai4. t:r`^ik4t-:7;R'\ ..s •r? ., '.,,�Tp �:.e..+-, h..+.w i _� .SI~... ..,......,•••..4, .. ' .a -•«c.- s... ,,i ✓ 4. '!' • .. r HERMOSA BEACH ASSESSO COUNTY OF LOS 4183 :ALE 1" 60 40 50 50 Vac. O'..9-237 •': . CODE LO M A 4340 --\\ R . ) 1 . PIER AVE. 4181 I GALE I" 60' j MANHATTAN to BK , 41 /00 PA //09 //04, /0 /03.5 /GAS- /02/ /r/1 ., 1E ) i11 Ns wil...1 ! 'f',:::,(":!..j,i-: 17 .. 0 !S B L -• ...t c: 1,9 (fr. ,_..... 7 ., ....., k --- ----"' - ,i -j• - -:-,........ • 21 2.Z. e 23 o o 24 e Z5 c) _ \J !...I -12 ° — t 4 0 ' of.s.:CD(7? ' — I! . .s) ‘...—... 10 N......./ 9 • . 7 6 . 5' o- 3 ... / 0 / F6 1/It V HE R?viOSA 7- CO DE 24O / to F I 'R 'T •A D tr:, E R • ". IA . 9 FOR Fr.:. ASS:1.1. SEE: • •• - ,. : A ' 037 - e . . .....,.. .,. .: -... . ,....- ,. ... . . ; .. ',-; `... ;..., ' i ' ..t.'; . ' : '....,. . :',.:: . . . . •- . ' ' • - .. s: ...:4 -.4.,,,' :441:"..... ; .Y.,,, *. j. -, - -, ...,, ,, */ ••(• ...r.v.,...L. r,..„..-... -,.,:: 4.0 ..1.6...:1. . .. , . . „. -....:..C.'-:;;;Alv..),...:. .'-'-.1!:-.', ..,..,i: .:•1:..;Z:?,- ' ti.',N.,'. • - , 4.;,:....-;;:-',!i4'.e. .'::-.. . .,. : .:.2.,... "-,1' ., •,: .: .: ... ... . 4187 SHEET I CALE V — 50' X989 LOMA DR. -o /0° FrI V LOMA CONDOMINIUM PARCEL MAP I9 P.M.206-46 11 so 10 O O @ • I 10 7 6 5 4 3/ 2 / I MONTEREY n C. • 3 1988 BLVD. TRACT NO 1851 M. B. 25-40 CONDOMINIUM PARCEL MAP FOR PREV ASSMT SEE:.'Y 1'�y P M 20 I - 56 . ri 4187— II ^':7Pav1 ,�7 G ' tf .. M �p �4Y+*a•++r. �w..i•.- :...o. e" tn.t•ga :� zt+d a;j �{ a Tr $X' +K� �. b•. f.+r x- �, . .. µi-ro/tt�t 4.• *^�v'r t• is int^ iib r h :t r • FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH M.B. I —59-60 TRACT NO. 1070 M.B.17-136 CONDOMINIUM PARCEL- MAP f?e✓ 5ec 4-Zo- 65 &clic 6 y/f 4E87. 9 SHEET 1 :ALE 1" — 60' BK� 4183 �� 0 3 1991 L,J h /00 CYPRESS ono\ \'t ' \'» 1 om AVE. ti ect ft; H cn 18 30 21 22 6 BLK I0 1 LO. d 0 11 o°, 14 15 •�/y /3/G CODE 4340 LOMA 2-4/ /2/6 /2/2. //.yam //72- //i- //OE 4 00 40,4 00 4� /'£x, CONDOMINIUM PARCEL MAP. RM. 235-66:. - TRACT NO 780 M.B:16-41 CONDOMINIUM PARCEL`. MAP PM.146=50-51 DR. HISS' SECOND ADDITION . TO.HERMOSA BEACH CONDOMIf�IIUM �PARCEL MAP M.B.:.7- 123 • P..M. 217-99 FOR. PREY.ASSMT'„ SEE , ; • 1 f'' • is°.,Yt t 41,9 •F 8//201 dlos r 00 ASSESSOR'S I4AP COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, C 4187 I SHEET I ;GALE 1" = 60' -1992 z CODE 4340 CONDOMINIUM PARCEL MAP i CONDOMINIUM PARCEL MAP /00 M CONDOMINIUM P. M..223-84-85 PARCEL MAP P.M. 244-83-84 5 /y5r '7 • R M. 241 — 3 8 1691 • cs DR. 01n) ST. 5 BARD ,00 l3► & 0 o PRBSS > FOR PREY.. ASSMT, SEE.• " c 4187 20; 2138:7 22'4,:,t1 SECOND .ADD.ITION:'TO .HERMOSA:, BEACH +4 •., L a :. ,; s , sa TRACT .1\10.. 78 x.i. •r• .�,: ;� T u-' . w T �,r . tic s7�� .•.. r 'KNUTSFN NSN M.B. 3—II-12 M. 16 `41,.._ AA R _ CONDOMINIUM PARCEL MAP . CONDOMINIUM TRACT NO. •1-4387 AVE• P M. 20; M. B.I083-3 ASSESSOR'S MAP COUNTY OF LOS ANGELE: 4187 I 2 SI[ET CAU 982 I I t l 9TH b 87-5 ST " 14 .. 30.? el lS 30 1 il •iA AIS. 1JJ/ 053161/21 i055- g F S coo£ 4340 `O 8TH POI ►4V. ASSU7. SEF: ` s` PD 25 n 1977Z14 Si HERMOSA BEACH ® M.B. 1-25-26 CONDOMINIUM PARCEL MAP P. M. 121-14-15 T. 26 O 0 Li N 0 cc W' 0 RECEIVED NOV 2 3 191 BUILDING DEPT. 11///03/. "Is .Oia1.....,111c Ocp•tts sop.c.:rate ¢/ 1!.t -...t of ar..is in !Ft,: '0:10.111 Cc-po-•'v• Fi...a. in:lceea oh : Hats s': rteesa t',o co•.r-- e•tea es. sot to•tn it Oerca o! •e;:•e. Cc -•c- :.e iS.eel.la•or ?•et. MC. ?: .�t.ta�. •:a�., L .s:a:. -- -tot2 pia- R.r..trc. 1-2F-60 %.w. 121- 14-15 II '+••-P;�•4Yu3 -- A.y a..;n f+11C++f• v:i- 's .h: �.rr — �:0 �1 , .�.td!. ji4.-.�:. 41iJe t'" 4.i'L`1f Of ltk �h• �. . ESSESS01!S mit pJ• t c trii.111Tv Ar . ft! !YOGI B , Cat 1F. vtR-•it:1l+�: • • I - j 0 co 1OTH ST 0 0 qo� 0 9TH O HERMOSA BEACH M.B. 1- 25-26 CODE 4340 • Ya L.i` FOR REV. ASSMT. SEE: ttier: 4167.. 3 7wiey?t. •r. •_ , u. 7 iti 144 4,Yt.'r}, •li..•i'�`-.,�'3%�.;�ai r...,., lit 5 %; t•'t.j,; r..1-.-+s:A;.'7!:.14+`. .. �.�l�f}: .. .. 4.. _. .. t},l S''11i lJ� r:4 >.Y .;.lix`ir',• 1 /00 /00 h 0 2 W eiN ASSESSOR'S MAP.. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.; i;,ir'A.4..f yt✓f+[ra1�..f.. a..L !: ais;'..` l: ,:L. �`''1 :.�_.=:.�r"., ,. " t... 0 w I ITN 88.57 7 8738 6 0 86. /9 n= 5 0 0 \ 85 Q": DC koO \t; c\ 26 3 82.6 , L. 4 8383 ea • CODE 4340 2 8/.3 / 801 .0 `° IOTH FOR PREY. ASSMT. SEE: 4C� b 53° 0.33 ST. 0 — 30 ,41 8 OO 9 30 10 O 1I O 12 /o BLK. 30 13 i/ II 30 29671 .Vl 1 14 � pa 1 29.67 30 15 /3• 30 30 16 30 24 f 1 17 2d 30 18 30 U uJ CO I9 ,T,20 /7 21 /8 22- 20,- a ' 2 3 2/ 24 O 25 23 0/7 • • /00 ST HERMOSA BEACH 0 • M.B. t -25-26 0 /00 W • Q H ERMOSA 0 • ASSESSOR'S MAP,_ • :a<.. COUNTY' OF LOS ANGELES, :CAL4i ,44e; i r rf14.;;., 4I8g1 SHcc-T 1 CALE r = 50' w CODE . 4340 For parcel numbersinLot I.. Tract 11o. 25834 see sheet 4. • Die Y !/ 161" N OI' 30 17 Z0 ,o 11 1 311 11 20 110 80 70 o: 9 30 O or N 05 .1 38 30 17.5 30 11 13 13 • 15 29 32 Bo< c 11RIN'a. 1111144 30 30 30 16 0 27 /4 4.1/ O r9 21 22_ g0./0 O8q .Z a. Mo, cD Cas n 30 20 30 ST. Ig 8.15 6 13.98 HERMOSA BEACH M. B. 1-25-26 CON DOMINIUM TRACT NO. 32173 M. B. 864 - 10 - 1 1 CONDOMINI• UM CONDOMINIUM • FOR PREY. ASSM'f. SEE:: 159- 5 & 6 . • M. B ' 847- 72-73 :. r r M. B. 865 - 57-58 TRACT NO. 31558 TRACT NO. 25834 x!>E^;e'r?'i.':0'sSY2' 7,•..!'rE t i},`:r',y'.e.' < •F-,iT:,as.. ntiyi: • to 1p0 y/d efti The assessment of units in the follow Plans. includes all rights and interests areas as set forth in deeds of record. Condominium Common Area Plan Reference Tract No. 61k. Lots Uri• 0.R. 144785-891 444091 9-12-74 31558 _ -- 1 -- #1179 6-24-76 32173 -- 1 -- 9676832 6-24-77 1P297387 3-21-78 25634 -- 1 -- r.• • AS; COUNTY OF 4 SHEET I = 50' 1 0 1994 S \. 100 CODE 4340 �?FOR PREY ASSMT SEE 159 HERMOSA BEACH M.B. 1-25-26 CONDOMINIUM PARCEL MAP - PARCEL MAP PM.254-79,x;' ; PM:196-58 _ r. i t M. 4�+.'r+rw9 i.�. r;-.: a ., W.K4i4 �hC �........... .. %,yy..r n ., a.. ;+, [,`• tK: .,*..+k`.L., v�y.e „;r •iyl +. s y' ,r{,� j r' . d -• . Y G4i''.b^.asJ �4•,'`1'•-#Ns.1�•t„-a :•:uMF�sbasa i:� .Ft�e•-sww+ ST. b6/ -/ 87t 93031/9700/00/-/9 9305//970,9,00/-,4 SHAKESPEARE M.B. 9-190 tariN �FOBM?AV% ASSMT. SEE: 164 — 54 �Y .•e • .SLr?,:'�:ii3z 1k,.,w a!tt.:!y ..,t asr ^!a..Ciix�[ 3•jir.. _ ...5� d:�r�.i .. lk ?.•1•••7'r: r,.. _'•.srY Nfi^•'GY�4r"�y 4,7..E wy�+f..Ja .#:.its`.: ��?n.L.nr�at .� • 'r !n%..� •�� �� ai%°}L (/'a•t 1., 'SL 1. t �• 1tk :.• .tom rri. �... .__. �v .�.. t .t ei .I.t .btT+Qt. 4' "gyi•• • 181 I30 ALE 1" = 50' 59 CODE 4340 SHAKESPEARE M.B. 9 -190 ons 4181 I 31 SCALE 1" = 50' N 59 0 CODE 4340 FOR PREY. ASSMT. SEE:164-46 Xr SHAKESPEARE M.B. 9-190 X188 I 12 SHEET I ALE 1" - 50' J 1988 60 MANHATTAN s5 AVE. /1/3 5-3 %y9 v i2 •I �' w d'"1°. I, /tll l o t�--,. Airo 1Z (""// /07 /0�-/e/ 30.5 'tTj �ji "Nao —.29 IgA "' SO 53 ® 17 " 5D 18 ® 19 ` 5B 41 21 i - �� d Z:-"' t� l ;2 ��3 1J tt 4. Ik rir:r.r I 0 ® r --o@ c)23 h6/ . 24 " 29 @ 25 29 30..50 i• W F N o F 1 30.30 * ® 20 0,3 °I4ti —--- ! ���30 IQ �O 15'`16 — ® ti NPALM '.9 CODE 4340 .._.MO ' /70 FOR PREY. ASSMT. SEE: 7501 - 10 HERMOSA 29 4 8 0 /3z.esa� lys / I 22 - • 39 4 3 29 CD 2 29 DR.° 30.5 30.5 ktb n mo /33' ►z2 iry /10 /09 0 • • AVE . 60 • 6o W 0 P. I TRACT NO. 1122 M. B. 17-140 ea./ 0, 9 0., .0. e":5 bns. 14 CONDOMINIUM TRACT NO. 430 M. B. 1044-74 -75 CONDOMINIUM PARCEL. MAP • P M. 156-26 CONDOMINIUM `Jj PARC EI , iM gP P.M.195-13-14 • CONDOMINIUM PARCEL MAP PARCEL MAP P.M. 1I9-47. PM. 131-22 AJ,E3$QR.';, NAP COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. CAL B CK 'ROUND MATERIAL 9. 93-8 -- SPECIAL STUDY REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A PEITTED USE LIST. • �n u- s o - a 4 • i : To review and comment on use definitions. Mr. Schubach stated p. t of this study had been forwarded to the Council for its ' t. He explained the draft being presented • the Commission and asked Commission's co ents relating to the direction Staff is taking in its c : rifications. Audience participation was invited at :40 p.m. No one wished t• peak relating to the item. Comm. Di Monda questioned the necessity, discussing various definitions and applications increased intensity of uses, noting those definition Di Monda preferred not creating "a lot of pa to see definitions so precise that C.U.P. c would not allow normal business ope unnecessary regulation. Mr. Sch uses would be added. He sta Comm. Di Monda felt St Council as to why w noted this was a pursuing co oting m definitions were self explanatory, and r. Schubach. Mr. Schubach explained the were not necessary could be deleted. Comm. of accepted uses, stating he did not want ed, based upon interpretation which ed against creating a potential for versus primary and ancillary the Commission's input. s were being given to omm. Dettelbach uraged from by incluse nges would be req ion to take place. He cauti bach stated clarification of seconda Staff would continue redefining, based up should address the permitted use list and explanati ave Cl, C2 and C3 zones and their associated intensities. rst draft, with a long way to go, noting he did not wished Staff di letion of this item. The port was RECEIVED AND FILED. 10. SS 94-4 -- SPECIAL STUDY REGARDING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Staff Recommended Action: To direct Staff as deemed appropriate. Mr. Schubach stated Council had issued a Resolution of Intent. All standards for Cl, C2 and C3 zones were being reviewed. He stated it was possible that height recommendations could be made lower, but not higher without putting this item back on ballot. He explained the recommendations being made relating to height and set back requirements, noting a supplement displaying the various zone standards had been distributed to the Commission. Staff requested input from the Commission. Audience participation was invited at 7:47 p.m. No one wished to speak relating to the item. Comm. Marks discussed with Mr. Schubach the allowances of a temporary outdoor merchandising and displays, as well as temporary sign/banner displays. Comm. Marks complemented Staff on the good job which had been done, to which Chmn. Merl agreed. Page PC Minutes 5-17-94 The report was RECEIVED AND FILED. STAFF ITEMS emorandum regarding Planning Commission liaison to May 24, 1994 City Co cil meeting. Mr. - chubach stated he had not yet received a response from the City Attorney. 11.b Tentativ'future Planning Commission agenda. Chmn. Merl an, Comm. Di Monda stated they would not be able to atten. the June 21, 1994 meeting. Comm Dettelbach, Marks and Suard confirmed they wo o be attending that meeting, assuring a . uorum. Mr. Schubach announce • the fifth Tuesday of the month would .e a joint meeting with the Planning Commission anouncil to continue those items n. completed at the last joint meeting and to discuss any ne items either wished to discus Receive and File 11.c City Council minutes of April 21 an . 26, 1994. Receive and File COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Marks asked for current status .f the Pier refur-shment project. Comm. Di Monda, subcommittee representative, respon l ed, detailing curren .knd completed activities. Comm. Marks discussed the status of Cou il action pertaining to the east side of Beach Drive with Mr. Schubach. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by the Commission o adjourn at 7:57 p.m. No objections; so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that t - foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commissof Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of May 17, 199, Rod Merl, Chairman Date Page 3 Michael Schubach, Secretary _ PC Minutes 5-17-94 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 94-4 May 3, 1994 Regular Meeting of May 17, 1994 PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, PARTICULARLY 1N THE C-2 ZONE INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation To consider the options presented below, and direct staff as deemed appropriate. Background At their meetings of April 12, 1994, the City Council adopted a resolution of intent to initiate a study to consider amendments to commercial development standards. The study is specifically to include an examination of commercial development standards as they apply in the downtown C-2 zoned area. Analysis SUMMARY OF EXISTING STANDARDS Section 8-5 addresses the standards and limitations that apply to the C-1, C-2, and C-3 zone (copy attached). The standards that apply to development are as follows: • Building height: Maximum 30' in C-1, and C-2 zones , and maximum 35 feet in the C-3 zone. • Front yard setback: None • Alley setback: Garages/parking must conform with tuming radius requirements • Rear and side yard setbacks adjacent to residential zones: 8 feet with an added 2 feet for each additional story (except when separated by streets/alleys of 20 feet or more) • Landscaping adjacent to residential zones: setback area must be landscaped subject to review and approval by the Planning Director These standards were adopted in 1987. Another standard the Council wanted to examine is the distance requirement from off -sale liquor establishments. Section 10-8 states that such establishments shall be a minimum of 100 feet from any residential use or residential zone. The Council initiated this study specifically to examine the setback/landscaping requirements and the off -sale distance requirements as they apply in the downtown area. SETBACKS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONES For many lots the setback and landscaping requirement is not an issue, since they either abut other commercial lots, or have an alley to their rear. The lots that potentially would be affected are those located on the west side of Hermosa Avenue (N. of 15th Court, and S. of 11th Court), and along Pier Avenue between Hermosa Avenue and City Hall. The reason setbacks were established is to provide a minimal buffer to minimize commercial/residential conflicts, especially if a multi -story building is constructed. In considering amendments to this section the Commission may wish to consider the following: • Reduce the setback requirement or made it a percentage of lot depth or width (consistent with residential standards) • Exempt existing buildings from meeting the setback requirement for expansions. • Eliminate the setback requirement. OFF -SALE ALCOHOL DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS This standard came about in 1986 in response to a request by the 7-11 store (now Beach Market) to sell beer and wine. The reason the requirement was established was based on a concern about the proliferation of liquor stores, and their impacts on residences because of late night activity and congestion. In considering a possible amendment the Commission may wish to consider the following: • Reduce the distance requirement, or use another standard such as distance from the front door measured along accessible pathways. C • Apply the distance requirement to only the more intensive liquor stores as opposed to food markets that secondarily sell beer and wine. This could be done by definitions that distinguish "liquor store" from a "food market" with secondary sales of beer and wine (e.g. based on percent stock -in -trade, or by distinctions between the sale of hard liquor vs. just beer and wine). • Since the concern about proximity to residences is due to late night activity, apply the distance requirement only to off -sale establishments that operate past a certain time (For example, Manhattan Beach makes a distinction, for the purposes of requiring C.U.P.'s not on whether liquor is sold, but if the store operates past 10:30 P.M.) • Eliminate the distance requirement. Michael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. C.C. Minutes 4/12/94 2. C.C. Resoluution of Intent Ken Robertson Associate Planner KR/pcsrcomm ti Coming forward to address the Council on this item was: Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., questioned w the trash can lids were not installed when e project had been finished on February 6, •94 (Ms. Amirani said this was a. City, not contractor, responsibility); suggested th the City should make monthly inspections •f the project for at least six months before leasing the Labor and Materials Bond. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to. 1) acc=•t construction as complete for CI: 90-144, the Stra • Bikeway and Pedestrian Path, •onstructed by Emma •rporation at a cost of $951,188 2) authorise the Mayor to sign the Noti•e of Completion; and, 3) authorize -taff to: a) releas= the retention paymen to Emma Corporation 35 day after the Noti - of Completion is recorded, and, b) release a Corporati.n from the Faithful Performance Bond and e Labor and Materials Bond. Motion Bowler, second • or Ed•erton. So ordered, noting the absence of Oakes. (k) Final Action: Mayor Edgert of the Council, that staf with an amendment to the Plan to allow the no designated as a bike repairs to be made (Oakes absent) RECOMMENDATION TO UNDERSTANDING BE CALIFORNIA TE EMPLOYEES UN ADMINISTRATIV for adoptio Blackwood r ircu h sec path in hrough tra directed, with the consensus turn at the appropriate time ation Element of the General on of the Strand to be rder to allow necessary portation grant funds. DOPT RESOLUTION AP WEEN THE CITY OF HE STERS PUBLIC, PROFESS ON, LOCAL 911, GENERAL EMPLOYEES' BARGAINING UNITS . Memorandum from Personnel OVING MEMORANDA OF OSA BEACH AND THE NAL AND MEDICAL UPERVISORY AND with Resolution rector Robert ated April 5, 1994. Action• To adopt Resolution No. 94-5671, ent'.tled, "A RESOL ION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEAC•, CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDI G WITH THE CALIFORNIA TEAMSTERS PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL AND M'ICAL E •LOYEES UNION, LOCAL 911, GENERAL/SUPERVISORY AND •'MINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEE'S BARGAINING UNITS." (Oakes abse•t) (1) RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO STUDY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, with Resolution for adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 4, 1994. Supplemental examples of setbacks in the downtown area from the Planning Department dated March 22, 1994. City Council Minutes 04-12-94 Page 8481 i This item was removed from the consent calendar by Councilmember Bowler for separate discussion later in the meeting. Planning Director Schubach responded to Council questions. City Attorney Vose also responded to Council questions and said the intent of the Resolution of Intention was to be as broad as possible. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Parker Herriott - 224 24th Street, read from the staff report; said there should be set -backs to prevent commercial areas from impacting residential areas; and, Jim Lissner - 2715 El Oeste Drive, suggested including a specific distance from liquor establishments in the study. Action: To adopt Resolution of Intent No. 94-5677, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO INITIATE A STUDY OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, ESPECIALLY AS THEY APPLY TO THE C-2 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL ZONE." Motion Benz, second Bowler. So ordered, noting the absence of Oakes. (m) R OMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS REGARDING T ENG ER'S REPORT AND SETTING A DATE OF JUNE 14, 1994 OR PUBLI HEARING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH CROSSING UARD MAINTEN E DISTRICT 1994-1995. Memorandum froPublic Works Dire•tor Amy Amirani dated March 23, 1994. Action: To ap 1) adopt Resol OF THE CITY CALIFORNIA, AP PUBLIC WORKS OF REOUIREMENTS OF RE and, 2) adopt Resolution of Int= t RESOLUTION OF THE CITY CO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DEC CERTAIN CROSSING GU CROSSING GUARDS MA ove the staff recommendation ion No. 94-5672, entitled OUNCIL OF THE CITY 0 OVING THE REPORT SAID CITY MA SUTION 94 RI D SER TENANCE D "A RESOLUTION HERMOSA BEACH, THE DIRECTOR OF PURSUANT TO THE 61 OF SAID COUNCIL."; o. 94-5673, entitled, "A CIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA ITS INTENTION TO ORDER CES PURSUANT TO 'THE TRICT ACT OF 1974', 4, SECTION 55530 OF THE STATE OF SAID CITY, FOR THROUGH JUNE R A PUBLIC CHAPTER 3.5, THROUGH 55570 CALIFORNIA, A THE FISCAL 30, 1995; ND ART CLES 1,2,3 AN THE GOVERNMENT CO CERTAIN LOCATIONS IN T AR BEGINNING JULY 1, 199 APPOINTING A TIME AND PLACE HEARING N RELATION THERETO." (Oakes absent) (n) RECOMMEN'•TION TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS REGARDING THE ENGINE 'S REPORT AND SETTING A DATE OF JUNE 14, 1994 OR PUBLI HEARING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH LANDSCAPING AND STRE City Council Minutes 04-12-94 Page 8482 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 c� RESOLUTION 94- 5677 A RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA TO INITIATE A STUDY OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, ESPECIALLY AS THEY APPLY TO THE C-2 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL ZONE WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting on April 12, 1994, to consider initiating a study of commercial development standards and made a following findings: A. Certain standards that apply to commercial zones, including setback requirements from residential uses and residential zones, should be examined for their applicability to the downtown district; B. Downtown revitalization is important to the economy of Hermosa Beach and, as such, it is important that all developments standards are written in recognition of the need for revitalization and do not inhibit it in any way; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY INITIATE A STUDY OF COMMERCIAL STANDARDS AND DIRECTS STAFF AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO EXAMINE THE ZONING CODE FOR POSSIBLE CHANGES • H/ccrsint PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTEp'fhis 12thday of April / , 1994 PRESIDENTo5 City Council and MAYO > 1i�City q Hasa Beach, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: �� f' CITY ATTORNEY STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH I, Naoma Valdes, Deputy City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 94-5677 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 at the regular place thereof on April 12, 1994. The vote was as follows: AYES: Benz, Bowler, Reviczky, Mayor Edgerton NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Oakes DATED: April 14, 1994 QsQ?�fa Deputy City Clerk • Memorandum DATE: April 4, 1994 TO: City Council FROM: Ken Robertson, Associate Planner-Y.42,— RE: lanner74RE: Commercial Development Standards in the Downtown Area (C-2 zone) INITIATED BY STAFF Recommendation Adopt the attached Resolution of Intent to study commercial development standards. Discussion Staff has recently received correspondence in regards to two commercial standards that may be inhibiting desired commercial activity in the downtown area: 1) Commercial building setbacks adjacent to residential areas, and 2) The distance requirement from residential uses for operation of an off -sale alcohol establishment. In the interest of promoting revitalization of the downtown district staff believe these issues are ripe for discussion, and possible consideration of code changes. Further, while discussing these two issues other standards could be examined for possible changes (e.g. permitted outdoor uses/activities). Michael Schubach, Plannin • Director Ma y, As . stant City Manager Attachments 1. Correspondence 2. Relevant Code Sections -3g-- 11 ITEM #5: TEXT AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 13 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES. PREVIOUS STAFF REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS OF 4/12/94 AND 5/10/94 ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION OR THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 26, AND MAY 10, 1994) SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 93-6 July 28, 1994 Regular Meeting of August 9, 1994 PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 13, NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES INITIATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Recommendation: Review and comment on the attached draft ordinance. If it is found acceptable, refer to the Planning Commission for their input prior to adoption. Otherwise, direct staff as deemed appropriate. Background: At the meeting of May 10, 1994, the City Council continued this study and directed staff to prepare a more concise and simplified ordinance. Also, the Council requested that it include provisions that would allow expansion of nonconforming commercial structures as well as residential structures. Previously the Council considered amendments recommended by the Planning Commission which were not adopted due to concerns about commercial buildings, and about the overall complexity of the ordinance. For further background please refer to the previous reports and attachments. Analysis: Following the general direction of the Council, attached is a draft ordinance which staff attempted to make simpler and more concise, while generally containing the same rules and regulations. The focus of the study and the discussions have involved the regulations for expansion and alteration of nonconforming buildings which currently reside in Sections 13-2, 13-3, and 13-7. These have been consolidated into Section 13-1 and 13-2 in a much more concise format, without any distinction between residential and commercial buildings and I 5 uses. Otherwise, unless noted, the rest of the Sections of Article 13 are not proposed for change and would simply be renumbered. The most notable change in the basic substance of the ordinance is that there would no longer be separate treatment of commercial/industrial structures and residential structures. This is consistent with the direction of the Council to give nonconforming commercial buildings the same opportunity for expansion and alteration as is given to residential buildings, and would remove a regulatory barrier to improvement of some existing downtown buildings. Buildings nonconforming to parking requirements are dealt with in Section 1162 of the zoning code which was recently amended by the Council, and is pending approval by the Coastal Commission. In order to make the ordinance simpler, many of the more detailed and specific requirements have been made less onerous or have been completely removed (for example, the requirement for termite inspection has been removed, as have the specific method for calculating the cost of expansion). If removed, these procedural items would need to be addressed by city policy. Ken Robertson Associate Planner CONCUR: Sol Blumenfel Community De elopment Director Stephen R. Burrell City Manager Attachments 1. Draft ordinance, as modified with comments 2. Summary of remaining sections within Article 13 3. City Council Minutes 5/10/94 4. Article 13 in current form and Section 1162 re: parking 5. Amendments to Section 1162 (Coastal Commission approval pending) KR/ccsrnon ..00 2.. DRAFT ORDINANCE, AS MODIFIED comments Sec. 239. Nonconforming building, or structure. "Nonconforming building" means a building, structure, or portion thereof, Modified for which was lawfully erected or altered and maintained, but which no longer clarification conforms to the zoning standards of the zone in which it is located." Sec. 240. Nonconforming use. "Nonconforming use" means a use which was lawfully established and Modified for maintained but which, no longer conforms to the use regulations, or the lot area clarification per dwelling unit regulations, of the zone in which it is located." Section 13-0. General Goals The goals of the City Council related to the nonconformity that exists throughout the city as a result of zone changes and ordinance amendments is as follows: • To allow buildings, whether they are occupied by a nonconforming use or nonconforming to zoning standards, to remain and be maintained, and to allow some limited alteration and expansion of said buildings when certain criteria are met. • To encourage restoration and maintenance of historical residential buildings • To encourage the use of the ordinance to meet current and future minimum standards of parking, open space, setbacks, height, etc. • To limit remodeling and expansion of buildings which by current standards are exceptionally undersized, dilapidated, significantly overdense, or do not meet minimal standards for parking and setback. 3 text modified to show council's intent to be less restrictive 13-1, Continuance and Maintenance The nonconforming use of a building may be continued, provided any structural alteration or expansion shall comply with Section 13-2 below. When a use which is nonconforming to the use regulations for the district where it is located is vacated or discontinued for ninety (90) consecutive days or more, the nonconforming use will be deemed abandoned, and any future use of such building shall conform to the provisions of the zone in which it is located. A nonconforming structure may be maintained and the use therein continued, provided any structural alteration or expansion shall comply with Section 13-2 below. Routine maintenance and repairs, enlargement of window and door openings, repairs and/or replacement to plumbing, electrical wiring, and that required by law or similar work as determined by the Community Development Director, shall not be considered structural alterations, and may be performed on a nonconforming structure. 13-2. Expansion, remodeling, and alteration Buildings containing nonconforming uses, and nonconforming buildings are subject to the following standards: A. Buildings containing nonconforming uses Structural Removal allowed: • Roofs may be removed to add additional stories; • A maximum of 10% of linear feet of exterior walls and 10% of floor area may be removed; • Planning Commission approval required to remove more than specified above. Expansion/Alteration allowed: • Maximum of 50% of the replacement cost of the existing structure • Expansion not permitted if residential density exceeds 45 units per acre • Expansion must conform to current codes (except existing nonconforming side yards may be continued if within 10% of current side yard standard) if 13-1 and 13-2 consolidate provisions which are currently in 13-2, 13-3 and 13-7 Note: distinction between residential and commercial, or manufacturing removed Note: no distinction between residential and commercial From the current Section 13-3 Note: requirements for termite inspection removed • For buildings nonconforming to current parking requirements, refer to Section 1162 • Any garage expansion for parking shall not be included in the allowed expansion B. Nonconforming buildings Structural Removal allowed: • Roofs may be removed to add additional stories • Up to 30% of existing linear feet of exterior walls and 30% of floor area • Planning Commission approval required to remove more than specified above. Expansion/Remodel allowed: • Up to 100% expansion/remodel of the replacement cost of the existing structure (greater than 50% up to 100% requires Planning Commission approval). • Expansion must conform to current codes (except existing nonconforming side yards may be continued if within 10% of current side yard standard) • Existing nonconforming side yards may be continued and extended subject to Planning Commission approval • For buildings nonconforming to current parking requirements, refer to Section 1162 • Any garage expansion for parking shall not be included in the allowed expansion Section 13-3 Nonconforming use limits other uses (renumbered from 13-1 to 13-3) While a nonconforming use exists on any lot, and it is the only use on the lot. no new use may be established thereon even though such other use would be a conforming use. While a nonconforming use occupies a portion of a lot or building with multiple uses no new use may be established within that portion of the lot or building which the existing nonconforming use occupies." s From the current Section 13-7 Note: required termite inspection removed, method for calculating expansion and remodel not included Modified to make less restrictive on lots with multiple tenants or users SUMMARY OF REMAINING SECTIONS - NO CHANGES PROPOSED (EXCEPT IN NUMBERING AS NOTED) SECTION 13-4. CHANGE IN STATUS OF A NONCONFORMING USE States that if a nonconforming use is vacated or removed and is succeeded by another use; vested rights for the pre-existing nonconforming use are terminated. Allows the succeeding use to also be a nonconforming use provided the degree of nonconformity is less intensive.. The stated intent of this section is to allow for improvement in the degree of nonconformity within existing buildings, and not to allow construction of new buildings with nonconforming uses. Determinations on whether a use is less intensive are made by the Planning Commission on request. SECTION 13-5. NONCONFORMING COMMERCIAL AND MANUFACTURING BUSINESS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT This section requires pre-existing businesses that fall into categories that require C.U.P.s, but do not possess a C.U.P., to obtain one within two years of the date of the adoption of the ordinance. The most common examples were liquor stores and auto repair shops. Almost all such businesses are now in compliance with this section. SECTION 13-6. RECONSTRUCTION OF A DAMAGED NONCONFORMING BUILDING Sets forth the standards for reconstructing nonconforming buildings destroyed by fire or other Act of God: • If destroyed less than or equal to 50% of its reasonable replacement cost, the building may be restored as it previously existed. • If destroyed more than 50%, it must be restored in conformity with current zoning standards. • Provides for exceptions for nonconforming residential structures in R -zones, which may be rebuilt if certain guidelines are met, upon approval by the Planning Commission Sets forth the method for determining the extent of damage. Disputes over interpretation or requests for waivers are handled by the Planning Commission. States that if damage is widespread and a State of Emergency is declared, the section would be superseded by action of the City Council. Delete the current Section 13-7 (consolidated into 13-1 and 13-2) NONCONFORMING HISTORIC BUILDINGS (RENUMBER FROM 13-8 TO 13-7) Allows for deviations from Article 13, and other sections of the zoning ordinance, for preserving and/or renovating locally recognized historic structure. The deviations are approved through approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. 7 BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO AMEND SECTION 1413, DECISIONS OF THE COUNCIL ON APPEALS AND RECONSIDERATIONS, TO ELIMINATE THE PROVISION REQUIRING COUNCIL MODIFICATIONS TO BE REFERRED BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION.'" Motion Reviczky, second Mayor Edgerton. AYES: Benz, Bowler, Oakes, Reviczky, Mayor Edgerton NOES: None 5. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 13 OF REGARDING NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS from meetings of April 12, 1994 Memorandum from Planning Director May 3, 1994. THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND USES. (Continued and April 26, 1994) Michael Schubach dated Planning Director Schubach presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. The public hearing opened at 7:56 P.M. Seeing no one come forward to address the Council on this item, the public hearing closed at 7:56 P.M. Action: To direct staff to rewrite and bring back a much more succinct and simplified version, which allows remodeling for both residential and commercial nonconforming buildings, for Council review before referral to the Planning Commission for its input. Motion Oakes, second Bowler. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 6. TEXT AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ',BUILDING HEIGHT', AND TO ADD A DEFINITION OF ',GRADE", with an Ordinance for introduction and waiver of full reading. (Continued from meetings of April 12, 1944 and April 26, 1994.) Memorandum from Planning Director Michael- Schubach dated May 3, 1994. Planning Director Schubach presented the staff report and responded toCouncilquestions. The public hearing opened at 8:45 P.M. Seeing no one come forward to address the Council on this item, the public hearing closed at 8:45 P.M. Proposed Action: To amend the definitions as -recommended by the Planning Commission in alternative 1, and provide policy direction to consider a spot elevation made by a surveyor during or at the end of framing to make this a responsibility of the homeowner as other cities do (to eliminate the responsibility of measurements made by the Building and Safety Department);- and, to study an alternativemethodto measure slopes greater than 1:3. Motion Oakes. The motion died due to the -lack of a second. -8- City Council Minutes 05-10-94 Page 8516 5* § 13-0 APPENDIX A—ZONING § 13-0 ARTICLE 13. GENERAL PROVISIONS, CONDITIONS AND EXCEPTIONS NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND USES* Sec. 13-0. General goals. The city council recognizes that nonconformity exists throughout the city as a result of zone changes, and amendments to the zoning ordinance. In recognition of those changes, the city council goals in the adoption of this Ordinance [No. 89-1008] are as follows: (a) To allow those uses, and/or structures in sound condition which meet certain standards as stated within this article to be maintained. (b) To encourage restoration and maintenance of those resi- dential buildings of fine quality which enhance and main- tain the long established historical character of Hermosa Beach. (c) To encourage the use of this ordinance to meet the current and future minimum standards of parking, open space, set- backs, height, and all other such similar standards. (d) To prohibit the remodeling and expansion of such build- ings which by current standards are considered either ex- ceptionally undersized, dilapidated, significantly overdense, or do not meet even the minimal standards of parking and • setback. (Ord. No. 89-1008, § 1, 9-26-89) *Editor's note—Formerly, Article 13, pertaining to nonconforming buildings and uses, contained §§ 1300-1312. Ord. No. 89-1008, §§ 1-11, adopted Sept. 26, 1989, amended such article in its entirety as follows: Sec. 1 added § 13-0; Sec. 2 renumbered § 1300 as § 13-1; Secs. 3, 4 amended and renumbered §§ 1301 and 1302 as §§ 13-2, 13-3; Secs. 5, 6 renumbered §§ 1303 and 1304 as §§ 13-4, 13.5 Sec. 7 deleted § 1306, derived from Ord. No. N.S. 509, §"I., 9-23-75; Secs. 8, 9 amended and renumbered §§ 1307 and 1309 as §§ 13-6, 13-7; Sec. 10 added § 13-8; and Sec. 11 deleted § 1310. Former §§ 1305, 1308, 1311 and 1312 were previously repealed and reserved (see the Code Comparative Table beginning on p. 613). - Supp. No. 12-89 545. § 13-1 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE § 13-3 Sec. 13-1. Nonconforming use limits other uses. While a nonconforming use exists on any lot, no new use may be established thereon even though such other use would be a conforming use. (Ord. No. 89-1008, § 2, 9-26-89) Sec. 13-2. Nonconforming use of conforming building. • The nonconforming use of a conforming use building existing on the effective date of this Ordinance [No. 89-1008] may be con- tinued, provided such nonconforming use shall not be expanded or extended into any other portion of the conforming building nor shall any structural alterations be made except those required by law. If such nonconforming use is vacated or discontinued for ninety (90) consecutive days or more, any future use of such building shall conform to the provisions of the zone in which it is located. • Enlargement of windows and door openings in interior and ex- terior walls is considered minor and not structural alteration; repairs and/or replacement to plumbing, electrical wiring, or such similar work, and those required by law or as determined by the building director are not "structural alterations," except as pro- vided in section 13-3 where a residential structure is significantly - damaged by dry rot, termites, or similar damage and removal of a significant portion of the structure is necessary or recommended. (Ord. No. N.S. 515, § 1, 12-9-75; Ord. No. 84-776, § 1, 9-11-84; Ord. No. 89-1008, § 3, 9-26-89) Sec. 13-3. Nonconforming use of a nonconforming building. The nonconforming commercial or manufacturing use of a non- conforming commercial or manufacturing building may be con- tinued, provided such nonconforming use shall not be expanded or enlarged nor shall any structural alteration be made except those required by law. If such nonconforming use is vacated or discontinued for ninety (90) consecutive days or more, any future use of such building shall conform to the provisions of the zone in which it is located. Enlargement of windows and door openings in interior and ex- . terior walls are considered minor and not structural alterations;._ Supp. No. 12-89 /O 546 • • § 13-3 APPENDIX A—ZONING § 13-3 repairs and/or replacement to plumbing, electrical wiring, or such similar work, and those required by law or as determined by the • building director are not structural alterations. A nonconforming residential use of a nonconforming residential structure may be remodeled and/or expanded when it is in compliance with the intent, purpose, standards and requirements as specified in the following: Intent and purpose of this section is to allow remodeling and expansion to residential structures in sound condition in a manner that does not ultimately result in significant removal of existing structures. Where a structure is significantly dam- aged by dry rot, termites, or similar damage and removal of significant portions of the structure is necessary or recom- mended, this ordinance does not apply and expansion and/or remodeling is prohibited. All structures shall require a termite and dry rot inspection by a bona fide company, to determine the amount of structural removal, if any, that will be necessary because of damage. (a) The following portions of the existing structure may -be removed: (1) When adding additional stories, portions of the roof as necessary may be removed. (2) When adding to any side of a structure, walls may be removed to enlarge existing rooms, and/or to provide interior access as necessary for logical expansion of the existing structure. A maximum combination of ten (10) percent of the existing lineal feet of exterior walls and/ or floor area may be removed whether necessitated by the termite and dry rot inspection or by the remod- eling, or both. (3) Removal of any other portions of an existing structure, other than those noted in subsections (1) and (2) above, shall require submittal of a demolition plan for review by the planning commission to determine whether the proposed plan meets the intent and purpose of this section. (b) Nonconforming uses and structures may be expanded and/ or remodeled to a cumulative maximum of fifty (50) percent Supp. No. 12-89 (I 546.1_ • C § 13-4 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE § 13-4 of the replacement cost of the existing structure(s) as it existed on (effective date of Ordinance No. 89-1008) and as determined by the building department which shall use current building valuation data provided by the Interna- tional Conference of Building Officials (ICBG). Interior re- modeling shall be computed at fifty (50) percent of the ICBO building valuation for new construction. When computing remodeled area, i. e. relocation of interior walls, fifty (50) percent of the total area affected by the relocation of the wall shall be included in the computation. For example, if a wall between the dining room and kitchen is removed, the area counted includes fifty (50) percent of the dining room and kitchen area together. (Refer to section 13-7 (b) for example). Any garage expansion for vehicle parking shall not be in- cluded as part of the allowed fifty (50) percent expansion as noted in this section. (c) The minimum standards for expansion and/or remodeling are as follows: (1) Refer to Article 11.5 for the parking requirements. (2) Residential uses shall not exceed a maximum density equivalent to forty-five (45) units per acre. (3) Existing structures which are nonconforming as to yards, lot coverage, open space or height may be ex- panded or enlarged provided the expansion or enlarge- ment complies with the regulations of the zone in which the structure is located. Existing nonconforming side yards may be maintained with an addition provided the side yard is not more than ten (10) percent smaller than the current side yard required. (Ord. No. 84-776, § 2, 9-11-84; Ord. No. 89-1008, § 4, 9-26-89) Sec. 13-4. Change in status of nonconforming use. If an existing nonconforming manufacturing, commercial" or residential use is vacated or removed and it is succeeded by an- other use, this shall be deemed the termination of the existing nonconforming use, and thereby immediately loses any vested right to continue. A nonconforming use may be succeeded by a § 13-5 APPENDIX A—ZONING , - § 13-5 use which is itself nonconforming, provided the degree of noncon- formity is less intensive (e.g., requires less parking or results in fewer dwelling units). It is the intent of this section to allow for an improvement in the degree of nonconformity of a use utilizing existing structures. It is not intended to allow the construction of new structures in violation of the provisions of this ordinance. The planning commission shall make determinations as to - whether a use is less intensive upon request. (Ord. No. 89-1008, § 5, 9-26-89) Sec. 13-5. Nonconforming commercial and manufacturing businesses subject to the requirement for a con- ditional use permit. (a) Nonconforming alcohol beverage establishment, on and off - sale. This conditional use permit process, established pursuant to this ordinance, shall apply to establishments which sell alcohol and fall into any category of use which requires a conditional use permit in order to sell alcoholic beverages in the City of Hermosa - Beach. All establishments which do not possess a conditional use permit for the sale of alcoholic beverages on the effective date of Ordinance No. 86-865 shall be required to apply for a conditional use permit within two (2) years of the effective date of this ordi- nance. Editor's note—It should be noted that § 4 of Ord. No. 86-865, provides that, "This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption." Such ordinance bears an adoption date of Dec. 16, 1986. Upon the filing of an application, each establishment must diligently prosecute its application and receive a conditional use permit under the standards in effect at the time of the effective date of this ordinance. Said application must be heard before the planning commission within six (6) months of the filing of the application. Any applicant may be granted an extension of time within which to receive their conditional use permit if they can demonstrate to the planning commission there is good cause for an extension of time necessary to receive the permit. Supp. No. 12.90 546.3 -13- , 13- • 5e.c. ,1-Cp . HERMOSA BEACH CITY CC( § 13.6 If no permit is either sought or granted within the time periods specified above, such establishment shall no longer have the legal authority to sell alcoholic beverages within the boundaries of the City of Hermosa Beach. (b) Remaining nonconforming commercial and manufacturing establishments subject to the requirement for a conditional use permit. The conditional use permit process, established pursuant to this ordinance, shall apply to the types of business establish- ments as identified on the commercial and manufacturing per- mitted use lists in Article 8 and Article 9. All such establish- ments which do not possess a conditional use permit as required by Article 8 and Article 9 on the effective date of Ordinance No. 90-1041 shall be required to apply for a conditional use permit within two (2) years from the date of receiving notification from the city of the requirement to apply for a conditional use permit. Editor's note—Sec. 2 of Ord. No. 90-1041 provides that "this ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty '30) days of its final passage and adoption." Such ordinance was adopted Aug. 14. 1990. Upon receiving notification from the city, each establishment shall have a maximum of two (2) years to apply for a conditional use permit, and once application is made it must diligently pursue its application and receive a conditional use permit. Said appli- cation must be heard before the planning commission within six (6) months of the filing of the application. Any applicant may be granted an extension of time within which to receive their con- ditional use permit if they can demonstrate to the planning com- mission there is good cause for an extension of time necessary to receive the permit. If no permit is either sought or granted within the time periods specified above, the establishment, or the portion of the establish- ment, conducting an operation subject to a conditional use permit requirement shall no longer have the legal authority to operate. (Ord. No. 86-865, § 1, 12-16-86; Ord. No. 89-1008, § 6, 9-26-89; Ord. No. 90-1041, § 1, 8.14-90) "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. C 1. Excentions:' 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 fort ,.below; provided that the rebuilt structure is 'made asl 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, floox area, room sizes can be duplicated in compliance 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 be based on the ratio of .the estimated cost of restoring the structure to its conditions prior to such damage ox 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 on the International Conference of Building Officials data. D. Disputes as to the interpretationof 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 th city due to a major emergency (such as a earthquake citywide fire) that the City Council or other gornmen authority declares a State of Emergency, this Sectio will be superseded by any action of the City Council taken at that time in regards to reconstruction of damaged.buildings." Sec. 13-7. Conforming use of a nonconforming structt;re. Intent and purpose of this section is to allow remodeling and expansion to nonconforming residential structures in sound con- dition in a manner that does not ultimately result in significant removal of existing structures. Where a structure is significantly damaged by dry rot, termites, or similar damage and removal of significant portions of the structure is necessary or recommended, this ordinance does not apply and expansion and/or remodeling is prohibited. All nonconforming structures shall require a termite and dry rot inspection by a bona fide company, to determine the amount of structural removal, if any, that will be necessary be- cause of damage. Expansion of existing nonconforming manufacturing or com- mercial structures shall be prohibited. (a) The following portions of the existing nonconforming struc- ture may be removed: • (1) When adding additional stories, portions of the roof as necessary may be removed. (2) When adding to any side of a structure, walls may be removed to enlarge existing rooms, and/or to provide interior access as necessary for logical expansion of the existing structure. A maximum combination of thirty (30) percent of the existing lineal feet of exterior walls and/or floor area may be removed whether necessi- tated by the termite or dry rot inspection or by the remodeling, or both. (3) Removal of any other portions of an existing structure, other than those noted in subsections (1) and (2) above, shall require submittal of a demolition plan for review by the planning commission to determine whether the Supp. No. 12.90 546.5 C § 13.7 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE § 13-7 proposed plan meets the intent and purpose of this section. (b) Nonconforming structures may be expanded and/or remod- eled to a cumulative maximum of fifty (50) percent of the replacement cost of the existing structure(s) as it existed on (effective date .of Ordinance No. 89-1008) and as deter- mined by the building department which shall use current building valuation data provided by the International Con- ference of Building Officials (ICBO). Interior remodeling shall be computed at fifty (50) percent of the ICBO building valuation for new construction. When computing remod- eled area, i.e., relocation of interior walls, fifty (50) percent of the total area affected by the relocation of the wall shall be included in the computation. For example, if a wall be- tween the dining room and kitchen is removed, the area counted includes fifty (50) percent of the dining room and kitchen area together. Any garage expansion for vehicle parking shall not be in- cluded as part of the allowed fifty (50) percent expansion and/or remodeling as noted in this section. The planning commission may allow expansions greater than fifty (50) percent, but no more than one hundred (100) percent, if it is determined that the goals, and the intent and purpose of this article and section are being met. Ap- plicant fees for requests for expansions over fifty (50) per- cent shall be set by the city council. The following is an example of the fifty (50) percent valu- ation formula: Example 1: Expansion only Existing dwelling size: (X) cost per square foot Total value: 50% of value: Expansion allowed: ($32,800_$65.60) Supp. No. 12-90 546.6 1,000 square feet $ 65.60 65,600.00 32,800.00 500 square feet § 13-7 APPENDLX A—ZONING Example 2: Remodeling and Expansion Existing dwelling unit size 1,000 square feet (X) cost per square foot: $ 65.60 Total value: 65,600.00 50 % of value: 32,800.00 - -Proposed 800 square feet re- model (50% floor area) @ $32.80 per square foot: Proposed 300 square feet expan- sion: 13,120.00 19,680.00 Total Cost: 32,800.00 (Cost under 50%) § 13-7 (c) The minimum standards for expansion and/or remodeling are as follows: (1) Refer to Article 11.5 for the parking -requirements. (2) Existing structures which are nonconforming as to yards, lot coverage, open space or height may be ex- 'panded or enlarged provided -the -expansion or enlarge.. ment complies with the regulations of the zone in which the structure is located. Existing nonconforming side yards may be maintained with an addition provided the side yard is not more than ten (10) percent smaller than the current side yard required. (3) Where existing walls are a minimum of, or more than three (3) feet from the side property line, the wall may be expanded if at least seventy-five (75) percent of the block as defined by the zoning ordinance, has the same or smaller nonconforming side yards (excluding com- mercial and manufacturing uses); or, the wall may be expanded if the planning commission determines that the expansion within the otherwise code required set - Supp. No. 12-90 546.7 • § 13.8 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE § 13-8 back is minor and necessary for the logical extension of a wall and that the nonconforming side yard is gen- erally consistent with the majority of existing side yards in the "block" as defined by the zoning ordinance. Mea- surement of side yards shall be approximated by use of aerial photos and field inspections. Fees for such re- quests shall be set by the city council. (Ord. No. N.S. 234, § 3, 2-6-62; Ord. No. 84-776, § 4, 9-11-84; Ord. No. 89-1008, § 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 Cr - 546.8 F-1-e_icAt7sA Q 1 ak EXERPT FROM ARTICLE 11.5.;0FF STREET PARKING Section 1162 Off -Street parking, reauirements for new and existing construction. (a) For every residential dwelling hereafter erected, parking spaces shall be provided, permanently maintained and permanently available as set forth in section 1151, including requirements for turning radii, as provided by this article, and the parking standards contained herein. (b) For every residential building hereafter which is structurally altered to increase gross floor area, there shall be provided, permanently maintained and permanently available, two (2) parking spaces for each existing unit, including requirements for turning radius and parking standards as required by Article 11.5. During the life of a building a single addition of not more than one hundred (100) square feet may be constructed without compliance with this section, and a maximum of two hundred fifty. (250) square feet may be constructed if at least one parking space is available with the same requirement as noted above for each existing unit, except that nonconforming uses require. Planning Commission approval. (c) Before any additional units may be added to a lot where there now exists a building or buildings used for human habitation, there shall be provided, permanently maintained and permanently available, two (2) parking spaces for each existing unit, including requirements for turning radius and size, as provided by this article and parking standards herein. Exception to (b) and (c) above: Existing garages or parking spaces for existing units eight and one-half (8 1/2) feet wide by eighteen (18) feet deep irsiae measurement, having access from any alley or street and having a distance of not less than twenty (20) feet from the far side of such alley or street, with a minimum eight (8) feet wide driveway, in the clear, will be considered to meet the parking requirements and turning radius of this ordinance. (d) For every building in a "C" or "M" zone hereafter erected, or reconstructed, or expanded, the parking requirements and turning area for the entire building shall be as set forth in this ordinance. In no case shall new construction reduce the parking serving an existing use below the requirements of this ordinance. (e) When the use of an existing building or structure is changed to a more intense use with a higher parking demand, the required parking as stated in this article for that particular use shall be met prior to occupying of the building unless otherwise specified in this article. (Ord. No. N.S. 284, 1, 5-18-65; Ord No. N.S. 464, 3, 6-19-73; Ord. No. 84-781, -1, 12-13-84; Ord. No. 85-820, 10, 11, 12-16-85) carole/docnonl c Av'v\e ci Me✓ 4-s +o &e.c+tan 11 Lo Z ( Colas++.1 <..o1MwllSs(ov, kf ()eAndi 5) 2 SECTION 2. Amend Sections 1162(d) regarding 3 requirements for expansion and changingl162(existi g uses by parkin the underlined text, as follows : 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 "(d) For every building in a "C" or "M" zone hereafter erected, or reconstructed, or expanded, the parking requirements and turning area for the entire building shall be as set forth in this ordinance. However for an ex ansion of an! existin• buildin• le•all nonconformin• re.uirements, •arkin• re.uirements shall onl to be aa••lied to the amount of ex.ansion sub'ect to Section 1152.5 for expansions in the downtown area . In shall new construction reduce the parking serving anase existing use below the requirements of this ordinance. (e) When the use of an existing building or structure is changed to a more intense use with a higher parking demand there shall be no additional arkin• re•uirement for sites in the downtown the extent there is . town area exce chan e of floor t area to lot area ratio in excess of 1:1a . Otherwise, the requirement for additional parking, shall be calculated as the difference between the re•uired api_11s1:22 as stated in this Article for that particular use as com.ared to the re.uirement for the existin• or previous use which shall be met prior to occupying the building unless otherwise specified in this Article." Motion Reviczky, second Benz. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 5. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 13 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND USES, with an Ordinance for introduction and waiver of full reading. (Continued from meeting of April 12, 1994.) Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 4, 1994. Planning Director Schubach presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. City Attorney Vose responded to Council questions and suggested that Council set the policy and send it back for review rather than make detailed changes in the Ordinance language at this time. The public hearing opened at 8:19 P.M. Coming forward to address the Council on this item was: June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, spoke regarding non -conforming use in the commercial zone. The public hearing closed at 8:20 P.M. Action: To continue this itein' to the Regular Meeting of May 10, 1994, with the direction that Council would set the policy considerations only at that time. Motion Mayor Edgerton, second Oakes. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 6. TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW MOTION PICTURE FILMING AND OTHER TRANSIENT ACTIVITIES, with an Ordinance for introduction and waiver of full reading. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 20, 1994. Planning Director Schubach presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. City Attorney Vose and Community Resources Director Rooney also responded to Council questions. The public hearing opened at 8:23 P.M. Coming forward to address the Council -on this item were: _ Jim Hamilton - 3417 Hermosa Avenue, suggested that the proposed Ordinance did not have reasonable safeguards for residents; suggested that it should read 15 days annually, not consecutively, with a longer filming time requiring a public hearing; requested that residents "be given written notice of filming as early as possible; suggested that Hermosa explore the policies of other cities and submitted information from the City of Pasadena; Jim Lissner - 2715 El Oeste Drive, spoke of crowds drawn by filming and events -that took place in other locations; said filming lowered property City Council Minutes 04-26-94 Rage 8498 Items 1(f), (g), (j) and (1) were heard at this time but are shown in order for clarity. Public comments on items removed from the consent calendar are shown under the appropriate item. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT TO EXAMINE ARTICLE 13 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND USES, with Ordinance for introduction and waiver of full reading. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 4, 1994. Action: To continue this item to the Regular Meeting of April 26, 1994, in order to have it heard by a full Council. Motion Mayor Edgerton, second Bowler. The motion carried, noting the absence of Benz and Oakes. 5. SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADD A DEFINITION AND METHOD OF DETERMINATION FOR GRADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEASURING BUILDING HEIGHT, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated April 4, 1994. Planning Director Schubach presented the staff report responded to Council questions. The public hearing opened at 7:52 P.M. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey -Blvd., mentioned her rx concern that certain items on the Consent Ordinance (item 2) section should have been given public hearings; Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place, questioned the term "existing grade" referenced in the Ordinance, felt it should be "original grade" as people sometimes tried to build up the grade by filling in with soil and cited the former St. Michael's Hospital site as an example; requested that the item be continued for a full Council; Pete Tucker - 235 34th Street, questioned if this was commercial as well as residential (told by staff this was residential only); suggested that Hermosa include a "pre -demolition" survey such as Manhattan Beach requires; and, Frances Parker - 621 Loma Drive, suggested her preference for "original grade as determined by earliest City records". and Councilmember Benz arrived at 8:09 P.M. The public hearing closed at 8:10 P.M. City Council Minutes 04-12-94 Page 8486 • ,4 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council BILTMORE PARK Recommendation: August 1, 1994 Regular Meeting of August 9, 1994 1. Review and approve modifications to the previously submitted Biltmore Park design and approve the Biltmore Park Construction Documents. Background: In its regular meeting of January 25, 1994, the City Council reviewed the two design alternatives submitted by the Public Works Department and requested the Parks and Recreation Commission to do the same. The Parks and Recreation Commission, at their February 14, 1994 meeting, reviewed the proposed park design alternatives and listened to public comment pertaining to the park. The Commission also put forward a design alternative of their own. At the previous City Council meeting of July 26, 1994, City Council reviewed completed construction drawings prepared by Lawrence Moss & Associates for the Biltmore Park project. At this meeting, a list of City Council comments were received and staff was directed to return to the City Council with changes & response to the comments. In addition, a recommendation to prepare a draft document to put this design for the park, as well as a proposal for 60% commercial and 40% open space on a ballot measure to be taken before the voters in the upcoming November elections. Analysis: The following are Lawrence Moss and Associates' responses to comments received at the City Council meeting of July 26, 1994: Concept: The major concept of this park was to emulate characteristics of the beach. We wanted the park to become a visual connection of the beach itself but without bringing in the elements that would cause maintenance problems. The best way to emulate the characteristics of the sand and its forms and shapes was through using meandering paths that undulated in size,and shapes, meandering seat walls, and gentle flowing undulating mounds. The amenities needed to create this are few and simple but also critical to the overall look and feeling of the park space. s Paths: The irregular shape of the DG paths were laid out in this manner to create an interesting sense of wandering through the park and ease of ingress and egress for maintenance vehicles. Making the paths smaller would vastly work against the concept of this park. It would make the space boring, typical, and lacking in imagination. This is a fine opportunity for Hermosa Beach to have a special beach park identity. Colored concrete was the original recommendation for the path material due to maintenance considerations. DG seemed to be more in keeping with the park ordinance and Coastal Commission requirements while still meeting ADA access mandates. Reduction of the pathway width by 2' will not change the cost of the park and may bring up maintenance and security questions. Seat Walls: The seat walls make up the backbone of this design aesthetically and technically. Technically they create a natural barrier from the wind blowing sand into the park. They also eliminate the need for benches and help in retention of the proposed mounding. These walls will match the existing walls along the Strand in color and texture. An option could include replacing portions of the seat walls on the north and south park boundaries with concrete mow strip. This will reduce the cost of the project by $6500. Sand Area: The sand shown along the Strand is kept in place with a seat wall. This area also acts as a natural catch for sand blowing in from the beach and distributing into the rest of the park. The sand area in the middle of the park has been eliminated. Interaction Between Lawn and Sand: The lawn we researched and selected for this area is called Paspallum vaginatum, or "Excaliber", by Pacific Sod. This variety of lawn is similar to a hybrid Bermuda which will keep a tight, firm tuft. It is best known to tolerate beach conditions and salinity. Mounds: Throughout the park we have earth mounds which are covered by lawn or plant material. Though some of the mounds reach 4' in height, they are long and gentle slopes maintaining high visibility in and around the park. Lighting: The Light fixture and poles were selected based on a pedestrian scale that matches the fixtures and poles that once lined the boardwalk and downtown areas in Hermosa Beach back in the 20's and 30's. This concept is the only link from the past we were able to utilize in the park. The suggested bollards do not fit this historical reference (they're too contemporary) and do not provide the security lighting requested by the Police Department. The lighting selected for the Pier, Pier Plaza, Downtown Area and Biltmore Park should have some continuity. While the lighting fixtures for these areas may not have to match exactly, there probably should be some consistent theme. In general, a 15' maximum height, human scale pedestrian light fixture spaced at 50' increments (8 maximum) is recommended for this park. Trees: There are not a large number of trees that would thrive in the existing beach condition. The following trees were investigated: Casuarina stricta - Coast She -oak is a fast growing tree, able to tolerate the extremes of a coastal environment. It is best suited for saline soil conditions, has an open growth habit, grows to about 45'+ and looks similar to a pine tree. It is the specimen tree recommended for this project. Pinus Torreyana - Torrey Pine is a pine which grows to a height of 40' to 60' and 30' to 40' in width. It is found on coastal hillside bluffs and can tolerate coastal conditions such as salt spray and wind, but may not be able to tolerate saline soil conditions. Cupressus macrocarpa - Monterey Cypress is the most picturesque of the trees investigated but it is subject to Coryneum Canker Fungus, for which no cure has been found. Ficus rubiginosa - Rusty Leaf Fig grows to 20' to 50' with a broad dense canopy. It grows well in sand on beaches. Fiscal Impact: None at this time. The estimated cost of the Biltmore Park Project is $89,900. Respectfully submitted, Concur: osephImprovement _Ma C. Mankawich Capital IProgram Engineer Noted For Fiscal Impact: ViTIcti Cope and Director of Finance • a:tybilt Amy Amir�ni Director of Public Works Director of Community Resources Stephen R. Burrell City Manager 3 Parker Herriott 224 24th St. Hermosa Beach, Calif. 90254 (310) 379-7196 Hermosa Beach City Council Civic Center Drive Hermosa Beach, Calif. 90254 RECEIVED AUG - 4 1994 CITY MGR. OFFICE dAiLty%(r71 July 26\1994 Re: Construction Plans for Biltmore Park (Design) Dear City Council members, City Manager, City Attorney, etc. The Biltmore Park construction design should not even be on your agenda tonight, because the Parks and Recreation Commission has not had a chance to have a Public Hearing regarding the construction design, nor have they on the Commission been able to have their input into the design once this design was finished. The commission has a duty of a discretionary nature and the council does not have discretion in the design of the park. The South School Park had Public hearings and allowed for public input and the same should permitted for the Biltmore Park. The design as it stands now is a very dangerous design, for many reasons. 1. The sandy areas near the Strand will only increase the risk of children to be hit with speeding roller skaters, skateboarders and bicyclists. The children may be injured or killed. Also dogs will defecate in this area along the strand and that will not be healthy for children or adults, or make the Park look nice. 2. The Park should not have any, according to our former Public Safety Director, Steve Wisniewski ,"nooks and crannies where people can hide", and commit crimes, etc. The height of the knolls is not clear from the plans for the Park I have seen, but I hope the knolls are not so high that people can lie down and hide behind them. The Park is to be a 100% Open Space Park, where a person can be seen any where in the Park from any angle from inside or outside of the Park for reasons of safety. 3. Apparently, there is to be a concrete winding seating wall or walls in the Park, but this violates the Parks Ordinance, for no hardscape is permitted in the Park. This would also apply to any curb in the Park. Skateboarders would skate up or on the walls thereby creating a safety, noise, and liability problem for the City. SUPPLEMENiAL INFORMATION 4. The Park needs some benches for people to sit on and view the ocean, as permitted by the ordinance. Also an ad ran on Multi -Vision Television Channel 3, before the election showing a bench and a palm tree. 5. The walkways as presently designed are more like streets, because they are so wide. The Parks and Recreation Commission wanted just a couple of walk or pathways, as I remember. This design makes the Biltmore Park more like a plaza, and is therefore prohibited by the ordinance. It will look much like it looks today, with sand and wide decomposed granite replacing sand. The walkways should be reduced down to about two or three feet wide to discourage motor vehicles from driving through the Park. As you know, some times people get confused or they do it on purpose and drive on the Strand at times even if it is illegal. We do not need motor vehicles driving through the Park because of safety reasons. The Police do not need to drive their motor vehicles into the Park. If there was an emergency they could always drive over the grass like they do now in Parks that are larger than the Biltmore Park. 6. The Park needs a flag pole for our American flag, as required by the Park ordinance. So please send this park design to the Parks and Recreation Commission so modifications can be made to the design to comply with the Park's ordinance. Remember on November 2, 1994 6,772 Hermosa Beach voter's voted Yes to have the Biltmore saved from development and made into a beautiful 100% Open Space Park for present and future generations to enjoy. I ask you to follow the will of the people and the intent and purpose of the ordinance the people passed for this Biltmore Park. Remember Peter's Garden Center on Pacific Coast Highway at 190th Street in Redondo Beach, has agreed to donate palms trees, etc., for the Park. The ordinance allows for people to donate trees, grass, benches, etc. What about the lighting for the Park? The Park should be well lit for safety reasons as well as for aesthetic reasons. Thank you, Respectfully, Parker R. Herriott To: Hermosa Beach City Council Members City Manager Steven Burrell City Attorney City Clerk Public -Works Director City Hall Hermosa Beach, Ca 90254 From: Howard Longacre, Hermosa Beach, 90254 3 August 1994 RECEIVED AUG - 3 1994 CITY MGR. OFFICE Re: Biltmore Park; Please attach this letter as public input to the item regarding Biltmore Ballot measures and if there is a separate item regarding the Biltmore Park design then copy and attach it to that item also, to be included in all packets distributed for the Tuesday 9 August 1994, City Council meeting. Dear Members of the City Council and others: I am on the record in numerous meetings over many years regarding the city's Biltmore parcel. I have made it clear that I support whatever the public supports be it commercial, residential, parkland, monuments to council people, you name it. However I find it absolutely abhorrent and possibly fraudulent. that any member of this city council. all of whom are now on the record as opposing the parcel as -. . ... i. w ...- I- I- .r. ., .. - .._ any kind of a measure on the ballot regarding Biltmore Park. The people have already addressed the issue as crystal clear as any issue has ever been addressed in this city. Sixty -two -percent (62%) voted for the measure to thirty -eight -percent (38%) against. A measure that was written so clear a school child could understand it. The city attorney also stated in the ballot measure exactly what it was. Everything in the measure had been debated for years. I was at the meetings, the public hearings, a ton of it. I never saw any of the current council there, except for council member Reviczky. I never saw any written input from the other four on council. But there are recorded public statements as made on the record by all five on council during the last twenty months indicating a very prejudicial point of view in contrast to what the people in their own wisdom decided on, and mandated that their government carry out regarding the Biltmore parcel. I also observed many signatures being gathered on the peoples' measure. I heard the comments, from the people. Yes, there were some of those "Oh, I SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATM u Longacre to Council and others 8/3/94 Page 2 of 5 don't want that <expletive -deleted> park", but mostly people would say "its time we send these <expletives -deleted> council people a message". The people know this issue, they know it very well. Council people can get elected with one in six that go to the polls. Not this measure. It is rock -solid. It was rock -solid the day the petition was brought to city hall. People that know the history of this city knew it was a done deal the day it was carried into city hall. Just as some on council probably realize it would have been a done deal if a certified recall petition had come before you. What amazed me about your last council meeting is how your counsel, paid with the peoples' money, didn't pipe up loudly right off, that you on council have already demonstrated your prejudices to the peoples' vote, and that the peoples' vote is a mandate as virtually nothing else in the city. Only council member Reviczky stated it correctly and very well I believe, noting that in the absence of a bona fide petition from the people on the matter, it would be improper for the council to touch same, and this notwithstanding the fact that he has also indicated a preference for other uses of the parcel. I would hope that your counsel is wise enough to set you on a correct course that leads more to the side of respecting what has already occurred than otherwise. That is counsel's job and if counsel is giving you direction that leads you or the city in the wrong direction you have the ability to replace counsel. Should you not believe the people knew what they voted for with regard to the Biltmore parcel twenty months ago, then obviously you must absolutely believe they did not know what they voted for when they voted for council members in the last election or the previous election or any election. I ask you this. What do the votes of Hermosa voters mean? Anything at all? Consider the park design before you. I see all these super wide gravel paths (too many, and too wide), and all these low 18" high concrete walls(to trip over) meandering all over the place. Is that where your parents will sit and rest a while when you show them the park someday, on those concrete walls? The peoples' mandate said no-hardscape and some paths. Has anyone in government read the ordinance? How many times do I and others have to ask if you have read the ordinance? Where is your paid counsel? Does he not know what hardscape is? Concrete walls are hardscape! I care that you don't bend the peoples' will. Not even slightly. If you can bend the meaning here you will do it anywhere and on anything, that is the problem. Can you be trusted to do what the people say to do even though you don't want to. Sooner or later a judge may look at all this and really wonder what is going on in this city of Hermosa Beach. And what kind of a city council do we have when people are so turned off with the meetings that only two citizens come forward to speak on the design of the park, and one says I don't want the park - put it on the ballot, and the other points out correctly the many improper facets of the design, and while this gentlemen is speaking no one appears to be listening. Review the Longacre to Council and others 8/3/94 Page 3 of 5 video tape and you will see what the public sees. This is your city. I guess this is the way you want it. Private agendas, contempt for the citizenry. That's the way 1 see it to be, as worse now than ever before. When the people of the community vote, they give mandates whether it be electing officials, or taking an action on a matter. And taking an action on a matter is what they have done in this case. You have no choice in this matter and must act to carry out the peoples' mandate, for if you don't then we have a situation that is heading toward that which exists in some other lands right now. Regarding the design approval, there exists a paradoxical situation here. The peoples' mandate for a park is being carried out by an elected body that opposes the peoples' will. It would be best if the council send this design review immediately to the parks and recreation commission and instruct them to do the best job they can in making this design conform to the letter of the ordinance. while also satisfying the ascetics and technical details, prior to it coming back to council for final approval. Why in the world did the design come straight back to you from the architect, without the parks and recreation commission getting it. They did the preliminary work with the public. Should they not be first to review the architect's design to see how all the preliminary data was implemented, and in their proper public workshop that deals with the city's parks? Is the council with their negative view to the peoples' mandate going to micro - manage this design, or review what has been properly reviewed first by the parks and recreation commission? I believe strongly that you must now direct that city manager Burrell take control of what is going on with all aspects of the park's implementation to insure that the peoples' will and mandate is carried out. Presently it does not appear clear exactly who is running the show. The peoples' will must be carried out! Remember that the people have spoken. The park must stand or fall on its own. Also. it would be absolutely fraudulent for a citygovemment to implement a park specifically designed to be an attractive nuisance or make it appear that the peoples' mandate was a mistake. Also as a detail of this matter the sewer project for some oddball reason should have been accomplished with the big sewer project several years back. Why that section was left undone or non -contracted is a mystery to me and possibly others. But now that it has been bid and approved let's get it done. I also understand the gas company has completed their upgrades on Biltmore Park. As far as SC Edison and GTE doing their thing, again I have been informed by the public -works department that SC Edison and GTE were notified months ago to apply for an easement and remove their wires and poles from over the Biltmore city parcel. I saw the letters to same from the city and the fact that neither SC Edison nor GTE responded means to me that something is going on Longacre to Council and others 8/3/94 Page 4 of 5 behind the scenes. Wheeling and Dealing? Incredibly, in your last council meeting the public -works director implied that the wires over the Biltmore parcel were now involved in the undergrounding of the entire downtown and Beach Dr. project. Something I have suspected from day one. However. this is the incorrect process as verified to me by city manager Burrell during a council meeting break several months ago. The removal of these wires and poles are separate from the undergrounding desired elsewhere! Why does the public - works director not understand this? Why the confusion? Who is currently directing this activity, and overseeing? If the downtown enhancement commission has in any way caused this delay then they should be requested to explain right now what kind of behind the scenes discussion with SC Edison and GTE is going on between the city and same. Has there been any behind the scenes deals made with SC Edison or GTE? Is that how GTE came to giving $10,000 to Vision Hermosa, the non-profit setup under the Chamber of Commerce to work with the city's downtown enhancement commission while appearing not to be the Chamber of Commerce? Everything is so entwined in this whole downtown (enhancement, revitalization, RU/DAT) thing that it seems like all of the city's money from fire -flow -funds, from drug - interdiction -funds, to excess 6% UUT funds, to SC Edison undergrounding trust funds, to you -name -the funds will end up in this downtown intensification project. The bottom line is that the SC Edison and GTE wires should have been removed from that parcel as of "yesterday". Please instruct city manager Burrell to get SC Edison and GTE moving now so there is no holdups of the park landscaping implementation in the future. This is their cost item, and not to come under the city undergrounding item. Their wires are over a city owned parcel. Otherwise the city should take away any permission for an easement under the park. There is no reason to wait for a dream undergrounding project involving the downtown and Beach Drive as that could easily involve litigation in the use of the SC Edison undergrounding trust funds, and the mortgaging of those funds into the future as SC Edison has already discussed in council. The plan to use those funds for the exclusive use of certain areas and certain property owners benefit in town with the rest of the city to carry their own cost should they want undergrounding is another outrageous scheme I believe of these downtown enhancement objectives. Again. the wires over the Biltmore parcel should be removed immediately. And regarding 15th court; If those people are not happy not having all the transient traffic, then why do all those strand owners want all those dead end barriers that makes it like a zoo on weekends with cars backing up and trying to get in and out. No you do not need 15th ct. or 15th. street as a busway for the third street promenade thing. With enough luck you will draw enough attention to all the redevelopment ideas for that downtown that it will end up on the ballot. You should be very careful. The downtown gives us a fraction of our city income, takes the preponderance of resources and after all is said and done will be giving 4 Longacre to Council and others 8/3/94 Page 5 of 5 only pennies more to the city, while certain businesses make a windfall. You all know this, you just don't talk about it. In the meantime the residential areas will continue to have the most decrepit pavement in all the south bay. But then who cares about the residential when there is so much work to be done to cram as many cars and cocktail drinkers into that downtown area as possible. These are not just my views. They come from many citizens. Nothing was more democratic than the Biltmore Park ballot measure, whether one likes the outcome or not. The people did every aspect of it! Thank you for your time, Howard Longacre g/?/9)09 BILTMORE PARK DESIGN ALTERNATIVES AUGUST 8, 1994 BILTMORE PARK ALTERNATIVE #1 Delete pathways; seatwall except along Strand Delete D.G. 6400 SF © 1.25 = $ 8,000 Delete Seatwall 441/LF @.25 = $11,025 $19,025 Add Hydroseed Turf 6400 SF @ .06 = $384 Add Soil preparation 6400 SF @ .20 = $1,280 Add irrigation 6400 SF @ .75 = $4,800 $6,464 $19,025 - 6,464 = $12,561 1-A NEW TOTAL COST $89,900 -12,561 = $77,339 Delete lighting $24,000 1 - B NEW TOTAL COST W/O LIGHTING = $53,339 Delete D.G. pathways and all seatwall BILTMORE PARK Remove sand area Delete D.G. 6400 SF @ 1.25 = $8,000 ALTERNATIVE Delete seatwall 641 LF @ 25.00 = $16,025 #2 $24,025 Add Hydroseed Turf 9643 SF @-.06 = $ 578.58 Add soil proparation 9643 SF @ .20 = $1,929.00 Add irrigation 9643 SF @ .75 = $7,232.00 $9,741.58 $24,025 - 9,741 = $14,284 2 A. NEW TOTAL COST $89,900.- 14,284 = $75,616 Delete lighting $24,000 2 - B NEW TOTAL COST W/O LIGHTING = $51,610 Delete seatwalls except along Strand BILTMORE PARK Delete seatwall 441 LF @ 25.00 = $11,025 ALTERNATIVE #3 3 A.NEW TOTAL COST $89,900 -11,025 = $78,875 Delete lighting $24,000 3. - B NEW TOTAL COST W/O LIGHTING = $54,875 pw1\a:\biltalt August 3, 1994 City Council Meeting August 9, 1994 Mayor and Members of the City Council DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE BALLOT MEASURES, WITH RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION CALLING, GIVING NOTICE AND REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION AND CERTAIN OTHER RESOLUTIONS NECESSARY FOR A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION, NOVEMBER 8, 1994, FOR MEASURES PERTAINING TO OIL DRILLING AND THE BILTMORE SITE, AND THE POSSIBLE ADDITION OF OTHER ADVISORY MEASURES AS MAY BE DIRECTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council: 1) Consider submitting to the voters at a special election, to be consolidated with the November 8, 1994 statewide general election, the measures pertaining to oil drilling and the Biltmore Site, as previously directed by Council, as well as any other advisory measures Council may deem appropriate for submittal to the voters at this time; 2) Approve final wording of the measures and ballot questions to be placed on the November 8, 1994 ballot; 3) Decide preference for the placement of the measures on the ballot; and 4) Decide on the filing of written arguments (for or against) by Council with regard to the ballot measures and authorize which Councilmember, if any, will file for each of the measures, with all Councilmembers invited to sign. If it is Council's decision to call a special election for one or more ballot measures, it is further recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions, with direction for amendments as needed to reflect the actions taken this evening: 1. RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1994, FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS QUESTIONS RELATING TO OIL DRILLING AND TO THE BILTMORE SITE (This resolution would be amended, as necessary, to reflect the actions taken by City Council this evening.) 2. RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO CONSOLIDATE A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF SAID CITY TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, c% I 1994, WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 23302 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF CERTAIN MEASURES TO THE ELECTORATE (This resolution would be amended, as necessary, to reflect the actions taken by City Council this evening.) 3. RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS ON CITY MEASURES TO BE SUBMITTED AT THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 1994 (This resolution would be amended, as necessary, to reflect the actions taken by City Council this evening.) 4. RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1994. (This resolution is optional but, if adopted, must be adopted at the same meeting as the resolution calling the election.) BACKGROUND: At its regular meeting of July 12, 1994, the City Clerk presented to Council a Certificate of Sufficiency, representing at least 10 percent but less than 15 percent of the registered voters of the City, for an Initiative Petition proposing to delete paragraphs (a) and (b) of Municipal Code Section 21-10 relating to two oil well drilling exceptions at the City Yard and the former South School playground sites (see the City Clerk's report dated July 5, which is attached to the staff report on the oil issue that was prepared by the City Manager for tonight's agenda). At that meeting, Council opted to refer the matter for a report regarding legal considerations and defer action on the petition until that report is presented. Council further directed the City Clerk to prepare for Council consideration at tonight's meeting the appropriate resolutions calling a special election, to be consolidated with the November 8, 1994 statewide general election, and other appropriate documents, for possible submittal of the measure to the voters at that time. Suggested wording for the ballot question pertaining to the oil drilling measure is as follows: REPEALING THE TWO EXCEPTIONS TO THE CITYWIDE BAN ON OIL DRILLING Shall the Ordinance which would eliminate the current Muncipal Code provisions which exempt the City Yard site and the former South School playground site from the citywide ban on oil drilling be adopted? 2 At its regular meeting of July 26, 1994, the City Council directed, also for consideration at tonight's meeting, the preparation of two ballot measures regarding the Biltmore Site, one for the conceptual design for the 100 -percent open space park and the other a proposal to redesignate the site as 60 percent commercial and 40 percent open space park, with appropriate documents for consideration of placing the measure on the November 8, 1994 ballot. Suggested wording for the ballot question pertaining to the commercial/open space Biltmore Site measure is as follows: REZONING BILTMORE SITE AS 60% COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL AND 40% OPEN SPACE Shall the Ordinance which would redesignate the .84 acre Biltmore Site to allow 60% Commercial Recreational and 40% Open Space be adopted? The City Attorney has suggested that if the City Council desires to restrict the use of funds resulting from the sale or lease of the Biltmore site, should the above -noted measure pass, it should be so stipulated this evening so that appropriate language may be incorporated in the ballot measure. With regard to a Biltmore Site ballot measure pertaining to the design of the 100% open space park, the City Attorney has advised that if it is Council's desire to add to the ballot an advisory measure regarding the conceptual drawings of the park, they may do so, but that the matter should first be discussed with the City Attorney at the meeting. A measure pertaining to this issue has,. -therefore, not been prepared. I have not yet received a formal cost estimate from the County with regard to a November 8, 1994 consolidated election, but at the time of our budget preparation, the County provided us with an approximate figure of $12,000 per measure. Elaine Doerflin , Ci Clerk Noted: „2-aufc StepheR. Burrell, City Manager 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. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1994, FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS OF QUESTIONS RELATING TO OIL DRILLING AND TO THE BILTMORE SITE WHEREAS, under the provisions of the laws relating to general law cities in the State of California, a Special Municipal Election shall be held on November 8, 1994, for the purpose of submitting to the voters a question relating to oil well drilling at the City Yard and former South School playground sites and a question relating to rezoning the "Biltmore Site" to allow 60% Commercial Recreational and 40% Open Space; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to general law cities within said State, there is hereby called and ordered to be held, in the City of Hermosa Beach, California, on Tuesday, November 8, 1994, a Special Municipal Election for the purpose of submitting to the voters two measures. SECTION 2. That the City Council, pursuant to its right and authority, does order submitted to the voters at the Special Municipal Election the following questions: REPEALING THE TWO EXCEPTIONS TO THE CITYWIDE BAN ON OIL DRILLING Shall the Ordinance which would eliminate the current Municipal Code provisions which exempt the City Yard site and the former South School playground site from the citywide ban on oil drilling be adopted? YES NO 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 REZONING THE BILTMORE SITE AS 60% COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL AND 40% OPEN SPACE Shall the Ordinance which would redesignate the .84 acre Biltmore Site to allow 60% Commercial Recreational and 40% Open Space be adopted? YES NO SECTION 3. That the proposed measures submitted to the voters are attached as Exhibits A and B. SECTION 4. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as required by law. SECTION 5. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to procure and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election. SECTION 6. That the polls for the election shall be open at seven o'clock a.m. of the day of the election and shall remain open continuously from that time until eight o'clock p.m. of the same day when the polls shall be closed, except as provided in Section 14301 of the Elections Code of the State of California. SECTION 7. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections. SECTION 8. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law. SECTION 9. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage 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 and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1994. PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney 1 2 3 4 5 6 i 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT "A" ORDINANCE NO. 94 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DELETING FROI( THE MUNICIPAL CODE PARAGRAPHS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 21-10 RELATING TO THE TWO OIL WELL DRILLING EXCEPTIONS AT THE CITY YARD SITE (6TH STREET AND VALLEY DRIVE) AND THE FORMER SOUTH SCHOOL PLAYGROUND (5TH STREET AND VALLEY DRIVE) THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Purpose and Findings. Clean water, pure air, and a safe environment are vital to maintaining the quality of life in the South Bay. The People of the City of Hermosa Beach find the safety and protection of the lives of its citizens and the public generally, and protection of persons and property from the dangers of fire, explosions, pollution, and other hazards, demand and require that the drilling or operating for the discovery of and/or production of oil, gas, hydrocarbon, or other related substances be prohibited, as in this ordinance set forth; now, therefore, Section 2. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Municipal Code Section 21-10, Oil Wells Prohibited, Exceptions, are hereby deleted in their entirety. Section 3. If any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid, the remaining portion is to be considered valid. Section 4. There shall be no modification, amendment or repeal of any provisions of this initiative except by a vote of the people. C.y7' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 EXHIBIT "B" ORDINANCE NO. 94 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN, CER CLUED COASTAL LAND USE PLAN (SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE COASTAL COMMISSION), ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT TO ALLOW 60% COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL AND 40% OPEN SPACE, ON THE LAND COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE "BILTMORE SITE". WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach desires to obtain input from the electorate regarding the use of the land commonly known as the "Biltmore Site"; and WHEREAS, a combination of commercial recreational and open space uses on the Biltmore Site is consistent with adjacent and surrounding land uses which to the south are predominately commercial and to the west are open space; and; WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Land Use amendment and the proposed Zoning ordinance text amendment will not result in a significant impact on the environment as it involves a change in the allowed mix of uses on the Biltmore Site which will result in a less than significant impact to the environment; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance text amendment will allow a density consistent with the Commercial Recreational designation for the commercial portion and the Restricted Open Space designation (0-S-2) for the open space portion; and WHEREAS, the provisions of the Specific Plan Area will ensure that the development of the site is consistent with the character of surrounding uses and of an appropriate density given the existing congestion of the area; and WHEREAS, this change to the Certified Coastal Land Use Plan is subject to the approval of the California Coastal Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: -1- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Section 1. Amend the General Plan Use Map designation for the property commonly known as the "Biltmore Site" from Restricted Open Space (0-S-2) to Commercial Recreational - Open Space Specific Plan Area (SPA: Said property is legally described as Lots 1-9, 19, 20, and 32, inclusive, Block 15, Hermosa Beach Tract, including the vacated portion of Beach Drive extending northerly two hundred and ten (210) feet from Fourteenth Street, and the vacated portion of Fifteenth Court extending sixty (60) feet eastward from Beach Drive. Section 2. Subject to the approval of the Coastal Commission, the text of the Certified Coastal Land Use Plan is amended to read as follows: 1. Amend the designation for the property commonly known as the "Biltmore Site" from Restricted Open Space (O -S-2) to Commercial Recreational - Open Space Specific Plan Area (SPA): Said property is legally described as Lots 1-9, 19, 20, and 32, inclusive, Block 15, Hermosa Beach Tract, including the vacated portion of Beach Drive extending northerly two hundred and ten (210) feet from Fourteenth Street, and the vacated portion of Fifteenth Court extending sixty (60) feet eastward from Beach Drive. 2. Insert the following definitions: a. Commercial Recreational and Restricted Open Space shall provide low rise development with no less than 60 % leasable floor area, not including parking, devoted to C-1 commercial, restaurant or beach support recreation use. 3. Amend the seventh policy under item 2 on page 12, by adding the text to read as follows: The Policy: The Biltmore Site is a vital asset of the people of Hermosa Beach which will play a substantial role in maintaining the City as a financilly feasible entity. The People concur that the most beneficial economic, public recreational and environmental use for this coastal site is a combination of beach serving low intensity commercial and public open space. Section 3. Amend Article 9.6, Chapter I of the Zoning ordinance as follows: "Article 9.6, Chapter 1, Specific Plan Area No. 1 Section 9.61. Authority. -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 29 30 31 This Specific Plan Area is an instrument for implementing the General Plan pursuant to Article 8, Chapter 3, of the State of California Planning and Zoning Law (California Government Code Section 65450 et seq.) Section 9.61-2 Location and Description. The subject area is located on the east side of the Strand generally between 14th Street and 15th Street, and extending approximately 190 feet east of the Strand. Section 9.61-3 Purpose. The purpose of the Specific Plan Area is to set forth the development requirements, standards and permitted uses for development of the subject property consistent with the City of Hermosa Beach General Plan and consistent with the anticipated Coastal Commission certified Land Use Plan which allows 60% of the developed floor area to be utilized for low intensity commercial. Section 9.61-6 Permitted Commercial Uses. A. Commercial uses are only permitted on a maximum of 60% of the total site. Visitor -serving Commercial Uses including, but not limited to, the following: Beach recreation equipment sales and rentals; Visitor or tourist oriented gift shop or retail sales; Snack Bar/Snack Shop; Hotels, motels; Restaurant/Cafe; beer, wine, or general alcohol in conjunction with conditional use permit required subject to Article 10. B. Any other commercial uses not listed which may be considered visitor -serving shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning commission, Section 9.61-7 Commercial Development Standards A. The maximum height shall be thirty (30) feet. Exceptions for height of roof structures shall be in accordance with Article 12, Section 1201, of the zoning ordinance. B. The gross square footage of the commercial floor areas, including any areas for outside dining, and/or recreational use shall be a minimum of 60% of the total floor area of the combination of the commercial and open space uses on the entire site designated Specific Plan Area. -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 29 30 31 C. A Precise Development Plan shall be required for any commercial development in accordance with Article 14, Division 3 (Section 1430 .et. seq.) D. All other standards shall be governed by the City of Hermosa Beach Zoning ordinance, including, but not limited to, Section 8-5, and Article 11.5, Off -Street Parking." Section 9.61-8 Permitted Open Space Uses. A public park with landscaping, beautification, grass, trees, flowers, plants and other uses if specifically authorized as a permitted improvement. Section 9.61-9 Permitted improvements. Improvements in the 0-S-2 zone shall be as follows: A. Only non -building public improvements relating to landscaping and irrigation, paths and park seating, beautification, grass, trees, flowers, plants, soil and park lighting. Section 4. That Ordinance No. 92-1082, entitled, "A Petition Initiative Ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach. California, Creating and Designating the `Biltmore Site' as Open Space O -S-2. to Ensure its Preservation and Use as a Public Park.", which was adopted by the electorate on November 5, 1992, is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 5. If any section of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such holding shall not affect in any respect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or any part thereof. Section 6. There shall be no modifications, amendment or repeal of any provision of this ordinance without a vote of the People of the City of Hermosa Beach. Section 7,, Any ordinance which is adopted concurrently with this ordinance which receives less votes and is in conflict with any provision herein shall be repealed in its entirety and of no force and effect. Any ordinance which is adapted concurrently with this ordinance and receives more votes and is in conflict with this ordinance shall render this ordinance invalid and of no force and effect. Section 8. This ordinance shall take effect in the manner prescribed by law. -4- 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. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO CONSOLIDATE A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF SAID CITY TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1994, WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 23302 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF CERTAIN MEASURES TO THE ELECTORATE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach called a Special Municipal Election in said City to be held on November 8, 1994 for the purpose of submitting to the voters of said City a question relating to oil well drilling at the City Yard and former South School playground sites and a question relating to rezoning the "Biltmore Site" to allow 60 -percent Commercial Recreational and 40 -percent Open Space; and WHEREAS, it is desirable that said Special Municipal Election be consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held on the same date and that within the City the precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the County Election Department of the County of Los Angeles canvass the returns of the Special Municipal Election, and that said Special Municipal Election be held in all respects as if there were only one election; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of Section 23302 of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles is hereby requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a Special Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election on Tuesday, November 8, 1994 for the 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 purpose of submitting to the electors of the City of Hermosa Beach two measures to appear on the ballot as follows: REPEALING THE TWO EXCEPTIONS TO THE CITYWIDE BAN ON OIL DRILLING Shall the Ordinance which would eliminate the current Municipal Code provisions which exempt the City Yard site and the former South School playground site from the citywide ban on oil drilling be adopted? YES NO REZONING THE BILTMORE SITE AS 60% COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL AND 40% OPEN SPACE Shall the Ordinance which would redesignate the .84 acre Biltmore Site to allow 60% Commercial Recreational and 40% Open Space be adopted? YES NO SECTION 2. That the County Election Department is hereby authorized to canvass the returns of said Special Municipal Election which it is hereby requested to consolidate with said Statewide General Election. Said elections shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election, and only one form of ballot shall be used. SECTION 3. That the Board of Supervisors is hereby requested to issue instructions to the Los Angeles County Election Department to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of said consolidated election. SECTION 4. That the City of Hermosa Beach recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for such costs. SECTION 5. That the City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the County Election - 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 Department of the County of Los Angeles. SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions of said City. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 9th day of August, 1994. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS ON CITY MEASURES TO BE SUBMITTED AT THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 1994 WHEREAS, a Special Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Hermosa Beach, California, on Tuesday, November 8, 1994, at which there will be submitted to the voters the following measures: REPEALING THE TWO EXCEPTIONS TO THE CITYWIDE BAN ON OIL DRILLING Shall the Ordinance which would eliminate the current Municipal Code provisions which exempt the City Yard and the former South School School playground site from the citywide ban on oil drilling be adopted? YES NO REZONING THE BILTMORE SITE AS 60% COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL AND 40% OPEN SPACE Shall the Ordinance which would redesignate the .84 acre Biltmore Site to allow 60% Commercial Recreational and 40% Open Space be adopted? NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council authorizes as follows: REPEALING THE TWO EXCEPTIONS TO THE CITYWIDE BAN ON OIL DRILLING in favor, with all Councilmembers invited to sign; against, with all Councilmembers invited to sign. REZONING THE BILTMORE SITE AS 60% COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL AND 40% OPEN SPACE in favor, with all Councilmembers invited to sign; against, with all Councilmembers invited to sign. 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 Said members of that body to file written arguments regarding the City measures as specified above in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 5 of the Elections Code of the State of California and to change the arguments until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no arguments for or against the City measures may be submitted to the City Clerk. SECTION 2. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measures to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of each measure showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. The impartial analyses shall be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments. SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 9th day of August, 1994. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1994 WHEREAS, Section 4015.5 and 5014.5 of the Elections Code of the State of California authorizes the City Council, by majority vote, to adopt provisions to provide for the filing of rebuttal arguments for City measures submitted at municipal elections; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to Sections 4015.5 and 5014.5 of the Elections Code of the State of California, when the clerk has selected the arguments for and against the measures which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the clerk shall send copies of the arguments in favor of the measures to the authors of the arguments against, and copies of the arguments against to the authors of the arguments in favor. The authors may prepare and submit rebuttal arguments not exceeding 250 words. The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk not more than ten (10) days after the final date for filing direct arguments. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut. SECTION 2. That all previous resolutions providing for 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 the filing of rebuttal arguments for City measures are repealed. SECTION 3. That the provisions of Section 1 shall apply only to the election to be held on November 8, 1994, and shall then be repealed. SECTION 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 9th day of August, 1994. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney - 2 - July 28, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council August 9, 1994 REPORT PREPARED PURSUANT TO ELECTION CODE SECTION 4009.5 FOR THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE PROHIBITING OIL DRILLING Purpose: To provide information as requested by the City Council at the meeting of July 12, 1994 on legal status, City costs, and overall fiscal impact. Background: Legal Status: I have attached two letters containing the legal opinion prepared by Michael Jenkins of Richards, Watson & Gershon (Attachments A & B). It is important to review them carefully. This opinion is available to the public. The opinion details the reasons for concluding that it is likely that the application of the initiative to the existing lease would be an impairment of contract and, accordingly, the initiative would not affect the validity of the lease. City Costs: The City has, over the years, had a number of costs associated with the project. If the project moves from the permit stage to the development and production stages, additional costs will be borne by the City. The major effort that is before City staff now is the processing of the required plans, reports and permits that are spelled out in the lease and C.U.P.. The lease and C.U.P. both provide for the City's processing costs to be covered by the leasee. Exceptions to this are the environmental assessment and potential clean up of the City Yard. The City is responsible for 50% of the assessment cost and any costs associated with leaking fuel tanks. This cost limit is set at $50,000. The lease provides some other limits and funding provisions related to the clean up of the site. The cost of the clean up will not be known until the environmental assessment is completed. The relocation of the City Yard will become a short term cost to the City. No solid alternative has been chosen yet. The lease provides for a $75,000 payment by the leasee to cover some of the costs of moving, a $21,000 advance for Site selection and $2,500 per month to rent temporary space. In addition, a $500,000 advance at current interest rates is available for permanent relocation of the City Yard once the exploration phase is completed. The relocation of the City Yard will be costly to the City and will impact the operations housed there. Even though it is not covered in, SUPPLEMENTAL )NF_QRMATIQU Ia the lease, it would be best for the Yard to be moved once rather than twice. Considering that no viable site has been selected, it is difficult to determine any costs involved. This issue will be defined in the next two months, so that a cost and implementation plan can be developed. The primary reason for this not being farther along has been the length of time it has taken for the project to obtain the various permits. Staff Time: A project of this nature requires a great deal of staff time and it probably always will. Presently, staff time associated with the project is recorded for reimbursement in the event the project is completed and the City receives any revenue from it. The work of most of the consultants will be reimbursed by the leasee. However, some costs for services needed for the City to fulfill its responsibilities under the lease will not be reimbursed. Fiscal Impact: The overall project revenue to the City, if the leasee is successful in getting all of the permits and approvals, ranges from $40,512,000 to $121,536,000 based on original assumptions and continued price increases in oil (Attachments C & D). If the present price of oil is used over the life of the lease, the range is $27,105,000 to $81,315,000 (Attachments E & F). The attached tables show these examples on a year by year basis. It is also important to note that a high percentage of the recovery is in the first 10 years. Clearly, this additional revenue would allow the community to improve and further develop and maintain the parks, open space and other recreational facilities to a level that would not otherwise be possible. Recommendation: Receive report and make appropriate determination concerning the proposed initiative as outlined in the City Clerk's memorandum from the July 12, 1994 meeting (Attachment G). Respectfully submitted, St - en R. Burrell City Manager 2 GLENN R. WATSON ROBERT G. BEVERLY HARRY L GERSHON DOUGLAS W. ARGUE MARK L LAMKEN ARNOLD SIMON ERWIN E. ADLER DAROLD D. PIEPER FRED A. FENSTER ALLEN E. RENNETT STEVEN L DORSEY WIWAM L STRAUSZ ROBERT M. GOLDFRIED ANTHONY B. DREWRY MITCHELL E. ABBOTT TIMOTHY L NEUFELD ROBERT F. DE METER GREGORY W. STEPANICICH ROCHELLE BROWNE DONALD STERN MICHAEL JENKINS WILLIAM B. RUOELL DAVID L COHEN QUINN M. BARROW CAROL W. LYNCH COLEMAN J. WALSH. JR. JEFFREY A. RABIN GREGORY M. KUNERT SCOTT WEIBLE THOMAS M. JIMBO MICHELE BEAL BAGNERIS AMANDA F. BUSSKIND ROBERT C. CECCON SAYRE WEAVER STEVEN H. KAUFMANN GARY E. GANS JOHN J. HARRIS KEVIN G. ENNIS ROBIN D. HARRIS MICHAEL ESTRADA LAURENCE S. WIENER STEVEN R. ORR DEBORAH R. HAKMAN SCOTT K SHINTANI MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO MEUSSA A. CHAmN TERRY P. KAUFMANN JACK S. SHOLKOFF B. TILDEN KIM DARYL T. TESHIMA RUBIN D. WEINER BASKIA T. ASAMURA DAVID M. FLEISHMAN KAYSER O. SUME CRAIG A. STEELE KURTISS L GROSSMAN MICHELLE A. CURTIS T. PETER PIERCE MARC D. KIRSHBAUM RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION August 2, 1994 Honorable Mayor Edgerton and Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive - Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 RECEIVED AUG - 4 1994 CITY MGR. OFFICE RICHARD RICHARDS (1916-1988) THIRTY-EIGHTH FLOOR 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES, CAUFORNIA 90071-1469 (213) 626-8484 FACSIMILE (213) 626-0078 OF COUNSEL WILLIAM K KRAMER 0564569 OUR FILE NUMBER 10649-00003 Re: Proposed Initiative Prohibiting Oil Drilling -- Applicability to Existing Lease Honorable Mayor Edgerton and Members of the City Council: Enclosed is a legal opinion addressing certain legal issues associated with application of the oil drilling initiative to the lease between the City and Windward Associates and GLG Energy, L.P. (the "lessees"). The opinion concludes that, while the issue is not entirely free from doubt, it is likely that if passed by the electors of the City, application of the initiative to the existing lease would constitute an unconstitutional impairment of the lessees' contract rights and, accordingly, the initiative would not affect the validity of the lease. As you know, Section 21-10 (a) and (b) of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code presently allows oil drilling on two specific sites within the City. The initiative (which has now qualified for the ballot and must either be adopted by the Council or placed on the ballot at the November, 1995 municipal election) would, if adopted, repeal that Section. Ordinarily, the initiative would have prospective effect, and would not impact the viability of the existing lease; it is our understanding, however, based on written communications from the Stop Oil Coalition and the statement of purpose in the initiative that the intent of the proponents is to preclude exercise of the rights accorded by the lease. ATTACHMENT A RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON August 2, 1994 Page 2 The lessees contend that application of the initiative to their project would violate their rights. The enclosed opinion analyzes two legal theories that apply in this situation: 1) whether the initiative would interfere with any "vested" rights possessed by the lessees; and 2) whether the initiative would interfere with any contract rights possessed by the lessees. Interference with either type of right would preclude application of the initiative ordinance to the lease. The opinion first addresses the argument that the lessees have acquired a vested right to proceed under the lease by virtue of the permits they have thus far obtained and the money they have spent in furtherance of the project. "Vested rights" have their origin in common law notions of equity; that is, once a person has proceeded in good faith reliance on a permit to a certain point, it would be unfair and inequitable for a newly adopted law to prevent that person from completing the project. In other words, this doctrine protects detrimental reliance. Under California law, a project of this type may become vested once all permits have been obtained and construction activity is underway. Since that has not occurred, the opinion concludes that application of the initiative ordinance to the project would not interfere with any vested rights. The opinion next addresses whether a newly enacted law may properly apply to an existing contract, so as to deprive the contracting parties of bargained -for benefits. Ordinarily, the United States Constitution prohibits laws which extinguish existing contractual rights. But, there are exceptions to that general rule, and the question is whether this initiative ordinance would fall within one of those exceptions. The opinion first notes that it is more difficult for a government to enact a law which breaches a contract to which it is one of the parties, than to enact a law (such as a rent control ordinance) which breaches contracts between third parties (such as leases between landlords and tenants). This only makes sense -- otherwise, it would be too easy for a governmental body to escape from contracts which it finds disadvantageous, to the detriment of the other party. Even so, the government may enact a law which has the effect of impairing contracts to which it is a party, if the law satisfies certain criteria. The opinion reviews those criteria and upon applying them to the facts present here, concludes that it is more likely than not that the lease would be protected from interference by the initiative ordinance. This means that even if the initiative passed and the ordinance were adopted, it could not constitutionally prevent the project from going forward as RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON August 2, 1994 Page 3 long as the lease is still in force and all necessary permits are valid and in hand. The opinion does not address what might happen under the opposite scenario -- that is, if it were determined by a court that the initiative could legally be applied to the project without violating the constitutional rights of the lessees. If that were the case, the lessees would likely sue the City for damages; the City would have defenses to such an action, but the outcome is not predictable, and an analysis of those issues is outside the scope of the opinion. The opinion delves deeper into the above issues and discusses the applicable legal authorities at some length. I will be available at your August 9, 1994 meeting should you have questions regarding the opinion. MJ:clm 0564569 Enclosure cc: Stephen R. Burrell, City Manager Casey Vose, Esq., City Attorney GLENN R. WATSON ROBERT G. BEVERLY HARRY L GERSHON DOUGLAS W. ARGUE MARK L LAMKEN ARNOLD SIMON ERWIN E. ADLER DAROLD D. PIEPER FRED A. FENSTER ALLEN E. RENNETT STEVEN L DORSEY WILLIAM L STRAUSZ ROBERT M. GOLDFRIED ANTHONY B. DREWRY MICHELE BEAL BAGNERIS AMANDA F. SUSSKIND ROBERT C. CECCON SAYRE WEAVER STEVEN H. KAUFMANN GARY E. GANS JOHN J. HARRIS KEVIN G. ENNIS ROBIN O. HARRIS MICHAEL ESTRADA LAURENCE B. WIENER STEVEN R. ORR DEBORAH R. HAKMAN SCOTT K. BHINTANI MITCHELL E. ABBOTT MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO TIMOTHY L NEUFELD MELISSA A. CHAITIN ROBERT F. OE METER TERRY P. KAUFMANN GREGORY W. STEPANICICH JACK 8. SHOLKOFF ROCHELLE BROWNE B. TILDEN KIM DONALD STERN DARYL T. TESHIMA MICHAEL JENKINS ROBIN D. WEINER WILLIAM B. RUDELL SASKIA T. ASAMURA DAVID LCOHEN DAVID M. FLEISHMAN QUINN M. BARROW KAYSER 0. BUME CAROL W. LYNCH CRAIG A. STEELE COLEMAN J. WALSH. JR. KURTISS L GROSSMAN JEFFREY A. RABIN MICHELLE A. CURTIS GREGORY M. KUNERT T. PETER PIERCE SCOTT WEIBLE MARC D. KIRSHBAUM THOMAS M. JIMBO RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION August 2, 1994 Honorable Mayor Edgerton and Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 _RECEIVED AUG. - 4 1994 CITY MGR. OFFICE RICHARD RICHARDS (1916-1988) THIRTY-EIGHTH FLOOR 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES, CAUFORNIA 90071-1468 (213) 626-8484 FACSIMILE (213) 626-0078 Re: Proposed Initiative Prohibiting Oil Drilling: Applicability to Existing Lease Dear Mayor Edgerton and Members of the City Council: OF COUNSEL WILLIAM K KRAMER 0564568 OUR FILE NUMBER 10649-00003 You have asked for our opinion as to whether an initiative measure recently circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach and now determined to qualify for the ballot will, if passed, apply to an existing lease so as to prohibit oil drilling on the City Yard property. Although not free from doubt, we conclude that while the lessee has no vested rights, application of the proposed initiative to the existing lease would unconstitutionally impair the lessees' right to contract. Accordingly, we conclude that the initiative, even if passed, would not affect the validity of the lease. We cannot predict with certainty how a court would rule on the questions presented. Further, the issues discussed below may not be the only issues raised if this matter were to proceed to litigation. In the course of this assignment, we have reviewed a compilation of certain documents, prepared for us by the office of the City Attorney, including correspondence, resolutions of the City Council and several revisions of the lease itself. Our conclusions are based on the facts recited below. The existence of other documents or the discovery of other facts could reveal new legal theories and defenses, or could change the analysis below. ATTACHMENT B RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON August 2, 1994 Page 2 Facts On October 14, 1986, the City of Hermosa Beach and Windward Associates and GLG Energy, L.P. ("the lessees") entered into Oil and Gas Lease No. 1, which provided for the lease of certain City -owned land above the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean. Lease No. 1 was amended later in 1986, again in 1988 and in 1991. On May 8, 1990, the City approved a final EIR on the oil drilling project, along with a Statement of Overriding Considerations. On January 14, 1992, the City and the lessees entered into Oil and Gas Lease No. 2 to allow for oil exploration and drilling on a City -owned lot ("the lease"). The lease superseded Lease No. 1, and granted the lessee the additional right to drill into tidelands under the City's control)' Under Section 21- 10(a) and (b) of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, new oil exploration is a permitted use in the City only on two properties, one of which is the leased site. On August 12, 1993, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 93-5632, approving a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") for the oil drilling project. The City Council also considered in that Resolution an addenda to the Final Project EIR adopted and certified earlier. A lawsuit challenging the approval of the CUP was filed a few days after the approval by a group of project opponents; that suit still is pending. Throughout the two-year period following approval of the lease, the process of gaining the required governmental approvals of the project was slow. The State Lands Commission required lease amendments and additional information. The opposition group filed a separate suit challenging the State Lands Commission's actions. Submittal of an application for a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission was consequently delayed. At the time of this writing, no complete application is pending before the Coastal Commission. On April 21, 1994, the local opposition group published a Notice of Intent to Circulate an Initiative Petition ("the proposed initiative"). The proposed initiative would repeal Section 21-10 (a) and (b) of the Municipal Code, thereby banning oil drilling throughout the City, including on the site leased to the lessee. The proposed initiative has been qualified for the ballot at the November, 1995 election. J Unless otherwise noted, all further references to "the lease" are references to Lease No. 2. RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON August 2, 1994 Page 3 The potential adoption of the initiative has raised the questions addressed in this letter with respect to the proposed oil drilling project. Discussion As the Council is probably aware, most newly enacted City ordinances are prospective in effect. A prospective law establishes requirements, or prohibits certain conduct or actions in the future, after the law takes effect. However, the proposed anti -oil drilling initiative clearly is intended to prohibit a project which has been already approved by the City, and which was legal at the time it was proposed. Laws which would affect existing rights necessarily raise concerns that such laws violate the due process rights, guaranteed by the federal and California constitutions.V A law is not necessarily constitutionally infirm simply because it may adversely impact preexisting rights or obligations. League v. Texas, 184 U.S. 156, 46 L.Ed. 478 (1902); McCann v. Jordan, 218 Cal. 577, 579 (1933). Such a law is invalid only if it also violates one or more of the constitutional provisions described below: 1. The law may not be an ex post facto lawR; 2. The law may not deprive or substantially impair a vested right of a property owner, thereby denying due process to the person whose rights are impaired4' . 2j The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no state [or subdivision] shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Article I, Sections 7 and 15 of the California Constitution contain similar guarantees. J An ex post facto law is one which makes criminal acts which were committed prior to the time the law was enacted. This requirement is obviously not relevant to the instant matter, and will not be further discussed. J Discussed in Section 1, below. RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON August 2, 1994 Page 4 3. The law may not impair the obligation of a contract in existence at the time the law was enacted1. Roberts v. Wehmeyer, 191 Cal. 601, 612 (1923). Thus, the possible application of the proposed oil drilling'initiative to the existing lease involves a number of legal issues, each of which is discussed in detail below. 1. Does the lessee of the City Yard oil lease have a vested right to explore for oil, which may not be terminated by application of a subsequently enacted zoning ordinance? One major question lies at the heart of the vested rights doctrine in California: At what point in the development process has the developer, acting in reliance on a City -issued permit, progressed with a project to such an extent that the project will not be affected by subsequent changes in the law? While the issue arises in a number of different factual contexts, developers commonly contend that a city's rules cannot change after the earliest point in a project at which significant funds are committed. In the absence of a statutory vesting mechanism (such as a development agreement or vesting tentative map), California courts have created a straightforward rule to determine when a property owner's rights vest. This rule is sometimes referred to as "the building permit rule." The rule was summarized by the California Supreme Court in the leading case on the subject, Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com., 17 Ca1.3d 785, 791 (1976): "It has long been the rule in this state and in other jurisdictions that if a property owner has performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance upon a permit issued by the government, he acquires a vested right to complete construction in accordance with the terms of the permit. [citations]. Once a landowner has secured a vested right the government may not, by virtue of a J Discussed in Section 2, below. RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON August 2, 1994 Page 5 change in the zoning laws, prohibit construction authorized by the permit upon which he relied." Id. (citing Dobbins v. City of Los Angeles, 195 U.S. 223, 49 L.Ed. 169 (1904); Trans -Oceanic Oil Corp. v. Santa Barbara, 85 Cal.App.2d 776, 784 (1948)). In Avco, the developer argued that it had acquired vested rights to build at the time the property was subdivided and grading permits issued, after expending some $3 million in development costs. The trial court held that the developer had no vested right to construct any buildings on the site, since no building permits had been issued. The California Supreme Court affirmed, setting out a very clear rule for both local authorities and developers: . . . [earlier controlling cases] stand for the proposition that neither the existence of a particular zoning nor work undertaken pursuant to governmental approvals prepatory [sic] to construction of buildings can form the basis of a vested right to build a structure which does not comply with the laws applicable at the time a building permit is issued. By zoning the property or issuing approvals for work preliminary to construction the government makes no representation to a landowner that he will be exempt from the zoning laws in effect at the subsequent time he applies for a building permit or that he may construct particular structures on the property, and thus the government cannot be estopped to enforce the laws in effect when the permit is issued." Avco, supra, 17 Cal.3d at 793.6 Further, the Supreme Court held that: "A landowner which has not even applied for a permit cannot be in a better position merely because it had previously received permission to subdivide its property and made certain improvements on the land." Id., at 795. J The vested rights doctrine applies equally to a leaseholder, as well. O'Hagen v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, 19 Cal.App.3d 151, 158 (1971) . RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON August 2, 1994 Page 6 While Avco represented the modern-day restatement of "the building permit rule" by the California Supreme Court, the decision was by no means new law in California. A number of cases, including those cited by the Court in Avco, had previously held that for a developer's rights to vest, the developer must have obtained a building permit and performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance on the building permit. See, e.g., Griffin v. County of Marin, 157 Cal.App.2d 507, 511 (1958) (right to build a gas station was vested after issuance of building permit and start of construction, rezoning did not apply); Kissinger v. City of Los Angeles, 161 Cal.App.2d 454, 463 (1958) (and cases there cited) (down zoning invalid after issuance of building permit and construction activity). After the decision in Avco, developers attempted to argue that a CUP might substitute for a building permit in the vested rights context, if the terms of the CUP were quite specific. In response, a few courts modified "the building permit rule" to accomplish vesting upon the issuance of all necessary discretionary approvals. See, Youngblood v. Bd. of Supervisors, 35 Cal.3d 858 (1984) and City of West Hollywood v. Beverly Towers, Inc., et al., 52 Ca1.3d 1184 (1991). However, those cases involved approvals where no construction activity or building permits were contemplated. In cases where a building permit is the final necessary step in the approval process, California courts still take the position that: ". . . the vested rights doctrine enunciated in Avco has stood the test of time, and may properly be applied even to modern land use planning devices. . . ." Consaul v. City of San Diego, 6 Cal.App.4th 1781, 1801 (1992). Cases such as Youngblood and Beverly Towers have no application to the instant matter for two reasons. First, the lessee has not yet obtained, or even applied for, the final discretionary approval from the Coastal Commission. Second, the "building permit rule" clearly is applicable here since construction activity is contemplated within the project and a building permit will be required. The Consaul decision was important for two reasons. First, as noted, it reaffirmed that "the building permit rule" still is the applicable law when a building permit is required, regardless of the complexity of the permit at issue. Second, the Consaul court discarded the argument that rights had vested based upon representations allegedly made by City staff. RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON August 2, 1994 Page 7 The types of costs which qualify as "substantial work" were defined in Raley v. California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 68 Cal.App.3d 965 (1977) and Highland Development Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 170 Cal.App.3d 169 (1985). Those cases held that vested rights accrued only upon the expenditure of "hard costs," such as for labor and materials, relating to the physical improvement of the land. Thus, developers may not acquire vested rights simply by sinking dollars into consultant's fees, payroll, and permit costs. For that reason, the cases cited by the lessees' lawyers in support of their argument that rights have vested have no bearing here; all those cases involved factual situations where substantial "hard costs" were expended. This latter point regarding costs is especially relevant in this situation since it disposes of any argument that the lessees have acquired vested rights simply because they have expended funds on the project. The lessees have not undertaken any physical improvement on the site. Obviously, no construction has yet been approved and any work which occurs on the site would be illegal. None of the costs incurred by the lessees would appear to fall within the "hard costs" of physical improvements which are required to constitute "substantial work" and "substantial liabilities" under the vested rights doctrine. The lessees have not yet obtained any building permit for this project, nor any permit from the California Coastal Commission which might be considered the "final discretionary approval." Since it is clear from both the Lease Agreement itself and the CUP that the lessees are required to obtain both building permits and'"drilling and well permits" from the City of Hermosa Beach prior to proceeding with drilling, no vested right could have been obtained as of the time of this writing. 2. Would application of the proposed initiative measure to prohibit drilling under the existing lease unconstitutionally impair the contract rights of the lessee? Obviously, the proposed initiative measure, if passed and applied to the existing lease, would have a significant impact upon the existing contractual relationship between the City and the lessees. The question is thus presented whether that impact would rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Both the federal and California constitutions forbid the enactment of laws which would "impair the obligation of contracts." See, U.S. Const., Art. I, § 10; Cal. Const., Art. I, § 9. Although both of those constitutional provisions appear on their face to be an absolute ban on the impairment of existing contracts by governmental action, the prohibitions must also be: RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON August 2, 1994 Page 8 . . . accommodated to the inherent police power of the state to safeguard the vital interests of its people." Interstate Marina Development Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 155 Cal.App.3d 435, 445 (1984) (citing United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1, 25 (1977); Energy Reserves v. Kansas, 459 U.S. at 410, 74 L.Ed.2d at 581 (1983); Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannus, 438 U.S. 234, 244, 57 L.Ed.2d 727, 736, 98 S.Ct.2716 (1978)). Thus, police power regulations - such as land use decisions - which impair existing contracts may be valid. However, laws altering the rights and obligations of contracting parties must be reasonable and necessary for the public purpose for which they were enacted. Interstate Marina, supra at 445. In general, deference is given to the legislative declaration of public purpose; if a legitimate public purpose is served, the impairment of contract will not be found unconstitutional. Energy Reserves v. Kansas, 459 U.S. at 411-13, 74 L.Ed.2d at 580. A two step process is involved in determining whether a law constitutes an unconstitutional impairment of an agreement. First, it must be determined if the law would cause a "sub- stantial" impairment of an existing contract right. If it would not, then no violation of the contract clause has occurred. Energy Reserves, supra; Interstate Marina, 155 Cal.App.3d at 445 ["Minimal alteration of contractual obligations may end the inquiry at its first stage"]. If a substantial impairment is found, the court must take the second step of the process, which is to determine whether the impairment is justified by and serves a significant public purpose. Energy Reserves, 459 U.S. at 411- 412, 74 L.Ed.2d at 581. A law which impairs a contract to which the government itself is a party will receive closer scrutiny than impairments affecting only private contracts. Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannus, 438 U.S. at 244, fn. 15, 57 L.Ed.2d at 736; Sonoma County Organization of Public Employees v. County of Sonoma, 23 Ca1.3d 296, 308-310 (1979). Validity under the second step of the process requires a showing of four basic elements: 1. An emergency or significant problem must exist which furnishes the proper occasion for the exercise of the police power. 2. The law must be addressed to a legitimate end, that is, not for the mere advantage of particular individuals but for the protection of a basic interest of society. RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON August 2, 1994 Page 9 3. The relief afforded must be of a character appropriate to the emergency and the conditions imposed must be reasonable. 4. The legislation is temporary in operation, limited to the exigency for which it was enacted. Interstate Marina, supra, at 446. We note that the legislative power of the voters to act by initiative is generally "coextensive with the power of the Legislature," in this case the City Council. Building Industry Assn v. City of Camarillo, 41 Ca1.3d 810, 821 (1986). A statutory initiative is subject to the same state and federal constitutional limitations as are the Legislature and the statutes which it enacts. Legislature v. Deukmejian, 34 Cal.3d 658,674 (1983). Thus, a court would apply the same analysis to an initiative measure enacted by the voters as to an ordinance enacted by the City Council. Applying the two-step process in light of the existing oil -drilling lease, it appears that the initiative would not survive scrutiny under the contract clause. First, there can be little disagreement that an absolute ban on the object of an agreement - a ban that makes the agreement impossible to perform - would constitute a substantial impairment of the contract. The initiative as proposed would make drilling illegal, and seems intended to render the lease unenforceable. This leads to the second step in the analysis, and an examination of the elements outlined above. Again, courts will undertake exacting scrutiny of a law which would change the enacting government's obligation under an existing contract. With regard to the first element of the second step, the proposed initiative identifies environmental concerns, and the protection of health, safety and property as its general purposes. The protection of the environment has long been recognized as a important public policy consideration in California. See, Public Resources Code §§ 21000 - 21014. Further, the protection of public health, safety, and welfare is the essence of a city's police power. Chicago, B. & 0. Rwy. Co. v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 561, 592 50 L.Ed. 596, 609 (1906). However, there may be some question as to whether the oil drilling project actually is an emergency, or a problem so significant that it must be dealt with through this absolute, retroactive ban. RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON August 2, 1994 Page 10 A strong argument could be made that existing controls are sufficient to deal with the potential threats to the environment posed by the oil drilling project. Because existing law requires several "layers" of approvals and environmental review before this project may proceed, a court might rule that those controls will provide the same protection sought by the ordinance. If that argument succeeds, the proposed ordinance may well fail the enhanced scrutiny the proposed initiative will receive. With regard to the second element of the second step in the analysis, the initiative would appear to be directed toward a legitimate end. The initiative would make the Municipal Code's ban on oil drilling consistent throughout the City, although it would impact only one existing project. There does not appear to be any individual or group that would be peculiarly benefitted by the measure. Also, the proposed initiative is directed at the protection of basic societal interests, the environment and public health and safety. With regard to the third element of this second step, the proposed initiative encounters more obvious constitutional problems. Again, it could be strongly argued that there are less stringent conditions which could be imposed to address the problems identified in the proposed initiative. Indeed, the City Council, in its discretion, imposed over 140 conditions on the project through the CUP to address environmental, health and safety concerns. The -Coastal Commission also may add conditions to those imposed by the City and the State Lands Commission. If those conditioned approvals are granted, it will strengthen the lessees' argument that reasonable conditions will accomplish the police power objectives, making an outright ban unnecessary and unreasonable. Finally, the proposed initiative likely fails the fourth element as well. That element requires that the legislation be temporary, and limited to the exigency for which it was created. The proposed initiative, however, imposes a total, permanent ban which may be amended only through a vote of the people. Thus, rather than addressing some temporary emergency, the proposed initiative would prohibit the oil drilling project permanently. The fourth element is intended to ensure that retroactive legislation creates only a temporary, rather than permanent, impairment of a contract right. Courts normally contemplate that once an emergency situation has been rectified, the parties will return to their original bargained - for positions. RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON August 2, 1994 Page 11 Such was the case in Interstate Marina, supra, where the County of Los Angeles had leased land to housing developers for apartment construction. The lease guaranteed the lessees a reasonable rental income as return on their investment. When the County later imposed a one-year rent control ordinance on the properties, the lessees sued for impairment of contract. The court found that the rent control ordinance did not unconstitutionally impair the leases, since the rent control law was temporary, and intended to deal with a short term affordable' housing crisis.Z' At the opposite end of the of the spectrum, a court is likely to look at this proposed initiative, if enacted, as a long-term policy decision by the people of Hermosa Beach, rather than as a temporary "fix." As it enacts a total and permanent ban, the proposed initiative 'is directed not at some temporary emergency, but rather at more permanent direction for land use in the City. The policy decision itself would be permissible, although the unconstitutional impact upon the lessees' contract rights would not. We believe it likely that the proposed initiative would fail the impairment test for this reason. Thus, the City should be aware of the substantial risk that the proposed initiative measure, as applied to the existing lease, may be held to be an unconstitutional impairment of an existing contract. In that case, the initiative could not validly be applied, and the ban on oil drilling from the City Yard property would not be effective against these lessees as long as the lease remains in effect and all permits are in hand. In conclusion, we believe that there is substantial risk to the City in applying the proposed initiative to the existing oil drilling lease. Although the lessee has no vested right to drill on the property, the initiative may be held to unconstitutionally impair the lessees' agreement with the City. J As it turns out, rent control in Los Angeles County was not a "temporary" measure. After Interstate Marina was decided, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors determined that deregulation of rents under the original one-year sunset clause would create an extreme hardship on tenants. The Board then extended rent regulation, which still exists in some parts of the County. See, Los Angeles County Code § 8.52.010. RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON August 2, 1994 Page 12 We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with the City on this challenging and unique matter. We would welcome any further questions you may have. e /ytruly ours, Mi ael Jenkins MJ:clm 0564568 cc: Stephen R. Burrell, City Manager Charles S. Vose, Esq., City Attorney Edward Lee, Esq. 26 -Jul -94 Year Tidelands Exploratory Bbls Tidelands Development Bbls Onshore Development Bbls CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Economic Forecast Hydrocarbon Recovery Project (1) Annual OiI Bbls (2) Assumed OiI Price S/Bbl 13) City Drill Site Royalty Unrestricted @ 7% ($) (3) City Onshore (3) Mineral Total Royalty City Unrestricted Royalty @ 11-2/3% Unrestricted ($) ($) (4) City Tidelands Mineral Restricted Royalty @ 11-2/3% ($) City Total Royalty ($) City Cummulative Royalty (SI 1 120,450 2 71,175 3 48,180 4 39,420 5 35,040 6 30,660 7 28,207 8 25,951 9 23,875 10 21,965 11 20,207 12 18,591 13 17,104 14 15,735 0 0 1,003,750 593,125 401,500 328,500 292,000 255,500 235,060 216,255 198,955 183,039 168,395 154,924 0 0 883,300 521,950 353,320 289,080 256,960 224,840 206,853 190,304 175,080 161,074 148,188 136,333 120,450 71,175 1,935,230 1,154,495 789,860 648,240 577,167 506,291 465,788 428,524 394,242 362,704 333,687 306,992 17.85 150,502 18.74 93,380 19.68 2,665,922 20.66 1,669,922 21.70 1,199,620 22.78 1,033,757 23.92 966,437 25.12 890,147 26.37 859,882 27.69 830,644 29.08 802,402 30.53 775,123 32.06 748,768 33.66 723,310 0 0 230,458 142,989 101,632 87,311 81,491 74,869 72,324 69,865 67,489 65,195 62,978 60,837 150,502 93,380 2,896,380 1,812,911 1,301,252 1,121,069 1,047,928 965,016 932,206 900,509 869,892 840,318 811,746 784,147 250,837 155,633 2,415,185 1,524,910 1,105,010 954,596 893,617 824,732 796,691 769,603 743,435 718,162 693,742 670,155 401,339 249,013 5,311,566 3,337,822 2,406,262 2,075,664 1,941,545 1,789,748 1,728,898 1,670,112 1,613,327 1,558,480 1,505,488 1,454,301 401,339 650,352 5,961,918 9,299,740 11,706,002 13,781,666 15,723,211 17,512,959 19,241,857 20,911,969 22,525,296 24,083,776 25,589,265 27,043,566 Sub -Total 516,560 4,031,003 3,547,282 8,094,845 13,409,816 1,117,439 14,527,255 12,516,311 27,043,566 Remainder 107,772 1,061,086 933,755 2,102,612 6,698,560 563,410 7,261,970 6,206,299 13,468,269 Total 624,332 5,092,089 4,481,037 10,197,457 20,108,377 1,680,848 21,789,225 18,722,610 40,511,835 40,511,835 (1) Ten Million Barrel Oil Recovery (2) Indicated Oil Price Includes $1.20/Bbl For Gas Associated With Every Produced Barrel Oil Price Inflation = 5.00% (3) Unrestricted City Revenue For Parks & Open Space (4) Restricted City Revenue Subject To The Tidelands Trust ATTACHMENT C 26 -Jul -94 Year Tidelands Exploratory Bbls Tidelands Development Bbls Onshore Development Bbls CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Economic Forecast Hydrocarbon Recovery Project (1) Annual Oil Bbls (2) Assumed Oil Price $/Bbl (3) City Drill Site Royalty Unrestricted @ 7% ($) (3) City Onshore Mineral Royalty Unrestricted @ 11-2/3% ($) (3) Total City Royalty Unrestricted (S) (4) City Tidelands Mineral Restricted Royalty @ 11-2/3% ($) City Total Royalty ($) City Cummulative Royalty ($) 1 361,350 2 213,525 3 144,540 4 118,260 5 105,120 6 91,980 7 84,621 8 77,853 9 71,625 10 65,895 11 60,621 12 55,773 13 51,312 14 47,205 0 0 3,011,250 1,779,375 1,204,500 985,500 876,000 766,500 705,180 648,765 596,865 549,117 505,185 464,772 0 0 2,649,900 1,565,850 1,059,960 867,240 770,880 674,520 620,559 570,912 525,240 483,222 444,564 408,999 361,350 213,525 5,805,690 3,463,485 2,369,580 1,944,720 1,731,501 1,518,873 1,397,364 1,285,572 1,182,726 1,088,112 1,001,061 920,976 17.85 18.74 19.68 20.66 21.70 22.78 23.92 25.12 26.37 27.69 29.08 30.53 32.06 33.66 451,507 280,139 7,997,766 5,009,766 3,598,859 3,101,272 2,899,311 2,670,440 2,579,647 2,491,933 2,407,207 2,325,370 2,246,303 2,169,929 0 0 691,375 428,967 304,896 261,934 244,472 224,608 216,972 209,594 202,468 195,585 188,935 182,511 451,507 280,139 8,689,141 5,438,733 3,903,755 3,363,206 3,143,783 2,895,048 2,796,618 2,701,527 2,609,675 2,520,955 2,435,238 2,352,440 752,511 466,899 7,245,556 4,574,731 3,315,030 2,863,787 2,680,852 2,474,196 2,390,074 2,308,810 2,230,306 2,154,486 2,081,227 2,010,464 1,204,018 747,039 15,934,697 10,013,465 7,218,786 6,226,993 5,824,635 5,369,245 5,186,693 5,010,337 4,839,981 4,675,441 4,516,465 4,362,904 1,204,018 1,951,057 17,885,754 27,899,219 35,118,005 41,344,997 47,169,632 52,538,877 57,725,570 62,735,906 67,575,888 72,251,329 76,767,794 81,130,698 Sub -Total 1,549,680 12,093,009 10,641,846 24,284,535 40,229,449 3,352,316 43,581,765 37,548,932 81,130,698 Remainder 323,317 3,183,257 2,801,264 6,307,837 20,095,681 1,690,229 21,785,910 18,618,898 40,404,808 Total 1,872,997 15,276,266 13,443,110 30,592,372 60,325,130 5,042,545 65,367,675 56,167,831 121,535,506 121,535,506 (1) Thirty Million Barrel Oil Recovery (2) Indicated Oil Price Includes $1.20/Bbl For Gas Associated With Every Produced Barrel Oil Price Inflation = 5.00% (3) Unrestricted City Revenue For Parks & Open Space (4) Restricted City Revenue Subject To The Tidelands Trust ATTACHMENT D 26 -Jul -94 Year Tidelands Exploratory Bbls Tidelands Development Bbls Onshore Development Bbls CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Economic Forecast Hydrocarbon Recovery Project (1) Annual Oil Bbls (2) Assumed Oil Price S/Bbl (3) (3) City City Onshore (3) Drill Site Mineral Total Royalty Royalty City Unrestricted Unrestricted Royalty @ 7% @ 11-2/3% Unrestricted (5) (SI (51 (4) City Tidelands Mineral Restricted Royalty @ 11-2/3% (5) City Total Royalty (5) City Cummulative Royalty (5) 1 120,450 2 71,175 3 48,180 4 39,420 5 35,040 6 30,660 7 28,207 8 25,951 9 23,875 10 21,965 11 20,207 12 18,591 13 17,104 14 15,735 0 0 1,003,750 593,125 401,500 328,500 292,000 255,500 235,060 216,255 198,955 183,039 168,395 154,924 0 0 883,300 521,950 353,320 289,080 256,960 224,840 206,853 190,304 175,080 161,074 148,188 136,333 120,450 71,175 1,935,230 1,154,495 789,860 648,240 577,167 506,291 465,788 428,524 394,242 362,704 333,687 306,992 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 128,580 75,979 2,065,858 1,232,423 843,176 691,996 616,126 540,466 497,229 457,449 420,853 387,187 356,211 327,714 0 0 178,585 105,528 71,434 58,446 51,952 45,458 41,821 38,476 35,398 32,566 29,961 27,564 128,580 75,979 2,244,443 1,337,951 914,610 750,442 668,078 585,924 539,050 495,925 456,251 419,752 386,171 355,278 214,301 342,881 126,632 202,612 1,871,559 4,116,002 1,125,403 2,463,354 776,677 1,691,287 639,006 1,389,448 569,702 1,237,779 500,748 1,086,672 460,689 999,739 423,833 919,758 389,926 846,177 358,733 778,486 330,034 716,205 303,631 658,909 342,881 545,493 4,661,495 7,124, 849 8,816,136 10,205,584 11,443,363 12,530,035 13,529,774 14,449,532 15,295,708 16,074,194 16,790,399 17,449,308 Sub -Total 516,560 4,031,003 3,547,282 8,094,845 8,641,247 717,188 9,358,435 8,090,873 17,449,308 Remainder 107,772 1,061,086 933,755 2,102,612 4,796,147 401,780 5,197,927 4,457,678 9,655,606 Total 624,332 5,092,089 4,481,037 10,197,457 13,437,394 1,118,968 14,556,362 12,548,551 27,104,913 27,104,913 (1) Ten Million Barrel Oil Recovery (2) Indicated Oil Price Includes $1.20/Bbl For Gas Associated With Every Produced Barrel Oil Price Inflation = 0.00% Current Oil Price = Mobil Oil Posted Price, Torrance 19 Gravity, July 8, 1994 (3) Unrestricted City Revenue For Parks & Open Space - (4) Restricted City Revenue Subject To The Tidelands Trust ATTACHMENT E 26 -Jul -94 Year Tidelands Exploratory Bbls Tidelands Development Bbls Onshore Development Bbls CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Economic Forecast Hydrocarbon Recovery Project (1) Annual Oil Bbls (2) Assumed Oil Price $/Bbl (3) (3) City City Onshore (3) Drill Site Mineral Total Royalty Royalty City Unrestricted Unrestricted Royalty @ 7% @ 11-2/3% Unrestricted ($) ! ($) ($) (4) City Tidelands Mineral Restricted Royalty @ 11-2/3% ($) City Total Royalty ($) City Cummulative Royalty ($) 1 361,350 2 213,525 3 144,540 4 118,260 5 105,120 6 91,980 7 84,621 8 77,853 9 71,625 10 65,895 11 60,621 12 55,773 13 51,312 14 47,205 0 0 3,011,250 1,779,375 1,204,500 985,500 876,000 766,500 705,180 648,765 596,865 549,117 505,185 464,772 0 0 2,649,900 1,565,850 1,059,960 867,240 770,880 674,520 620,559 570,912 525,240 483,222 444,564 408,999 361,350 213,525 5,805,690 3,463,485 2,369,580 1,944,720 1,731,501 1,518,873 1,397,364 1,285,572 1,182,726 1,088,112 1,001,061 920,976 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 385,741 227,938 6,197,574 3,697,270 2,529,527 2,075,989 1,848,377 1,621,397 1,491,686 .1,372,348 1,262,560 1,161,560 1,068,633 983,142 0 0 535,756 316,583 214,302 175,338 155,856 136,374 125,464 115,427 106,193 97,698 89,882 82,691 385,741 227,938 6,733,330 4,013,853 2,743,829 2,251,327 2,004,234 1,757,771 1,617,150 1,487,775 1,368,753 1,259,257 1,158,514 1,065,833 642,902 379,897 5,614,677 3,376,209 2,330,032 1,917,017 1,709,105 1,502,245 1,382,066 1,271,499 1,169,777 1,076, 200 990,101 910,892 1,028,643 607,835 12,348,006 7,390,062 5,073,861 4,168,343 3,713,338 3,260,016 2,999,216 2,759,274 2,538,530 2,335,457 2,148,615 1,976,726 1,028,643 1,636,478 13,984,484 21,374,546 26,448,407 30,616,751 34,330,089 37,590,105 40,589,321 43,348,595 45,887,125 48,222,583 50, 371,198 52,347,924 Sub -Total 1,549,680 12,093,009 10,641,846 24,284,535 25,923,741 2,151,564 28,075,305 24,272,618 52,347,924 Remainder 323,317 3,183,257 2,801,264 6,307,837 14,388,441 1,205,340 15,593,782 13,373,035 28,966,817 Total 1,872,997 15,276,266 13,443,110 30,592,372 40,312,182 3,356,905 43,669,087 37,645,654 81,314,740 81,314,740 (1) Thirty Million Barrel Oil Recovery (2) Indicated Oil Price Includes $1.20/Bbl For Gas Associated With Every Produced Barrel Oil Price Inflation = 0.00% Current Oil Price = Mobil Oil Posted Price, Torrance 19 Gravity, July 8, 1994 (3) Unrestricted City Revenue For Parks & Open Space (4) Restricted City Revenue Subject To The Tidelands Trust ATTACHMENT F July 5, 1994 City Council Meeting July 12, 1994 Mayor and Members of City Council CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF SIGNATURE VERIFICATION OF AN INITIATIVE PETITION TO DELETE PARAGRAPHS (a) AND (b) OF MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 21-10 RELATING TO TWO OIL WELL DRILLING EXCEPTIONS AT THE CITY YARD AND FORMER SOUTH SCHOOL PLAYGROUND SITES Attached is the Certificate of Sufficiency for the Initiative Ordinance submitted by petition entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DELETING FROM THE MUNICIPAL CODE PARAGRAPHS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 21-10 RELATING TO THE TWO OIL WELL DRILLING EXCEPTIONS AT THE CITY YARD SITE (6TH STREET AND VALLEY DRIVE) AND THE FORMER SOUTH SCHOOL PLAYGROUND (5TH STREET AND VALLEY DRIVE)." This sufficiency represents at least 10 percent but less than 15 percent of the registered voters of the City, according to the registration report by the County Clerk to the Secretary of State effective at the time the notice of intention was published. Election Code Section 4011 states that if a petition signed by at least 10 percent but less than 15 percent of the registered voters of the City is certified to the City Council, and the ordinance petitioned for is neither submitted to the voters at a special election nor passed without change by Council, it must be submitted without alteration to the 'voters at the next regular municipal election occurring not less than 88 days after the order of council, or after Council is presented with a report prepared pursuant to Section 4009.5 (see below). The City's next regular municipal election will be November 7, 1995. Pursuant to Election Code Section 4009.5, before taking action, Council may refer the proposed initiative measure to any City agency or agencies for a report on any or all of the following: 1) its fiscal impact; 2) its effect on the internal consistency of the City's general and specific plans including the housing element, the consistency between planning and zoning, the limitations on City actions under Section 65008 (Discrimination; prohibition) of the Government Code, Chapters 4.2 (Housing Development Approvals) (commencing with Section 65913) and 4.3 (Density Bonuses and Other Incentives) (commencing with Section 65915) of Division 1 (Planning and Zoning) of Title 7 (Planning and Land Use) of the Government Code; and/or 3) any other matters Council requests to be in the report. This report must be presented to Council no later than 30 days after the Clerk certifies to Council the petition's sufficiency. The proponent is requesting that the City Council call election to place this matter before the voters, to be dated with the upcoming Nov. 8, 1994 statewide general a special consoli- election ATTACHMENT G Ba (please refer to the letter from Rosamond Fogg under Written Communications, agenda item b.l.). Although the petition does not meet the 15 -percent signature minimum requiring a special election, calling a special election is a Council option. If it is Council's desire to call a special election to place this matter on the November 1994 ballot, all necessary resolutions (calling the election, requesting consolidation with the County, etc.) must be adopted no later than the meeting of August 9 in order to meet the County's August 12 deadline for submittal. Ordinances 84-758 and 84-759, which the proposed ordinance would effectively repeal, were both approved by the voters at the Nov. 6, 1984 election. Elections Code Section 4013 prohibits repealing or amending an initiative ordinance except by a vote of the people unless provision is otherwise made in the original ordinance. (Such provision might read "This ordinance may be amended or repealed by a (majority) (4/5) (unanimous) vote of the city council.") Not only do Ordinances 84-758 and 84-759 lack such a provision, Section 2 of each ordinance specifically states "This ordinance may be amended only by a vote of the people." Council adoption of the proposed ordinance, therefore, is not a viable option. ALTERNATIVES The options available to Council are: 1) To direct the City Clerk to place the proposed ordinance, without alteration, on the City's next regular municipal election of November 7, 1995. 2) To direct the City Clerk to prepare for Council adoption at the meeting of August 9 the appropriate resolutions calling a special election, to be consolidated with the November 8, 1994 statewide general election, for submittal of the proposed ordinance, without alteration, to a vote of the people. 3) To refer the matter, pursuant to Election Code 4009.5, with a report back within 30 days, and defer action on the petition until that report is presented; In order to meet the 30 -day deadline, any such report must be presented to Council at or before its regular meeting of August 9, 1994. As noted above, if it is Council's desire to place the ordinance on the ballot at a special election on November 8, 1994, all necessary resolutions must be adopted August 9 as well. Noted: Stephen R. Burrell, City Manager Elaine Doerfling, itv E Elaine ity C erk 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 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY Initiative Petition entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DELETING FROM THE MUNICIPAL CODE PARAGRAPHS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 21-10 RELATING TO THE TWO OIL WELL DRILLING EXCEPTIONS AT THE CITY YARD SITE (6TH STREET AND VALLEY DRIVE) AND THE FORMER SOUTH SCHOOL PLAYGROUND (5TH STREET AND VALLEY DRIVE)." I, ELAINE DOERFLING, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALFORNIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT SAID PETITION IS SUFFICIENT, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The number of registered voters at the time the Notice of Intention was published was, according to the County Clerk's report to the Secretary of State: 14,542. 2. The number of signatures initiative for a regular 3. The number of signatures initiative for a special needed to qualify this proposed election is 10%, or 1,445. needed to qualify this proposed election is 15%, or 2,182. 4. The results of the signature verification by the Office of the L.A. County Registrar -Recorder is as follows: Number of signatures filed Number of signatures verified a. Number of signatures qua b. Number of signatures not c. Percentage qualified (of THEREFORE, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET THE HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. Dated: July 12, 1994 2,508 2,334 lified 1,628 qualified 706 those verified) 70% SEAL OF THE CITY OF Elaine Doerfling, ity C erk COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES REGISTRAR-RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK 12400 IMPERIAL HWY. - P.O. BOX 1024, NORWALK, CALIFORNIA 90651-1024 BEATRIZ VALDEZ REGISTRAR-RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK June 28, 1994 Mrs. Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 Dear Mrs. Doerfling: Enclosed are 480 petition sections pertaining to an initiative petition submitted for signature verification on May 31, 1994. The results of the signature verification are as follows: Number of signatures filed Number of signatures verified - Number of signatures qualified - Number of signatures not qualified 1,628 706 Total 2,334 2,508 2,334 Please call Alice Rivers of the Election Coordination Unit at (310) 462-2632 if you need any additional information. D3:HB1 Very truly yours, BEATRIZ VALDEZ Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk POTENTIAL PROJECTS: PROCEEDS FROM SALE/LEASE OF BILTMORE SITE LISTED BELOW ARE PROJECTS THAT COULD BE FUNDED WITH THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE/LEASE OF THE BILTMORE SITE. THESE PROJECTS COULD BE LISTED SPECIFICALLY IN THE BALLOT MEASURE OR SET BY COUNCIL POLICY. ♦ SOUTH SCHOOL PARK CONSTRUCTION ♦ MUNICIPAL PIER RENOVATION / PIER AVENUE STREETSCAPE ♦ LIBRARY PURCHASE / RENOVATION ♦ VALLEY PARK RENOVATION ♦ GREENBELT LANDSCAPING ♦ CLARK BUILDING RENOVATION ♦ PARK AND RECREATION FACILITY TAX FUND (FOR GENERAL PARK IMPROVEMENTS) SUPPLEMENTAL b INFORMATION �Y"/ /947' RECEIVED AUG - 1 1994 CITY MGR. OFFICE &,--t,/t/\Ca/ --t/tp a4A 10/6A (d///t/- J ‘="te F4ue 14-14 /' SUPPLEMENTAL '] INFORMATION To: Hermosa Beach City Council Members City Manager Steven Burrell City Attorney City Clerk Public -Works Director City Hall Hermosa Beach, Ca 90254 From: Howard Longacre, Hermosa Beach, 90254 3 August 1994 RECEIVED AUG - 3 1994 CITY MGR. OFFICE Re: Biltmore Park; Please attach this letter as public input to the item regarding Biltmore Ballot measures and if there is a separate item regarding the Biltmore Park design then copy and attach it to that item also, to be included in all packets distributed for the Tuesday 9 August 1994, City Council meeting. Dear Members of the City Council and others: I am on the record in numerous meetings over many years regarding the city's Biltmore parcel. I have made it clear that I support whatever the public supports be it commercial, residential, parkland, monuments to council people, you name it. However I find it absolutely abhorrent. and possibly fraudulent. that any member of this city council. all of whom are now on the record as opposing the parcel as being used for a park. would suggest that they arbitrarily use their power to put any kind of a measure on the ballot regarding Biltmore Park. The people have already addressed the issue as crystal clear as any issue has ever been addressed in this city. Sixty -two -percent (62%) voted for the measure to thirty -eight -percent (38%) against. A measure that was written so clear a school child could understand it. The city attorney also stated in the ballot measure exactly what it was. Everything in the measure had been debated for years. I was at the meetings, the public hearings, a ton of it. I never saw any of the current council there, except for council member Reviczky. I never saw any written input from the other four on council. But there are recorded public statements as made on the record by all five on council during the last twenty months indicating a very prejudicial point of view in contrast to what the people in their own wisdom decided on, and mandated that their government carry out regarding the Biltmore parcel. I also observed many signatures being gathered on the peoples' measure. I heard the comments, from the people. Yes, there were some of those "Oh, I SUPPLEMENTAL 1 INFORMATInni Longacre to Council and others 8/3/94 Page 2 of 5 don't want that <expletive -deleted> park", but mostly people would say "its time we send these <expletives -deleted> council people a message". The people know this issue, they know it very well. Council people can get elected with one in six that go to the polls. Not this measure. It is rock -solid. It was rock -solid the day the petition was brought to city hall. People that know the history of this city knew it was a done deal the day it was carried into city hall. Just as some on council probably realize it would have been a done deal if a certified recall petition had come before you. What amazed me about your last council meeting is how your counsel, paid with the peoples' money, didn't pipe up loudly right off, that you on council have already demonstrated your prejudices to the peoples' vote, and that the peoples' vote is a mandate as virtually nothing else in the city. Only council member Reviczky stated it correctly and very well I believe, noting that in the absence of a bona fide petition from the people on the matter, it would be improper for the council to touch same, and this notwithstanding the fact that he has also indicated a preference for other uses of the parcel. I would hope that your counsel is wise enough to set you on a correct course that leads more to the side of respecting what has already occurred than otherwise. That is counsel's job and if counsel is giving you direction that leads you or the city in the wrong direction you have the ability to replace counsel. Should you not believe the people knew what they voted for with regard to the Biltmore parcel twenty months ago, then obviously you must absolutely believe they did not know what they voted for when they voted for council members in the last election or the previous election or any election. I ask you this. What do the votes of Hermosa voters mean? Anything at all? Consider the park design before you. I see all these super wide gravel paths (too many, and too wide), and all these low 18" high concrete walls(to trip over) meandering all over the place. Is that where your parents will sit and rest a while when you show them the park someday, on those concrete walls? The peoples' mandate said no-hardscape and some paths. Has anyone in government read the ordinance? How many times do I and others have to ask if you have read the ordinance? Where is your paid counsel? Does he not know what hardscape is? Concrete walls are hardscape! I care that you don't bend the peoples' will. Not even slightly. If you can bend the meaning here you will do it anywhere and on anything, that is the problem. Can you be trusted to do what the people say to do even though you don't want to. Sooner or later a judge may look at all this and really wonder what is going on in. this city of Hermosa Beach. And what kind of a city council do we have when people are so turned off with the meetings that only two citizens come forward to speak on the design of the park, and one says I don't want the park - put it on the ballot, and the other points out correctly the many improper facets of the design, and while this gentlemen is speaking no one appears to be listening. Review the Longacre to Council and others 8/3/94 Page 3 of 5 video tape and you will see what the public sees. This is your city. I guess this is the way you want it. Private agendas, contempt for the citizenry. That's the way I see it to be, as worse now than ever before. When the people of the community vote, they give mandates whether it be electing officials, or taking an action on a matter. And taking an action on a matter is what they have done in this case. You have no choice in this matter and must act to carry out the peoples' mandate, for if you don't then we have a situation that is heading toward that which exists in some other lands right now. Regarding the design approval. there exists a paradoxical situation here. The peoples' mandate for a park is being carried out by an elected body that opposes the peoples' will. It would be best if the council send this design review immediately to the parks and recreation commission and instruct them to do the best job they can in making this design conform to the letter of the ordinance. while also satisfying the ascetics and technical details. prior to it coming back to council for final approval. Why in the world did the design come straight back to you from the architect, without the parks and recreation commission getting it. They did the preliminary work with the public. Should they not be first to review the architect's design to see how all the preliminary data was implemented, and in their proper public workshop that deals with the city's parks? Is the council with their negative view to the peoples' mandate going to micro - manage this design, or review what has been properly reviewed first by the parks and recreation commission? I believe strongly that you must now direct that city manager Burrell take control of what is going on with all aspects of the park's implementation to insure that the peoples' will and mandate is carried out. Presently it does not appear clear exactly who is running the show. The peoples' -will must be carried out! Remember that the people have spoken. The park must stand or fall on its own. Also. it would be absolutely fraudulent for a city government to implement a park specifically designed to be an attractive nuisance or make it appear that the peoples' mandate was a mistake, Also as a detail of this matter the sewer project for some oddball reason should have been accomplished with the big sewer project several years back. Why that section was left undone or non -contracted is a mystery to me and possibly others. But now that it has been bid and approved let's get it done. I also understand the gas company has completed their upgrades on Biltmore Park. As far as SC Edison and GTE doing their thing, again I have been informed by the public -works department that SC Edison and GTE were notified months ago to apply for an easement and remove their wires and poles from over the Biltmore city parcel. I saw the letters to same from the city and the fact that neither SC Edison nor GTE responded means to me that something is going on Longacre to Council and others 8/3/94 Page 4 of 5 behind the scenes. Wheeling and Dealing? Incredibly, in your last council meeting the public -works director implied that the wires over the Biltmore parcel were now involved in the undergrounding of the entire downtown and Beach Dr. project. Something I have suspected from day one. However. this is the incorrect process as verified to me by city manager Burrell during a council meeti g break several months ago. The removal of these wires and poles are separate from the undergrounding desired elsewhere! Why does the public - works director not understand this? Why the confusion? Who is currently directing this activity, and overseeing? If the downtown enhancement commission has in any way caused this delay then they should be requested to explain right now what kind of behind the scenes discussion with SC Edison and GTE is going on between the city and same. Has there been any behind the scenes deals made with SC Edison or GTE? Is that how GTE came to giving $10,000 to Vision Hermosa, the non-profit setup under the Chamber of Commerce to work with the city's downtown enhancement commission while appearing not to be the Chamber of Commerce? Everything is so entwined in this whole downtown (enhancement, revitalization, RU/DAT) thing that it seems like all of the city's money from fire -flow -funds, from drug - interdiction -funds, to excess 6% UUT funds, to SC Edison undergrounding trust funds, to you -name -the funds will end up in this downtown intensification project. The bottom line is that the SC Edison and GTE wires should have been removed from that parcel as of "yesterday". Please instruct city manager Burrell to get SC Edison and GTE moving now so there is no holdups of the park landscaping implementation in the future. This is their cost item, and not to come under the city undergrounding item. Their wires are over a city owned parcel. Otherwise the city should take away any permission for an easement under the park. There is no reason to wait for a dream undergrounding project involving the downtown and Beach Drive as that could easily involve litigation in the use of the SC Edison undergrounding trust funds, and the mortgaging of those funds into the future as SC Edison has already discussed in council. The plan to use those funds for the exclusive use of certain areas and certain property owners benefit in town with the rest of the city to carry their own cost should they want undergrounding is another outrageous scheme I believe of these downtown enhancement objectives. Again. the wires over the Biltmore parcel should be removed immediately. And regarding 15th court; If those people are not happy not having all the transient traffic, then why do all those strand owners want all those dead end barriers that makes it like a zoo on weekends with cars backing up and trying to get in and out. No you do not need 15th ct. or 15th. street as a busway for the third street promenade thing. With enough luck you will draw enough attention to all the redevelopment ideas for that downtown that it will end up on the ballot. You should be very careful. The downtown gives us a fraction of our city income, takes the preponderance of resources and after all is said and done will be giving Longacre to Council and others 8/3/94 Page 5 of 5 only pennies more to the city, while certain businesses make a windfall. You all know this, you just don't talk about it. In the meantime the residential areas will continue to have the most decrepit pavement in all the south bay. But then who cares about the residential when there is so much work to be done to cram as many cars and cocktail drinkers into that downtown area as possible. These are not just my views. They come from many citizens. Nothing was more democratic than the Biltmore Park ballot measure. whether one likes the outcome or not. The people did every aspect of it! Thank you for your time, Howard Longacre ( H RECEIVED AUG -21994 CITY MGR. OFFICE August 2, 1994 Mayor and City Council Civic Center Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mayor and members of the City Council: Your pending support of putting the Biltmore site issue on the ballot again is indeed a pleasant surprize. In light of the fact that there are few dollars these days to go around for the necessary maintenance of this city, it is indeed important for us to realize that the luxury of a park, right in the center of a recreational area known as the beach and strand, is frivolous at best and downright lunancy at its worst. We hope that a fair compromise can be generated to give someone the opportunity to create an environment that we can all live with, one that will not be an eyesore as the area is at the present time. One that will generate income instead of bleeding our pockets dry, one that will for once and for all time, bring back the concept that this is a city we live in and not an asylum. Thank y u for your time and attention. .c Edie Webber and family lao( — it SUPPLEMENI AL INFORMATION Parker Herriott 224 24th St. Hermosa Beach, Calif. 90254 RECEIVED AUG - 4 1994 CITY MGR. OFFICE August 4, 1994 Dear City Council members, City Attorney, Charles Vose, City Manager Mr. Steve Burrell, Acting City Manager -Community Resourse, Director Ms. Mary Rooney. Public Works Director, Ms. Ami Amerani, Parks and Recreation Commission, et al. I am opposed to the proposed Biltmore Park meaures for the Nov. 1994, ballot, which was talked about and voted upon by Councilmembers Benz, Bowler and Oaks, for city staff to come back with the proposed ballot measures. Edgerton was absent from the meeting. I beleive the motion to have staff come back at the next meeting (this meeting) was in violation of the Brown Act. There was no wording on the agenda describing that there would be a disscussion on placing two measures on the ballot which would in essence repeal the peoples' ordinance making the Biltmore site into a 100% Open Space Park. As I mentioned at the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting earlier, the park should be approved by that commission. I as the maker of the initiative ordinance always envisioned that the Park and Recreation commission would have public hearings and basically design and approve the park. Why was the Parks and Recreation Commmission by- passed? Apparently, so the design which does not comply with the requirments of the ordinance could not be looked at by the commission, and also so the new ballot proposals could qualify for the November 1994 ballot. A failure to follow the usual policy and practice of the City is what the city council majoity wanted and still wants. You are violating the intent and purpose of the Park Ordinance. What a travesity of justice. We will be waiting for your votes on the proposed ballots measures tonight. Let me say for the record whoever votes to go against the will of the people will live to regret it. Hermosa Beach voter's will not stand for your failure to abide by honest election results and you will be recalled from office. I will handle the recall of you and this this time we will suceed in geting the required number of valid registered voters to qualify your recalls. That is a promise. I will also have a referundum on the two ballot measures, if you plan to go ahead and ignore the voters regarding their win for the Biltmore Park, and that action will stay I believe your ballot measures,. because nobody should be asked to vote on the Bilmore Park again. You are doing it just because you personnally do not like the park, and you want to sell our much needed open space and land. You do not like what the voter's approved. That is just too bad, it is the law and the Park Ordinance has to be followed, to do otherwise is outragegous and absurd. Your arguments against the Park do not have any validity, only unsubstantiated allegations. The Park mesure recieved 6, 772 Yes vote to 4, 106 No votes, we had a landslide election in favor of the Park, and to ignore that vote is unheard of I believe anywhere SUPPLEMENTAL 17 INFORMATION in this great country of ours. The law is very clear on this matter, the voters voted in favor of landscaping the Bilmore site into a 100% Open Space Park, there was nothing confusing about the measure and to claim the voters were confused is ridiculous and unsubtantiated by the facts. Everthing was very clear in the voter phamphlet and in other voter information material. When the voters voted for the park they excerised their descretion, the same as when the city council votes on a matter. The voters are in essence the like the city council when they vote for or against any measure. That election of November 3, 1992 was a dicretionary act of the people, the goverment. You may not like it, but that is the way it is in our state of Caifornia, becasue of our right to vote by initiative gaureenteed to us by ourCalifornia Constitution. Of Course our great county believes in and respects honest election results. I cite the following case to illustrate my point that you are to act in a ministerial way and not in a dicretionary way to defeat the will of the people: Harbach V. El Pueblo De Los Angeles, etc. Comm. I4 C.A. 3rd 828; 92 Cal Rptr. 757 where an Appellate Court upheld a trial courts ruling that in a mandamus proceeding to compel a public commission to restore and relocate a certain building . The case stated that the commission could not at that time change it's decision to to not emplement their earlier decision, because of many good reasons, which also are applicable in this instant situatuation, for the court and appellate court ruled that *we- an estopple existed when the commission attempted to change their earlier vote to move the Rochester building and people relied upon their earlier decission. In both cases, in Harbach's and this case, donations have been collected. In this instant case 6,772 voter's believed that they would have a park once the measure won. Elections are one of our most, if not one of the most fundamental freedoms we have and our courts have to uphold the will of the people where ever and when ever possible in order to give protection and consistency to our laws and rights of a free Nation. The city has set up a special account to recieve donations from the people as permitted in the ordinance approve by the voter's. Substsaintisal donations have been collected and more donations are soon coming, like the nursery, that has offered to donate two mature palm trees, besides other tree's. The city has refused to accept the tree donations. Why? The City has been acting in bad faith. We have a contractual relationship with the city regarding this park becoming a park, and for the city to try and get out of that contract is allegedly illegal, I believe. Once the voter's approved the Park, the discretionary act was committed by the voter's and the City has the duty to emplement the intent and purpose of the ordinance, as was pointed out by retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Vernon G. Foster at an earlier City Council meeting about,I believe a year or so ago. The city has an obligation to go forward with emplementing the ordinance, and not now an attempt to re peal the ordinance because a couple of council people are not in favor of the park. The election was held in Nov. 1992. Those results have to be respected and honored. Taxpayer's money has been expended on the Park as follows: Staff time appyling to the California Coastal Commission for the Land Use Plan Amendment, the Demolition Permit of the old parking lot, and the streets called Beach Drive beteen 14th and 15 St.,a portion of 14th Court, and the grading and removal of parts of the old Biltmore Hotel foundation, etc. Donation from Redondo Beach of truck loads of soil, which was just recently delivered and then graded by Hermosa Beach City workers. Donations have been recieved by the city from various citizen, myself included. Someone recently donated $5,000.00 for the Park anonamously.The City recently spent money for a landscape architect to design the Park, which cost the City 6,000.00 . At earlier Parks and Recreation meettings, and City Council meetings I submitted a drawing which cost $500.00, and the model I built and designed cost money also. The Park has been under construction for some time now and the Park should have its time lineTpushed up to get it completed this year. Volunteers can help landscape the as permitted by the Ordinance. The Hermosa Beach Garden wants to help also. We have just about enough money now to complete the Park, if the city would just start moving the Park along instead of dragging its' feet, like it has since the Park passed in November 1992. The are certain people in our City government, I allege,who have attempted to sabotage the Park and the will of the people all along. I hope the guilty persons will be exposed for going against the will of the voter's, who are the very people who also help pay the salaries of those who are fighting against the people's Biltmore Park. I ask you to vote no to place the design on the ballot and also to vote no to place another measure on the ballot to repeal the 100% Open Space Biltmore Park. Honest election results are to be obeyed and emplemented. I will present additional evidence at the time of the hearing of this matter, and I include all that I have said and written before regarding the Biltmore Park and Biltmore Site. ectfuIly, Parker R. Herriott Eloise Butler 1812 Strand Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 August 2, 1994 Mayor & City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Councilmembers: As an observer of the July 25th Hermosa stunned beyond belief by the 3 to 1 vote of Biltmore site park issue to the November ballot. RECEIVED AUG - 4 1994 CITY MGR. OFFICE Beach council meeting, I was councilmembers to return the After a resounding yes vote of 6772 to 4106 when the park was a clear issue on the ballot; when the development fund for the park is short by only $2500; after initial work has already been started on the site and after money has been spent to pay for a design, what possible rationale can councilmembers be using? The arguments that the park may not be safe or that it will be hard to maintain were both refuted by the designer who submitted his plan at the meeting and who created the design with the cooperation of the police department to ensure that all conceivable safety measures were incorporated. As for the concern that it will become a magnet for the homeless - it seems to me that we would already have people sleeping under every lifeguard tower if the homeless were drawn to Hermosa Beach. The argument that Hermosa Beach could better utilize the space for commercial use is also refuted by all the existing empty commercial space in town at the present time. What better way to encourage development of these vacancies than to enhance and upgrade the city with some attractive development? The argument that the city needs the funds that would derive from the sale of the Biltmore property seems, to me anyway, not to be terribly valid when at the same council meeting) members, with hardly any discussion, approved the expenditure of $6900 for banners to be hung at the ocean front. When nearly every beachfront community from Santa Barbara to Laguna has an ocean front park to the great enhancement of those communities, when citizens in our community have no convenient place to sit and enjoy the ocean view other than the pier or the small memorial area across from the park site and when the citizens have mandated their desire for a park, please, please do not continue to make Hermosa Beach the laughing stock of the South Bay by returning this once settled issue to the ballot. Sincerely, '1 S TUTPV1 Eloise Butler SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION scioa_cy AUG 091994 • ► Litt' f.M�t \r p„ M Hf�mof• Y�NU /0;T SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION August 10, 1994 TO: Mayor Sam Edgerton Mayor Pro Tempore Robert Benz City Councilmembers, Parks & Recreation Commissioners City of Hermosa Beach FROM: Chris Howell — (310) 374-1830 (ofc.); (310) 372-8665 (home) Dear Friends and Future Friends: RECEIVED AUG - 9 1994 CITY MGR. OFFICE Thank you for revisiting the issue of the Biltmore site and proposed oceanfront park. I'm looking forward to hearing your viewpoints on this matter, and would encourage you to propose an initiative allowing limited commercial development of this property for the November ballot. As a resident who cherishes Hermosa's parklands, I'd like to submit the following ideas and views for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me at my office or home if you would like to discuss the issues involved further. I look forward to working with you. A. The 1992 oceanfront park initiative eliminated the Biltmore site's saleable asset value and prohibited commercial development of the property. The often -quoted $7 million value attached to this land is now a moot point — which in my view frees the city council and Hermosa residents from an immense burden. If we are to propose a commercial devel- opment on this site, we are now free to pursue less lucrative alternatives that would none- theless produce an asset of long-term value to our business district and the community at large. B. For many years, I have felt that the Biltmore site would be perfect for a bed -and -break- fast hotel designed and sized to fit the surrounding neighborhood. It is no secret that downtown Hermosa sorely needs venues that draw in quality non -transient visitors who will patronize our stores and restaurants. However, the spectre of a "Hilton at the Beach" allowed under past Biltmore initiatives has simply turned off many residents, myself in- cluded, who do not want to see Hermosa's wonderful quality of life undermined. With this in mind, I encourage you to be as specific as possible when you draft the new initiative. Enumerate acceptable alternatives for the Biltmore site and list as many develop- ment restrictions as required to assure that this will be a project to make us proud. Simply saying "60 percent commercial" still allows for "60 percent eyesore" or worse. Let the voters know exactly what they're getting into — we've been burned too many times by developers (Plaza Hermosa) who pursue quantity over quality. A hotel designed with seven -foot ceilings is nothing more than a future dump — and the council has the power to assure that such garbage doesn't come to the table. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Whatever the outcome at the polls, every voter will appreciate the chance to make an informed decision on election day. And again, remember that we are talking about a parcel without current saleable value — funds received from the land sale should be con- sidered a bonus and not the overriding goal. C. The oceanfront park initiative passed with an impressive 60 percent of the vote — a fact that no councilmember or resident can or should ignore. But funds for park improve- ments and maintenance are limited at best. Remember, residents of South Hermosa have been waiting since 1982 for the South School site to become a public park — and they have a right to ask why the Biltmore site sould take priority. I believe that the council needs to look for creative ways to reconcile four issues: 1) The desire for a beachfront park stated clearly by Hermosa voters in 1992; 2) The need to bring more non -transient visitors and customers to our downtown area; 3) The genuine lack of funds and resources for park development, maintenance and security which will continue through the forseeable future, and; 4) The poor soil, high pedestrian/bike traffic and other factors which will make planting anything on a beachfront site a long-term, labor-inten- sive endeavor. With all these factors in mind, I'd like to submit this idea: Why not create a public beachfront park directly west of the Biltmore property on Hermosa Beach itself, accessible from the west side of the Strand. The park would be built to fit in with its surrounding environment ,while providing real beach access to visitors of all ages and physical abili- ties. A condition of development could mandate that this resource be funded, built, main- tained and patrolled by the developer / operator of whatever commercial facility we select for the Biltmore site. The park maintenance and security conditions could be grandfathered into the use permit should the property change hands in the future. Although shifting sands and occasional high tides could present a design challenge, I feel that the a true "beach park" offers several benefits and advantages over a park on the Biltmore site. First, park visitors would be able to face west for an unobstructed ocean view, north or south to watch a beach volleyball match, or east for some serious people watching — the Biltmore site faces residential and commercial structures as well as the busiest part of our Strand, two sidestreets and above -ground public restrooms. In addi- tion, the oceanfront park I envision would encompass thse restrooms (which could be included in park maintenance provisions) — an important consideration for park cleanli- ness. Equally important is the prospect of a solid source of funding for park construction and ongoing resource for park maintenance and security — without any reliance on residents' tax dollars. Since this park will most likely be shared with non-residents, a separate fund- ing source seems especially appropriate. Ideally, limited commercial development on the Biltmore site could lead to substantially greater funds for park design and construction, allowing us to build a unique "showplace" park to attract quality visitors from throughout 4t the South Bay to downtown Hermosa. This was a stated goal of the 1992 Biltmore park initiative and should continue to guide the park planning process. A development condition might require that the park be built and opened concurrently with the building and opening of the commercial facility — giving us a definite time line for addition of this resource to our city. And unlike previous proposals, funds accrued from development of the Biltmore site would directly benefit downtown residents, visitors and businesspeople — adding parkland within the commercial project area. The size, scope, and design of this park could be guided by a citizen's commission, the city council, our parks and recreation commission and the citizens of Hermosa Beach. I can tell you from experience that this design oversight assignment will be a lot more fun and will produce a better result if we have a strong funding source and a designated maintenance / security partner. Custom lighting, unique plants, drip irrigation, attractive paving materi- als and public art are just a few of the normally cost -prohibitive items that we could con- sider for this park — a definite plus over the 1992 proposal, which offered no funding mechanism. We might even designate a small fund for volunteer park improvement projects elsewhere in the city. D. I have heard from more than one architect that combining the Biltmore site with an adjacent C-3 parcel (directly south of Biltmore) could result in a more visually appealing and financially attractive development. Since the "Hotel Ugly" project slated for this C-3 site has apparently fallen through, you might consider including guidelines for combining the two parcels into a single project. My recommendation is to require the following: That should the C-3 parcel come on the market, and should the developer of the Biltmore site seek to combine both lots, that the C-3 property be down -zoned to the Biltmore zoning required under the 1994 initiative. For instance, if the initiative you propose requires 60% lot coverage, two stories maximum, 35' height limit, etc., then development of the C-3 parcel should be limited to these same guidelines. This down -zoning of the C-3 would limit development density on our beachfront, another concern of those who supported the 1992 Biltmore Park initiative. E. As for parking, I've also heard that the underground structure proposed for the C-3 hotel development presented a real engineering and maintenance challenge due to ocean water seepage. Would you consider off-site parking options for the Biltmore development, perhaps a structure that would give more spaces to the city than the project actually re- quires? We may be able to create this very needed benefit of additional parking for down- town businesses as part of the development agreement. Forgive me for being so wordy, but I've been thinking about this issue for a long time. As someone who cares greatly about our parklands, our quality of life and the health of our business district, I would be willing to lead or actively support the drive to pass your initiative if you include some of the ideas presented here. I look forward to hearing your views and working with you all in the future. Good luck! Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council August 2, 1994 Regular Meeting of August 9, 1994 UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 94 - Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Approve Resolution No. 94- , a Resolution of the City of Hermosa Beach, initiating proceedings to form California Underground Utility District 94-1, pursuant to Article III of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. Background: At the City Council meeting of January 25, 1994 staff was directed to proceed with the preparation of the necessary documents to create an underground utility district for the following areas: Pier Avenue - Hermosa Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway Pacific Coast Highway - Artesia Boulevard to Aviation Boulevard Beach Drive - Herondo Avenue to 24th Street At the City Council meeting of July 12, 1994, City Council approved Resolution 94-5698, declaring its intention to initiate proceedings to designate Underground Utility District 94- 1, and set the dates for a public meeting and the public hearing. Analysis: The procedure the City must adhere to in order to duly establish an underground utility district as set forth in California Government Code Section 54954.6 requires that the City Council pass a resolution initiating the formation of the Underground Utility District. This resolution also sets the dates for the required public meeting and public hearing. In order to meet the recent noticing and time frame changes to the Government Code the public hearing and final resolution will be held on the September 13, 1994 meeting. Copies of Exhibits A & B (maps & descriptions of the districts boundaries) of Resolution 94- are available for review at the City Clerks Office. Fiscal Impact: None at this time. Respectfully submitted, /;"-ce • Mankawich Capital Improvement Project Engineer Attachments: Resolution 94 - Exhibit A Exhibit B a:tyjmuu Concur: C=,f'1'L 0/11/1 U1 A \.. Amy Ami ini Director of Public Works Stephe Burrell City Manager 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING PROCEEDINGS TO FORM UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT 94-1 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, Article Ill of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code provides for the establishment of underground utility zones to provide for the orderly removal of existing overhead facilities and the construction of new underground facilities; and WHEREAS; the City Council has consulted with affected utilities as provided in Section 29-16 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code and the City Staff has conducted preliminary studies and made investigations concerning the feasibility of the establishment of an underground utility zone to convert existing facilities from overhead to underground and these studies and investigations indicate that further proceedings under Article Ill of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code are warranted to determine whether or not the zone should be established; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the public interest and general welfare to pursue continued efforts at encouraging the conversion of overhead facilities to underground and that the initiation of proceedings to form Underground Utility District 94-1 is necessary and desirable. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. INITIATING PROCEEDINGS The City Council initiates proceedings for the formation of Underground Utility District 94-1 under the provisions of Article III of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 2. PUBLIC HEARING September 13, 1994 at the hour of 7:30 P.M. at the City Council Chambers, located on the first floor of City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California, is fixed as the time and place for holding a Public Hearing to determine whether or not the City should continue with proceedings to create and implement an underground utility zone for the conversion of overhead facilities to underground facilities. All persons interested in the question of whether or not the zone should be created are invited to appear at the time and place set for the hearing and present their views concerning the creation of the zone. Persons who wish to object to the formation of the zone should state their views in writing and file them with the City Clerk no later than the time set for the hearing. Section 3. AREAS AND BOUNDARIES The areas to be included within the proposed boundaries of Underground Utility District 94-1 are described in EXHIBIT "A" attached to this Resolution and incorporated in it by reference. A map showing the proposed boundaries is attached to this Resolution, marked as EXHIBIT "B", and made a part of it by reference. Section 4. NOTICE The City Manager has given joint Notice of the Public Meeting on August 9, 1994 and the Public Hearing on September 13, 1994 to all owners of property within the proposed underground district as shown on the last equalized assessment roll and to each public utility within the proposed underground district as required by Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 29-16 and California Government Code Section 54954.6, in addition to regular public hearing notice requirements. The joint Notice was mailed to each property owner and utility at least 10 days prior to the Public Meeting on August 9, 1994. 22822 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 Section 5. PURPOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING The purpose of the public hearing is to receive evidence and hear the views of property owners and utilities affected by the proposed conversion and to thereafter determine whether or not the public necessity, health, safety and welfare require or do not require the installation of facilities underground. Reference is made to Article III of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk for further particulars concerning the procedures for construction and financing of the conversion if the City Council determines to proceed at the conclusion of the public hearing. Section 6. CITY CLERK CERTIFICATION The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause the same to be processed in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on this _ day of , 1994 President of the City Council and Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney 22822 3. August 2, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council August 9, 1994 SUBJECT: BUS PASS SUBSIDY INCREASE INITIATED BY STAFF Recommendation Staff recommends one of the following alternatives: 1. Increase the bus pass subsidy for seniors, handicapped and high school students by $2.00, and $5.00 for college vocational students to cover the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) fare increase which goes into effect August 25, 1994 increasing the current estimated expenditure from $5,050 to $6,365. 2. Maintain the subsidy by the same percent of 60% for seniors and disabled, and 56% for high school students and vocational students by increasing the estimated expenditure from $5,050 to $6,078. Background The following chart indicates the current subsidy, the MTA proposed increase, and the new fare with the current City subsidy: Fare Type Old Fare City Pays Citizen Pays Amt Increased New Fare New Fare Minus Current Subsidy Seniors $10 $6 $4 $2 $12 --__ $6 Disabled $10 $6 $4 $2 $12 $6 High School $18 $10 $8 $2 $20 $10 Students College $25 $14 $11 $5 $30 $16 Vocation Analysis Alternative 1: This alternative would absorb the total increase. Based on the previous year bus pass sales, the following table indicates increased cost for each category: Subsidy Estimated No. of Passes Sold Estimated Current Cost Estimated Increase $8 / Seniors 301 $1806 $2408 $8 / Disabled 39 $234 $312 $12 / High School Students 280 $2800 $3360 $19 / College Vocation 15 $210 $285 Estimated Total Cost: $6,365 Estimated Current Cost: $5,050 Estimated Increased Cost: $1,315 1 Alternative 2: This alternative would increase the subsidy, but would cover only a portion of the fare increase. The following chart indicates the increased cost for each category: Subsidy Estimated No. of Passes Sold Estimated Current Cost Estimated Increase $7.20 / Seniors 301 $1806 $2167.20 $7.20 / Disabled 39 $234 $280.80 $12 / High School Students 280 $2800 $3360 $18 / College Vocation 15 $210 $270 Estimated Total Cost: $6,078 Estimated Current Cost: $5.050 Estimated Increased Cost: $1,028 Proposition A Funds Available: The current estimated balance in the Proposition A account at year end 1995 is $20,897. However, this balance is a result of unspent allocations from previous years. The total allocation for 1994-95 fiscal year has already been appropriated for other projects including the fund exchange ($170,000). The fund exchange is the largest expenditure in the FY 94-95 budget, and could be reduced in the future years by a small fraction (Approx. $1,028 - $1,315) to provide for the recommended increase in the City's bus pass subsidy. Also the current budget appropriation ($12,000) for the program far exceeds the estimated cost. Therefore adequate funding for either alternative 1 or 2 is available without a budget amendment. It should be noted all estimates noted in this report are based on the previous fiscal year actual bus pass sales, and do not include administrative costs which are also funded through Proposition A funds. $2,041 have been appropriated for administration costs for FY 94-95 and should be adequate. CONCUR: Sol Blumenfeld Community D elopment Director Stephen Burrell City Manager y/ccsrbus 2 Respectfully submitted, 'chael chubach Planning Director NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: Viki Copeland Finance Director S August 4, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of August 9, 1994 Recommendation: It is recommended by the Downtown Enhancement Commission that Council: 1. Approve a request from the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce to hold a street fair on Saturday, August 27 and 28 in conjunction with the Association of Volleyball Professionals Tournament and hold street scenes on the following dates: Sunday, September 18, Sunday October 9, Friday, November 25 Sunday, December 4 Sunday, December 11 Sunday, December 18 2. Direct staff to take steps to amend ordinance # 94-5679 to allow for the sale and consumption of alcohol on City streets during Council approved street closures. Background: At the August 3 meeting, the Downtown Enhancement Commission approved a request from the Chamber of Commerce to hold a street fair in conjunction with the Association of Volleyball Professionals on August 27 and 28, 1994 and the other listed dates. The request requires approval to close Pier Avenue from Hermosa Avenue to Beach Drive. Pursuant to ordinance # 94-5679, street closures require the approval of the Downtown Enhancement Commission followed by approval from Council. Analysis: In an effort to promote all businesses in the City, the Chamber has undertaken the development of this new event. The fair is open to all Hermosa Beach businesses. Chamber staff and volunteers will be on hand during the event to oversee the management of the activities. On June 19, the Chamber of Commerce held the first street scene in conjunction with the Women's Professional Volleyball Tournament. The event was successful and was a complimentary event to the volleyball tournament. The Chamber worked well with the requests of City staff to ensure that the event ran smoothly. A total of 30 exhibit spaces will be offered on both sides of the median on Pier Avenue. An additional 20 spaces will be available to businesses located on Pier Avenue. The exhibit spaces will be occupied primarily by clothing retailers and restaurants located in Hermosa Beach. The Chamber will be required to reimburse the City for all direct costs that are incurred with the event. 1 12 In addition to the out door dining and craft sale, this request proposes that the Chamber will be providing entertainment and other events. The proposal request that the strolling mimes, puppet shows and caricature artists will be on hand to enhance the ambiance of the event. The Downtown Enhancement Commission and staff are recommending the street fair be approved with the following special conditions: • Furnish the City of Hermosa Beach with a certificate of insurance covering comprehensive and general liability in the amount of $1 million dollars. • The Chamber of Commerce will provide professional clean up and trash receptacles during and after the event. • The Chamber of Commerce will be responsible for all event management and administration. • Police officer(s) will be assigned to the event as deemed necessary by the Chief of Police to ensure proper traffic management. • The Chamber of Commerce will provide and post "No Parking" signs in the affected area and remove signs at the conclusion of the event. Pursuant to the ordinance # 94-5679 the City has the option to charge an additional special event fee. A permit fee of $300 per event date will be charged to oversee the administration, set-up and monitoring of the event. This fee is in line with other permits including film permits and other special events. TOTAL FISCAL IMPACT— $2,100 Rt:,VENUE From an operational stand point, this event should not interfere with the AVP volleyball tournament or other City sponsored events. The Chamber of Commerce and the AVP staff have discussed the arrangements and both have agreed to work together to ensure the success of both events. The Chamber has alerted the businesses on lower Pier Avenue of the event. Other alternatives available to the Council: 1. Deny request. 2. Request additional information. 3. Approve request but do not amend Ordinance to allow for the sale of alcohol. Attachments: 1. Letter of request from Chamber of Commerce Respectfully submitted: o,ur: Amy A'fnirani Steph-n R. Burrell Public Works Director City Manager HERMOSA BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 323 PIER AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 (310) 376-0951 • FAX (310) 798-2594 City of Hermosa Beach Downtown Enhancement Commission c/o Amy Amirani, Director of Public Works 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Members of the Downtown Enhancement Commission: July 21, 1994 On Sunday, June 19, the Chamber sponsored a Pier Promenade Street Scene event in downtown Hermosa Beach that received very favorable responses. The June Pier Promenade Street Scene proved that downtown restaurants and businesses can once -again benefit from the large numbers of visitors to our city during beach events. Residents and visitors attending the June Pier Promenade Street Scene expressed support for outdoor dining on a regular basis, and welcomed it as a new family-oriented recreational opportunity. In continuing our efforts to promote downtown businesses in Hermosa Beach, we are requesting approval to present up to eight Pier Promenade Street Scene events through the end of this year. Some merchants have suggested that increasing the number of these events will extend the spring/summer season and improve business. Some Street Scene events will be held in conjunction with other beach events. Dates and details are listed below in the event outline. Event Outline Sponsor: Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce Events: Pier Promenade Street Scenes Purpose: Promotion of Hermosa Beach businesses Dates: Saturday, August 27 and Sunday, August 28 (with AVP tournament) 10 am to 5 pm Sunday, September 18 (Summer Finale) 10 am t o 5 pm Sunday, October 9 (Oktoberfest theme) 10 am to 5 pm t i (Event dates and times continued) Friday, November 25 (Holiday Street Scene kick off - street lighting) 10 am to 6 pm Sunday, December 4 (Holiday Street Scene continues) 10 am to 6 pm Sunday, December 11 (Holiday Street Scene continues) 10 am to 6 pm Sunday, December 18 (Holiday Street Scene continues) 10 am to 6 pm Street Closure Location: Pier Avenue from Hermosa Avenue to The Strand will be closed to vehicular traffic. Beach Drive at Pier Avenue will not be open to through traffic. Beach Drive will remain open to traffic traveling south to the Mermaid. This traffic plan is based upon experience from the June Pier Promenade Street Scene and discussions with the Police Department. Traffic Management: Barricades will be placed on Pier Avenue at Hermosa Avenue. A barricade will be placed on Beach Drive at 11th Street with a sign indicating through traffic into the Mermaid parking lot for customers only. Barricades will be placed on Beach Drive south of Pier Avenue, at Pier Avenue and also north of the entrance to Scotty's Restaurant. Exhibit Spaces: Up to 30 canopied vendor spaces will be available on the median as in the June Pier Promenade Street Scene. Storefront businesses and restaurants on lower Pier Avenue will be able to reserve display space on the sidewalk and street directly in front of their business. The Chamber will arrange for rental equipment such as chairs, umbrellas, tables, lattice, etc. Site: Site management during the event will be provided by paid and volunteer staff. The Chamber information booth will be set up at the intersection of Pier and Hermosa Avenues and will be staffed throughout the event. Safety: Two uniformed Hermosa Beach police officers will be hired by the Chamber as a public safety measure during the event. One staff person will serve as liasion with the watch commander throughout the day and will be equipped with a cell phone for communication. Food and Beverages: Participating restaurants on lower Pier Avenue will have outdoor cafe dining. At the request of lower Pier Avenue restaurants and many people attending the last Street Scene, we are proposing that the service of beer and wine be permitted to seated restaurant customers in connection with food service. Outdoor grilling would also be added. Restaurants will be required to follow all health department regulations and ABC requirements and obtain all necessary permits. -2- Entertainment & Other Activities: Non -amplified music will be presented during the August 27 & 28 events. Entertainment will be auditioned and pre -approved by Chamber staff. Following. the August 27 & 28 events, subsequent Street Scenes may offer free family- oriented entertainment which may include 'some or all of the following: mimes, clowns puppet shows and caricature artists will be included. There would be additional outdoor public seating, with art displays, sidewalk chalk artist(s) and similar art -related activities. Event Promotion: The Chamber will have three promotional banners made and will request placement on Pacific Coast Highway and 2nd Street, Pier Avenue at Ardmore and Aviation at 10th Street. News releases and display advertising will be run in local weekly newspapers. Posters will be provided for merchant windows. Ralph's Grocery has offered to put promotional flyers in grocery bags. Insurance: The Chamber will provide the required $1 million liability insurance naming the City as additional insured. Site Cleanliness: The Chamber will hire Specialty Maintenance for clean up service and trash receptacle emptying during the event. Street and sidewalk clean up at the conclusion of the event will also be done at the Chamber's expense. The Chamber will arrange to have temporary trash receptacles on the site. City Costs: The Chamber will reimburse the city for all costs related to the events. City Benefits: The City will benefit through increased sales tax revenues generated by merchants and restaurants during this event. Visitors and residents will perceive downtown Hermosa Beach as an inviting, safe area where they can enjoy beachside dining and shopping. Chamber Costs: To help offset sponsorship expenses of insurance, police services, advertising, banners, printing, postage and supplies, the Chamber will assess a space fee for participants. Space fees will not generate any profit for the Chamber, but will help defray the cost of each event. Conclusion: The Chamber is requesting that this letter be placed on the August 3, 1994 Downtown Enhancement Commission agenda and that they recommend approval to the City Council of the street closure requests. We also request this item be placed on the August 9, 1994 City Council agenda for final approval. Carol K. Duff Executive Director Distribution: Mary Rooney,_John-Newell-, Val Straser, Brian Scott Attention: Please include this letter as a supplemental whether or not this item is on the agenda July 25, 1994 August 9, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, AUGO 994 S att.(c-k»k 1t Ceti of it., moae g®xN ; .. i.; We, the undersigned downtown merchants, are very excited and in favor of the current interest in redesigning downtown Hermosa Beach. We wholeheartedly support the concept of outside dining, the widening of the sidewalks and allowing merchants to sell in front of their own businesses. We are, however, opposed to the elimination of parking and traffic circulation on lower Pier Avenue on either a limited or permanent basis. We also oppose the bringing in of merchants, farmers, and artists to compete with established businesses on the street during such street closures. We are compelled to send this letter as we have seen several statements in the papers claiming a positive, enthusiastic response from all the merchants concerned with the recent trial street closure. We have also heard that several more such closures are being planned without our input and we feel a need to have our views .heard be ore any more plans are put fgrtth. ela_ V j� a/t-.1 %' r - TTA....) Signat' re- .i ii:e7:2,& .A _. _. • . t. :. .) N . • ..N -\-\ NIL = , - • - - % eAlC/iL. (f - t t; ii .4 0///x'`4/ //7/ca--- L449/9L" fOE C grek°Z1.$6/,(16-7,;-;_ a,,.9 S f SurramtNIAt f 5 INFORMATION l l ' \ ?t�'�►^� Lc- TV -D 12 Attention: Please include this letter as a supplemental whether or not this item is on the agenda August 9, 1994 August 1, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, We, the undersigned downtown merchants, are very excited and in support of the current interest in redesigning downtown Hermosa Beach. We wholeheartedly support the concept of outside dining, the widening of the sidewalks and allowing merchants to sell in front of their own businesses. We are, however, opposed to the elimination of parking and traffic circulation on lower Pier Avenue on either a limited or permanent basis. We also oppose the bringing in of merchants, farmers, and artists to compete with established businesses on the street during such street closures. We are compelled to send this letter as we have seen several statements in the papers claiming a positive, enthusiastic response from all the merchants concerned with the recent trial street closure. We have also heard that several more such closures are being planned without our input and we feel a need to have our views heard before any more plans are put forth. r 0,'") 3v:i )`Y equ olf. Mc&d'' 501 ./e:-,Yf *444 van wan° ? G' at,‘,.„ztte_4;ug/67/9`i Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce Would You Like To Enjoy Outdoor Cafe Dining, Seaside Shopping, Free Entertainment and Family Fun? It's coming your way soon to downtown Hermosa Beach! We'll open the streets to foot traffic only to create a walking and dining environment on Pier Avenue west of Hermosa Avenue to The Strand. If you'd like to help us gain support for these events, please sign below so that our city decision -makers will know that residents and visitors are looking forward to these events. We'll even send you updates and notices of upcoming events! Thanks for your support! Name Address ,„„," Zip So A.0 0 �1 TD/ //exit s Ro ! f-tevrno5g Ove /3( lac -n -L /7-r' e.^ /e✓M os,1 Q ,Recce -te 25g C,"1 9Ja# ‘Xtf \ArMAA rp.A 1 11 A Burs N 44; taws& �.�-. Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce Would You Like To Enjoy Outdoor Cafe Dining, Seaside Shopping, Free Entertainment and Family Fun? It's coming your way soon to downtown Hermosa Beach! We'll open the streets to foot traffic only to create a walking and dining environment on Pier Avenue west of Hermosa Avenue to The Strand. If you'd like to help us gain support for these events, please sign below so that our city decision -makers will know that residents and visitors are looking forward to these events. We'll even send you updates and notices of upcoming events! Thanks for your support! Name Address Zip e Ave_ / 3 / 6 744/-/11054 %e Weryno,s q geh m?.1 TA;Rsse eat- 4A1r�.---- -776d-4-4 vfiylof 1136 /4oA 111(c I -4-&-12m c)\ . 14 • B. 90 ,z e / .. .qdZ (0 -(4 -(Le l.elGvu)s- (oaf 1` i1 .� 93-1-N//.,z..)--,no ji/b/ ybz %3y `'40-2S5' 4/1+89 Cess sun • '74•aast ",r Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce Would You Like To Enjoy Outdoor Cafe Dining, Seaside Shopping, Free Entertainment and Family Fun? It's coming your way soon to downtown Hermosa Beach! We'll open the streets to foot traffic only to create a walking and dining environment on Pier Avenue west of Hermosa Avenue to The Strand. If you'd like to help us gain support for these events, please sign below so that our city decision -makers will know that residents and visitors are looking forward to these events. We'll even send you updates and notices of upcoming events! Thanks for your support! Name Zip Aevr • z_ ,s -v /ff - / S -) Aiye_Aci //e , /3 3 //-ayli osP Pki e t -T-/ ICOO"-e_17-0C;) g>x<2_ 6r -?/-6---44 30? 2,-‘ ,1,t l `713 9� a Sy Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce Would You Like To Enjoy Outdoor Cafe Dining, Seaside Shopping, Free Entertainment and Family Fun? It's coming your way soon to downtown Hermosa Beach! We'll open the streets to foot traffic only to create a walking and dining environment on Pier Avenue west of Hermosa Avenue to The Strand. If you'd like to help us gain support for these events, please sign below so that our city decision -makers will know that residents and visitors are looking forward to these events. We'll even send you updates and notices of upcoming events! Thanks for your support! Name Address Zip 71a1v(M (-As' Y.� O --anda Ace. 90.si CL) ) Sslc,'o (Mc_ c(o August 9, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of August 9, 1994 th) TELEPHONE SYSTEM REPLACEMENT ON EMERGENCY BASIS Objective: To obtain approval for emergency telephone system purchase and waive public bidding. Facts: The central telephone switch failed on Saturday, August 6, 1994. Virtually all of the telephones were out of service. GTE was able to install a switch on a loan basis which operates about 80% of the system in City Hall and the Police Department. The Community Center, City Yard and Community Services are operating on single lines. As you know, over the last several months staff has compiled a detailed plan to replace the phone system. GTE was in the process of getting the system placed on the County Cooperative Bid Program. They have provided a cost estimate for the complete digital system at $90,069.95, plus tax. Other options were presented that cost less and provide a less adequate system. Requesting authority to make this emergency purchase is consistent with the City's municipal code since this action is necessary for the immediate preservation of health, safety and welfare of the people and for the protection of property and that there is a present, immediate and existing emergency which could not be reasonably been foreseen, or that the City stands to suffer substantial monetary loss. Funds have been set aside in the amount of $60,000 for the purchase and the remainder proposed to come from the fund balance in the UUT Fund. A budget amendment will be presented at the September 13, 1994 meeting. There may also be a need to cover some wiring replacement. There is no estimate for this now, however, a $5,000 contingency would seem to cover it. Recommendation: Authorize City Manager to execute purchase contract with GTE for an amount not to exceed $100,587.00 in accordance with the emergency provision set forth above. Repe fully submitted, Stephen R. Burrell City Manager 3•(0 i August 1,1994 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of August 9, 1994 Parking Enforcement in the City's Commercial Area/Silver Pole Meters Between the Hours of 0600-0800 In response to your inquiry of the potential financial impact of eliminating parking enforcement in the commercial areas of the City between the hours of 0600 and 0800, I had a computerized field search conducted for all citations written at silver meters (Commercial Areas), for the fiscal year of 1993/94. There were a total of 19,424 citations written. Reviewing a two week sampling for just the first two weeks of July of 1993, there were a total of 57 citations written between the hours of 0600 and 0800. Based on the sampling and the Community Services Officers' estimates of the number of citations they write during the hours of 0600-0800, I projected a minimum average of approximately 36.5 citations written per week between the hours of 0600 and 0800. At the minimum fine of $20. per citation, that equates to $730. per week. Excluding the four weeks that the commercial area silver meters a covered during the Christmas Holidays, the City has 48 weeks of enforcement during the listed hours. 48 weeks @ $730. per week equals $35,040 of revenue from citations issued. This does not account for the money collected in the meters during the listed hours by citizens that legally park and pay the meters. It would not be possible to estimate the total amount of revenue generated by the meters during the hours of 0600-0800 without conducted a special study and changing the time and manner in which the moneys are collected. Respectfully submitted, ohn J Serg ant, Community Services Division Hermosa Beach Police Department 15a