Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/09/90CITY HALL OPERATING HOURS MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY OPEN 7:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. CLOSED FRIDAYS Where there is no vision the people perish... HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA !,izlir/� y WELCOME! By your presence in the City Council Chambers you are participating in the process of representative government. Your government welcomes your interest and hopes you will attend the City Council meetings often. It is the policy of the City Council that no discussion of new items will begin after 11:30 p.m., unless this rule is waived by the Council. The agendas are developed with the intent to have all matters covered within the time allowed. CITY VISION A less dense, more family oriented pleasant low profile, financially sound community comprised of a separate and distinct business district and residential neighborhoods that are afforded full municipal services in which the maximum costs are borne by visitor/users; led by a City Council which accepts a stewardship role for community resources and displays a willingness to explore innovative alternatives, and moves toward public policy leadership in attitudes of full ethical awareness. This Council is dedicated to learning from the past, and preparing Hermosa Beach for tomorrow's challenges today. Adopted by City Council on October 23, 1986 NOTE: There is no smoking allowed in the Council Chambers THE'HERMOSA BEACH FORM OF GOVERNMENT Hermosa Beach baa the Council -Manager form of government, with a City Manager ap- pointed by and responsible to the City Council for carrying out Council policy. The Mayor and Council decide what is to be done.. The City Manager, operating through the entire City staff, does it. This separation of policy making and administration is considsered the most economical and efficient form of City government in the United States today. GLOSSARY The following explanations may help you to understand the terms found on most agen- das for meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council. Consent Items A compilation of all routine matters to be acted upon by one vote; approval re- quires a majority affirmative vote. Any Councilmember can remove an item from this listing thereby causing that matter to be considered under the category Consent Cal- endar items Removed For Separate Discussion. Public Hearings Public Hearings are held on certain matters as required by law. The Hearings afford the public the opportunity to appear and formally express their views regarding the matter being heard. Additionally, letters may be filed with the City Clerk, prior to the Hearing. Hearings Hearings are held on other matters of public importance for which there is no legal - requirement to conduct an advertised Public Hearing. Ordinances An ordinance is a law that regulates government• revenues and/or public conduct. -All ordinances require two "readings". The first reading introduces the ordinance into the records. At least one week laterCouncil- may adopt, reject or hold over the ordinance to a subsequent meeting. Regular ordinances take effect 30 days after the second reading. Emergency ordinances are governed by different provisions and waive the time requirements. Written Communications The public, members of advisory boards/commissions or organizations may formally communicate to or make a request of Council by letter; said letters should be filed with the City Clerk by the Wednesday preceeding the Regular City Council meeting. Miscellaneous Items and Reports . City Manager The City Manager coordinates departmental reports and brings items to the attention of, or for action by the City Council. . Verbal reports may be given by the City Manager regarding items not on the agenda, usually having arisen since. the agenda was prepared on the preceding Wednesday. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Council Members of the City Council may place items on .the agenda for consideration by the full Council. Other Matters - City Council These are matters that come to the attention of a Council member after publication of the Agenda. Oral Communications from the Public - Matters of an Urgency Nature Citizens wishing to address the City Council on an urgency matter not elsewhere con- sidered on the agenda may do so at this time. Parking Authority The Parking Authority is a financially separate entity, but is operated as an inte- gral part of the City government. Vehicle Parking District No. 1 The City Council also serves as the Vehicle Parking District Commission. It's pur- pose is to oversee the operation of certain downtown parking lots and otherwise pro- mote public parking in the central business 'district. ',The most important thing about goals is having one." -Geoffry E. Abert AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, October 9, 1990 - Council Chambers, City Hall Closed Session - 6:30 p.m. Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. MAYOR Chuck Sheldon MAYOR PRO TEM Kathleen Midstokke COUNCILMEMBERS Roger Creighton Robert Essertier Albert Wiemans CITY CLERK Elaine Doerfling CITY TREASURER Gary L. Brutsch CITY MANAGER Kevin B. Northcraft CITY ATTORNEY Charles S. Vose All Council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. Complete agenda materials are available for public inspection in the Police Department, Public Library and the Office of the City Clerk. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION FOR PLANNING COMMIS- SIONER CARL MOORE. PRESENTATION OF DONATION FROM THE HERMOSA BEACH RESTAURANT AND TAVERN OWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR PURCHASE OF SURPLUS CITY VEHICLE FOR OUR SISTER CITY, LORETO, BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR, MEXICO. CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any items on the Consent Calendar may do so at this time. Citizens may request to speak during Public Hearings and items appearing under Municipal Matters at the time the item is called. Citizen comments on items not on the agenda but within the Council's jurisdiction will be provided time at the end of the agenda. Please limit comments to three minutes. Citizens with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are requested to submit those comments to the City Manager. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority con- sent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown by a member prior to the roll call vote. (Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 3.) Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on September 25, 1990. (b) Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) Recommendation to receive and file the September, 1990 Monthly Investment Report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated October 2, 1990. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #21270 for a two -unit condominium located at 704 First Place. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 1, 1990. (e) (h) (i) Recommendation to change from 4 hr. to 2 hr. no parking restriction for street sweeper. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated September 12, 1990. Recommendation to approve corrected award of bid for air conditioning the jail area and the Public Safety dis- patch computer room. Memorandum from Public Safety Di- rector Steve Wisniewski dated September 26, 1990. Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute sup- plemental to the Firefighters, Association Memorandum of Understanding amending Article 21 - Acting Positions, and Article 44 - Service Retirement, and approval of revised class specifications for Firefighter, Paramedic, Engineer, and Captain. Memorandum from Personnel Direc- tor Robert Blackwood dated October 2, 1990. Recommendation to authorize the purchase of a 1990 Chev- rolet Cavalier sedan, for $9,707.64 from Martin Chevro- let. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director Wil- liam Grove dated September 25, 1990. Recommendation to adopt resolutions for Bicycle Grant Applications: 1) A resolution approving the bicycle and/or pedestrian lane application for TDA Article 3 Funds for FY 90-91; 2) A resolution approving the application for discre- tionary regional funds for the reconstruction of the Strand walkway and retaining wall from 24th Street south to the City boundary. Memoranda from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dat- ed October 1, 1990. Recommendation to receive and file report on response to letter from Caltrans dated August 1, 1990. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated October 2, 1990. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A 3 LOT SUB- DIVISION AT 588 - 20TH STREET. John Miller, appellant. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated September 19, 1990. Supplemental memorandum from As- sociate Planner Ken Robertson dated October 1, 1990, and supplemental letters from Nancy Connolly and David Pena submitted at 9/25/90 meeting. (Continued public hearing from September 25, 1990 meeting.) 6. THIRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS: A. HOUSING ELEMENT REVISION, WITH RESOLUTION FOR ADOP- TION. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 2, 1990. B. REDESIGNATION/REZONING OF SELECTED INCONSISTENT AREAS EAST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, WITH RESOLU- TION FOR ADOPTION AND ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION. 1) CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY PROPERTY LO- CATED EAST OF PROSPECT AVENUE BETWEEN 15TH AND 17TH STREETS; 2) BETWEEN GENTRY AND HOLLOWELL AVENUE (435-453 HOLLOWELL AND 436-508 GENTRY). Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 2, 1990. C. REVISED PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN, WITH RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated September 26, 1990. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 7. TRAFFIC CONCERN AT 30TH STREET AND ARDMORE AVENUE. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated October 2, 1990. 8. EXTENSION OF LEASE WITH MACPHERSON OIL COMPANY. Memo- randum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated Oc- tober 4, 1990. 9. RECOMMENDATION TO ADD TWO LOCATIONS TO THE PAY PHONE AGREEMENT WITH GENERAL TELEPHONE, AND TO PROCEED WITH RECOVERING REVENUE FOR OTHER PAY PHONES ON CITY PROPER- TY. Memorandum from General Services Director Cindy Wilson dated October 1, 1990. 10. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER 11. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Report on Biltmore Site referendum petition. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated October 3, 1990. (b) Scheduling of Special Meeting with User Fee Consultant to review report - suggested date - Tuesday, October 30, 1990 at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. 12. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Review of Council policy to televise all meetings of the Council. Requested by Mayor Sheldon. Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to discuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Coun- cil action tonight. (b) Proliferation of trailers parked on City streets. Re- quested by Mayor Sheldon. Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to dis- cuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Council action tonight. (c) Role of City regarding potential commercial projects. Requested by Councilmember Wiemans. Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to dis- cuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Council action tonight. CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Citizens wishing to address the Council on items not on the agenda but within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. ADJOURNMENT October 3, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of October 9, 1990 PRESENTATION OF DONATION FOR PURCHASE OF SURPLUS CITY VEHICLE FOR OUR SISTER CITY, LORETO, BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR, MEXICO Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council formally accept the dona- tion of $1,800 from the Hermosa Beach Restaurant and Tavern Owners Association for the purchase of a surplus City vehicle for our Sister City, Loreto, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Background: At the July 10, 1990, City Council meeting, the Council directed that the City provide fund raising assistance to the Sister City Association in order to acquire one or two surplus vehicles for our Sister City in Mexico. As reflected in an status report to the City Council at your meeting of August 28, 1990, the Mayor and staff met with the Sister City President, and also received a letter indicating that the Restaurant and Tavern Owners Associa- tion would be willing to donate funds to purchase one vehicle. Analysis: The $1,800 price for the vehicle was established as a reasonable estimate of the auction value of the vehicles. Because $180 in costs for auctioning the vehicle would be deducted from this gross, we have used the $180 that did not go to the auction ser- vice to improve the condition of the vehicles in regards to bet- ter tires and batteries. The purchased vehicle will be transported to Loreto by arrange- ments being made by both the Sister City Association and the Res- taurant and Tavern Owners Association. The joint efforts of the Restaurant and Tavern Owners Association, the Sister City As- sociation, and the City will result in a much needed public safe- ty vehicle being in service in our sister city in Mexico in the near future. evin B. Northcr,Aft City Manager KBN/ld cc: Sister City Association Restaurant and Tavern Owners Association 8nE5 x.5 - 96-5-4.11z 0)a_ - qo -5(13 ((A) to - 591 0e) — hirRo -©RD.- 6'o-IOLfZ (c)- ES - 104I� /o-oq®70 l 9o- 5tLi -0,, -- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, September 25, 1990, at the hour of 7:32 P.M. CLOSED SESSION - The closed session was held at 6:47 P.M. pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning Real Property Negotiations with Macpherson Oil Company regarding City Yard lease/tidelands oil lease. The session was adjourned at 7:23 P.M. to the regular scheduled public meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Debra Blakeney ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Essertier, Midstokke, Wiemans, Mayor Sheldon Absent: None PROCLAMATIONS California Rideshare Week, October 1 - 5, 1990 Mayor Sheldon read the proclamation and presented it to Bob Blackwood, Director of Personnel. Fire Prevention Week, October 7 - 14, 1990 Mayor Sheldon read the proclamation and presented it to Jerry Clawson, Hermosa Beach Paramedic, who invited everyone to attend the Fire Department Open House, Oc- tober 7, 1990, from 10:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. Councilmember Wiemans raised a point of order and stated objec- tions to something that he had read in a newspaper that had allegedly been said by former Councilmember June Williams, in presenting the City Council presentation to the Senior Services, concerning the present City Council's opinion regarding the Com- munity Development Block Grants CITIZEN COMMENTS Coming forward at this time was: Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, with comments and questions on items (h), (j), and (m) 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: (a) Action: To approve the Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (m) with the exception of the following items which were pulled for discussion but are listed in order for clarity: (c) Creighton, (g) Creighton, (h) Midstokke, (i) Midstokke, (k) Mayor Sheldon, (1) Mid- stokke, and (m) Wiemans. Motion Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. Recommendation to approve the following minutes: 1) Special meeting of the City Council held on Monday, September 10, 1990; 2) Regular meeting of the City Council held on Tues- day, September 11, 1990. Page 1`` Minutes 09-25-90 (b) Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants No. 34544 and Nos. 34644 through 34801 inclusive, noting voided warrants Nos. 34646, 34647, 34650, 34651, 34652, 34653 and 34673. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) (e) (f) (g) This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Creighton for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To request staff to investigate the proposed no -left turn sign on Thirtieth Street at Ardmore and to receive and file the remainder of the future agenda items. Motion Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. Recommendation to receive and file the August, 1990 financial reports: 1) Revenue and expenditure report; 2) City Treasurer's report. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #21325 for a three -unit condominium at 1301 Cypress Avenue. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated September 17, 1990. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5406, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 'OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #21325 FOR A THREE -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1301 CYPRESS AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA." Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #21198 for a three -unit condominium at 801 Bard Street. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated September 17, 1990. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5407, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #21198 FOR A THREE -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 801 BARD STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA." Recommendation to award bid for air conditioning for the jail and computer room in the Police Department. Memo- randum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dat- ed September 17, 1990. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by 'Coun- cilmember Creighton, at the request of the City Manager, for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To approve the recommendation to award the bid for air conditioning for the jail and the computer room Page 2 Minutes 09-25-90 in the Police Department to Rusher Air Conditioning for a not to exceed price of $9,990 for Capital Improvement Project No. 604. Motion Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. Recommendation to approve Chamber of Commerce request for sidewalk sale in the downtown business district Oc- tober 12 and 13, 1990. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated September 13, 1990. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting, due to her concern for City liability and her opinion that the promotion would create a "swap meet" atmosphere. Jack Wood - 200 Pier Avenue, #38, informed the Council that the Chamber of Commerce had $1,000,000 "activity insurance" for this event, the same amount and type that they carried for the "Fiesta de las Artes". Action: To approve the recommendation for the 1990 event subject to the City Attorney's approval of the wording of the proposal, and the insurance coverage, to protect the City from liability claims in case of accident. Motion Creighton, second Mayor Sheldon. So ordered, noting the objection of Midstokke and Wiemans. Recommendation to waive parking fees and time limits for meters between 8th and 16th Streets during Sand and Strand Run from 7 a.m. until Noon on February 10, 1991. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated September 15, 1990. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: .To approve the parking waiver for the 1991 event but to not grant an indefinite waiver of parking fees for any future Sand and Strand runs. Motion Midstokke, second Creighton. So ordered. Recommendation to approve temporary use of General Fund money to obtain bus passes and ticket books for sale to the public on Municipal Area Express (MAX). Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated September 17, 1990. Recommendation to accept the donation of new carpeting and tile in the Community Center from the Hermosa Beach Community Center Foundation. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated September 17, 1990. Page 3 Minutes 09-25-90 (1) (m) This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Mayor Sheldon for separate discussion later in the meeting, as he wished to congratulate the Foundation and everyone connected with the successful fundraiser. Mary Rooney, Community Resources Director, expressed her appreciation of the businesses who donated prizes. Action: To approve the staff recommendation. Motion Essertier, second Creighton. So ordered. Recommendation to approve contract amendment - workers' compensation consultant. Memorandum from Personnel Di- rector Robert Blackwood dated September 18, 1990. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Midstokke for separate discussion later in the meeting, due to concern that the increase was too high and that the City should go back to bid. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to extend the contract to July 1, 1991, and then go to bid. Motion Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. Recommendation to approve agreement with the County of Los Angeles and adopt a jurisdiction resolution, overlay of Valley, Ardmore and Prospect, CIP 85-137, with resolution for adoption. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated September 17, 1990. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Wiemans for separate discussion later in the meeting, questioning the temporary transfer of streets to the County. Public Works Director Antich answered that the streets had to be transferred to the County, on a temporary ba- sis, in order for the County to do the work. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5408, entitled, HA_ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF .HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONSENTING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PORTIONS OF VALLEY DRIVE, ARDMORE AVENUE, AND PROSPECT AVENUE WITHIN SAID CITY AS A PART OF THE SYSTEM OF HIGH- WAYS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Motion Wiemans, second Creighton. So ordered. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES (a) ORDINANCE NO. 90-1046 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING. THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT TO ADD INSTALLATION OF AUTOMOBILE AUDIO EQUIPMENT AND ALARMS AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE C-3 ZONE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. For adoption. Page 4 Minutes 09-25-90 ACTION: To adopt Ordinance No. 90-1046. Motion Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. (b) ORDINANCE NO. 90-1047 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE REVOCATION AND SUS- PENSION OF BUSINESS LICENSES. For adoption. ACTION: To adopt Ordinance No. 90-1047. Motion Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Items (c), (h), (i), (k), (1), and (m) were discussed at this time but are listed in order for clarity. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY AN AMEND- MENT TO AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MOTORCYCLE REPAIR. AT 638-640 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated September 17, 1990. Supplemental memorandum from Ralph Goodson, Esquire, Attorney for South Bay Cycles, dated September 24, 1990. Supplemental letters from Mark Lueker and Michael Josephs, no address given, dated Sep- tember 24, 1990, and from Jacklynn A. Tagliaferro, 934 Seventh Street, dated September 25, 1990. Director Schubach presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. The public hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak in favor of the appeal were: Jack Wood - 200 Pier Avenue, #38, representing the applicants Ralph Goodson - Attorney for the applicants John Kraney - no address given Kenny Bornstein - 501 1/2 Pacific Coast Highway Craig McBride - 420 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach David Reimer 802 Monterey Blvd. Raphael Bordea - 710 Esplanade, Redondo Beach William Campbell - applicant, 640 Pacific Coast Highway Michele Campbell - applicant, 640 Pacific Coast Highway Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street Don Turk - 839 Sixth Street, #3 Maiko Saravia - applicant, 640 Pacific Coast Highway John Ranson - 828 Sunset Page 5 Minutes 09-25-90 Coming forward to speak against the appeal were: Jim Halsey - 934 Seventh Street Ernie O'Dell - 831 Sixth Street Laurie Lowber - 926 Seventh Street Nellie Shroll - 824 Seventh Street Bob Schmidt - 928 Seventh Street Ann O'Dell - 831 Sixth Street Jerry Compton - 832 Seventh Street The public hearing was closed. Proposed Action: To uphold the decision and deny the appeal. Motion Essertier, second Creighton to the objections of Midstokke, Sheldon. Planning Motion Wiemans, Commission failed due and Mayor Action: To approve the resolution of approval with the conditions: 1) no repair business on Sunday or Monday, 2) a clear review period within six months from the date of the approval, and 3) to include all of the sugges- tions to reduce noise that are contained in the letter submitted by the applicant; if any are in conflict with the conditions listed in the draft resolution, the more restrictive will prevail. Amended by Midstokke to in- clude: a traffic study, by an independent source paid for by the applicant, to document if customers of the store are causing an increase in motorcycle traffic on residential streets due to ingress and egress. Motion Mayor Sheldon, second Wiemans. So ordered, noting the objections of Creighton and Essertier. The City Attorney suggested that he and staff draw up precise language for the changes to the resolution during the recess to avoid having to bring the revised resolution back for adoption at the next meeting. The meeting recessed at 9:40 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:49 P.M. Final Action: To grant the appeal, overturn the Plan- ning Commission decision by approving the Conditional Use Permit amendment, and adopt Resolution No. 90-5409, entitled, ',A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, ON APPEAL, TO ALLOW THE MINOR REPAIR OF MOTORCY- CLES AT 638-640 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, DESCRIBED AS LOT 18 AND PORTION OF LOT 19, WILSON AND LIND'S TRACT.", as amended to include: 1) on page 1, condition no. 2, line 27, -add a comma after Sundays and continue ...", except that repairs shall be strictly prohibited on Sundays and Mondays."; 2) on page 3, condition no. 13, delete entirely and replace with: "There shall be signs posted in a manner Page 6 Minutes 09-25-90 approved by the Planning Director directing the cus- tomers and employees to the route approved by the Plan- ning Director which may be used for commuting to and from the property."; 3) on page 3, condition no. 18, section b. insert between "ordinance" and "shall": "or related State law"; 4) on page 4, condition no. 23, add a colon after Commission on line 9 and 1/2, then add a number 1) ; at the end of the paragraph remove the period and add 2. "an independent traffic study to examine motorcycle traffic on local residential streets; to be paid for by the applicant."; 5) on page 4, renumber condition no. 25 to condi- tion no. 26; and 6) add a new condition no. 25 that reads: "The mitigation measures set forth in the applicant's letter (Compass Engineering Company, Inc.) of September 19, 1990, relating to noise, which are not in conflict with the conditions of said resolution, shall be incorporated herein." Motion Mayor Sheldon, second Wiemans. So ordered. 6. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF 3 -UNIT SUB- DIVISION AT 588 - 20TH STREET. John Miller, appellant. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated September 19, 1990. It was noted that at the time of the property owner's request for a continuance, it was too late to cancel the publication of the legal advertisement. The public hearing was opened. Coming for- ward to speak in favor of the appeal were: Warner Lombardi - 1849 Valley Park Avenue Nancy Connolly - 1927 Valley Park Avenue, who submitted a letter in support of the appeal and a letter in support of the appeal from: Dave Pena - 1927 Valley Park Avenue The item was continued to the Regular Meeting of October. 9, 1990, at the request of the property owner. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 7. REPORT ON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. MERGER PRO- POSAL. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated September 19, 1990. Director Schubach presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. Coming forward to address the Council on this matter were: Walt Dougher - of Southern California Edison Company, who spoke in favor of the merger Tom O'Leary - 524 North Guadelupe Avenue, Redondo Beach, in opposition to the merger Parker Herriott - 224 24th Street, questioned if proper noticing had been given to Hermosa Beach Page 7 Minutes 09-25-90 residents Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, in opposition to the merger Sigrid Hocks - La Cresenta, representing a citizen's group in opposition of the merger Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., in opposition Richard Gould - 515 Anita, Redondo Beach, in opposition Action: To approve the staff recommendation to submit comments to the Public Utilities Commission regarding the inadequacies of the Environmental Impact Report in relation to the impacts and mitigating measures noted to the City and the South Bay area: authorize the Mayor to sign the letter to be submitted; and, add an amendment for Hermosa City staff to contact the City of Redondo Beach for any information they can provide us in order to aid them with their appeal. Motion Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered, noting the objection of Midstokke, who wanted a stronger motion. 8. PRESENTATION OF PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT BY IN- - FRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT SERVICES. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated September 18, 1990. Director Antich presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Infrastructure Management Services representative, Nat Johnson, gave a slide presentation of the report on the condition of Hermosa Beach streets, and responded to Council questions. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) Accept the Pavement Management Program Report as prepared by Infrastructure Management Ser- vices as complete at a final cost of $18,250. 2) Authorize staff to proceed with preparing plans and specifications for Street Rehabilitation, Capital Improvement Project (CIP) 89-141. 3) Set as a goal to improve the average condition of the street system from a value of 72 to a value of 75 over the next five years. Motion Essertier, second Creighton. So ordered. 9. APPROVAL OF PROPOSAL FOR FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF CITY YARD SITES. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated September 18, 1990. Action: To approve the staff recommendation, contingent on payment by Macpherson Oil Company, to: 1) Authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement for feasibility study services to analyze two pro- posed public works yard relocation sites with Page 8 Minutes 09-25-90 Anthony and Langford Company at a cost not to exceed $21,000 ($19,740 plus contingency). 2) Authorize staff to issue addenda within budget limitations. 3) Appropriate a not to exceed amount of $21,000 to cover both the report and any contingencies from the General Fund Designation for Capital Improvements to Capital Improvement Project (CIP) 91-608. 4) Restore funds to the designation account in the amount received from Macpherson Oil Company. Motion Creighton, second Wiemans. So ordered. 10. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CURBSIDE RECYCLING. Memoran- dum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dat- ed September 18, 1990. Supplemental letter from Ron Felsing, 249 Twenty -Seventh Street, dated September 24, 1990. Director Grove presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to au- thorize staff to distribute a Request for Proposals that includes, but is not limited to: funding methods, adver- tising, incentives for community participation, cost effectiveness, accounting procedures, term of commit- ment, risk management, and adding, "...all paper prod- ucts..." to the types of items to include under #7, and inserting the word, "volunteers" to community involve- ment in #5. Motion Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. 11. SEWERS TARGET AREA 4 - CIP 88-406. A. REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR SANITARY SEWER RECONSTRUCTION. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated September 17, 1990. Director Antich presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Action: To approve the staff recommendation that City Council authorize staff to advertise for construction bids for the budgeted Sanitary Sewer Reconstruction project known as Capital Improvement Project 88-406, which provides for reconstruction of 13,670 lineal feet of existing deteriorated sewer at an estimated cost of between $1.8 and $2.2 million dollars, and issue Addenda as necessary. Motion Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. B. REQUEST FOR INSPECTION AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION SERVICE PROPOSAL. Page 9 Minutes 09-25-90 Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated September 17, 1990. Action: To approve the staff recommendation that City Council authorize staff to advertise a Request for Pro- posals for inspection and contract administration ser- vices for Capital Improvement Project 88-406 and issue Addenda as necessary, as the $2,000,000 project requires full time inspection and the City does not have qualified inspection expertise at the level of an out- side consultant. Motion Mayor Sheldon, second Midstokke. So ordered. 12. RECOMMENDATION RE. TOXIC SURVEY CONSULTANT FOR PROSPECT HEIGHTS SURPLUS LOTS. Memorandum from City Manager Ke- vin B. Northcraft dated September 20, 1990. City Manager Northcraft reported that the original esti- mates of cost had been $4,000 to $8,000 per site for a Phase I survey, but in contacting some smaller compa- nies, staff had received two bids, one at $5,000 for both Prospect Heights and South School, and the second at $3,500 for both sites. Proposed Action: To approve the staff recommendation to include both Prospect Heights and South School in a Phase I toxic study. Motion Mayor Sheldon, second Creighton. Motion failed due to the objections of Creighton, Essertier, and Wiemans. Proposed Action: To approve a Phase I toxic study for South School only, at the appropriate time, when advised by the City Attorney. Motion Creighton, Second Essertier. Second withdrawn, motion died for lack of a second. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to include both Prospect Heights and South School in a Phase I toxic study at a cost of $3,500, expenditure from the Parks fund. Motion Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. 13. REVIEW OF 4 - 10 SCHEDULE. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated September 18, 1990. Action: To continue this item to the next best avail- able agenda, with Personnel memorandum requested by Councilmember Midstokke distributed to entire Council. Motion Creighton, second Mayor Sheldon. So -ordered. 14. POSSIBLE PROCEDURES TO EXPEDITE COUNCIL MEETINGS AND CLARIFY CITIZEN INPUT OPPORTUNITIES. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated September 20, 1990. Supplemental letter from Howard Longacre, 1221 Seventh Place, dated September 24, 1990. Page 10 Minutes 09-25-90 Action: To set this item for a public hearing at the next available opportunity. Motion Midstokke, second Wiemans. So ordered, noting the objection of Mayor Sheldon. 15. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER City Manager Northcraft announced: 1) the Sister Cities trip to Loreto, Mexico, October 17 to 21, 1990, and asked if any Councilmember wished to go and represent the City of Hermosa Beach; 2) the League of California Cities would be in Anaheim this year from October 21 to 24, 1990, and encouraged all Councilmembers to attend if possible; 3) the Coastal Clean-up Day on September 22, 1990, had been very successful with 150 people participating in the collection of 835 pounds of debris; and 4) the City Newsletter for fall will be mailed next week and it was bigger and better than previous issues. 16. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) (b) Appointment of Planning Commissioner to fill term expir- ing June 30, 1992. (Continued from September 11, 1990 meeting.) Proposed Action: To drop applicant Reviczky's name from consideration. Motion Wiemans. Motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Midstokke declined to participate .in the selection due to an applicant being a former spouse and left the dais and the room. Proposed Action: To nominate Robert Marks. Motion Wiemans. Motion died for lack of a second. Action: To nominate Edmund Aleks. Motion Essertier, second Mayor Sheldon. So ordered, noting the objection of Wiemans. Appointment of Board of Parking Place Commissioner to fill vacancy for term expiring July 27, 1993. Memoran- dum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated September 17, 1990. Proposed Action: To nominate Jack Wood. Motion Midstokke, second Creighton. Motion died due to the objections of Essertier, Wiemans, and Mayor Sheldon. Action: To nominate Paul Hennessey. Motion Mayor Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. Page 11 Minutes 09-25-90 (c) Final action involving City Council reorganization, with resolution for adoption. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated September 12, 1990. Action: To approve the City Clerk's recommendation and adopt Resolution No. 90-5410, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFOR- NIA, APPOINTING A MEMBER OF SAID COUNCIL OF SAID CITY TO THE CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO PART 3 OF DIVISION 10 OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE." Motion Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. 17. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL - None CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Coming forward to address the Council at this time was: Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., concerned with noise from Southern California Edison Com- pany generating plant in Redondo Beach. ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Tuesday, September 25, 1990, at the hour of 11:46 P.M., to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tues- day, October 9, 1990, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. Deputy City Clerk Page 12 Minutes 09-25-90 FINANCE=SEA340 J CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH - DEMAND. ..i O j 3• 0 ..d J +"HAsC— "UU1 TIME 16:39:38 FOR 10/09/90 DATE 10/04/90 SAY VENDOR_NAME VND_# ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF.___.___— PO -#.---__.CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROD # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 6 6 H RAY*BIRGE & ASSOCIATES 03607 001-400-2101-4312 01507 $772.00 00855 34810 6 TUITION/ECKERT/SALDANA 10/01/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 10/03/90 a ,o *** VENDOR TOTAL************************************************etarat************ir**** $772. 00 ,2 4 ,6 H CONNECTING POINT LEASING 03617 001-400-2101-4201 00651 $354.90 2427322 00031 34811 RENTAL PMT/SEP 90 27322 10/03/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/03/90 5 20 H CONNECTING POINT LEASING 03617 001-400-2201-4201 00164 $180.67 2427522 00031 34811 17 RENTAL PMT/SEP 90 27522 10/03/90 FIRE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/03/90 3 21 22 23 24 H CONNECTING POINT LEASING 03617 001-400-2701-4201 00005 $374.24 2427522 00051 34911 RENTAL PMT/SEP 90 27522 10/03/90 CIVIL DEFENSE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/03/90 21 25 26 27 26 2 H CONNECTING POINT LEASING 03617 170-400-2103-4201 00062 $180.67 2427522 00051 34811 2] ` RENTAL PMT/SEP 90 27522 10/03/90 SPEC INVESTGTNS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/03/90 29 30 3, 32 **# VENDOR TOTAL+Fnat*****+ratn***nirn*itir**trititirsF***ititn+r**#*i►*irni►*irtr#***nir##*ir+r***itirn***#+r $1,290.48 :5 333 4 35 `6 H OFCR TOM*ECKERT 01958 001-400-2101-4312 01505 $77.25 00853 34808 •� MEALS/P. O. S. T. CLASS 10/01/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 10/03/90 0 38 3, 40 *** VENDOR TOTAL **********************************+ **** **********nor**** *****+r***** $77. 2542 41 3 3'1 H GRISWOLD'S 03601 001-400-2101-4312 01504 $173.25 00857 34807 3' HOTEL/R. SALDANA 10/01/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 10/03/90 36 .16 .,6 47 :o / *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $173.25 38 so 5, H GRISWOLD'S - 03602 001-400-2101-4312 01506 $173.25 00834 34809 HOTEL/T. ECKERT 10/01/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 10/03/90 °2 5 so 43 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $173.25 59 60 6 GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1101-4304 00327 $7.32 00931 34813 °' TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 10/03/90 CITY COUNCIL /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/03/90 °n 6, 63 64 , GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1121-4304 00333 $23.85 00931 34813 50 TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 10/03/90 CITY CLERK /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/03/90 5, 66 61' 66 53 54 70, 2 /3 /4 ,5, 1 h ..i O j 3• 0 ..d J CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE7SFA340 DEMAND._LIST TiMC' 1L-70.70 FOR.10/09/90 DATE 10/04/90 _ _____PAY VENDORNAME VND # ACCOUNT__NUMDER_TRN-. __ #_ _. __AMOUNT ._INV/REF.___........_._........PO # #___ = ........._..CNK_ .- I DESCRIP_TION ' DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 5 H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1131-4304 00253 $10.82 00931 34813 TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 10/03/90 CITY ATTORNEY /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/03/90to H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1141-4304 00355 $20.60 00931 34813 .3 1 TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 10/03/90 CITY TREASURER /TELEPHONE 80.00 10/03/90 ,5 '5 _ H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1201-4304 00375 $18.91 09931 34813 is is TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 10/03/90 CITY MANAGER /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/03/90 ,9 2o H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1202-4304 00385 $69.36 00931 34813 • 22 TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 10/03/90 FINANCE ADMIN /TELEPHONE. $0.00 10/03/90 23 A, H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1203-4304 00389 $43.22 26 00931 34813 2G TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 10/03/90 PERSONNEL /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/03/90 2, 29 H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1206-4304 00277 $77.83 00931 34813 30 I TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 10/03/90 DATA PROCESSING /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/03/90 3, 32 33 1 H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1207-4304 00221 $26.41 00931 34813 34 TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 10/03/90 BUS LICENSE /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/03/90 35 35 H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1208-4304 00089 $11.91 00931 34813 39 TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 10/03/90 GEN APPROP /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/03/90 39 40 H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2101-4304 00664 $809.21 00931 34813 42 TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 10/03/90 POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/03/90 43 4 H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2201-4304 00295 832.21 00931 34813 TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 10/03/90 FIRE /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/03/90 J, :8 H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2401-4304 00331 $17.18 00931 34813 A TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 10/03/90 ANIMAL CONTROL /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/03/90 52 H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED • 00015 001-400-4101-4304 00388 $91.87 00931 34813 ., 54 " TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 10/03/90 PLANNING /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/03/90 55 "2 H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4201-4304 00362 $104.09 00931 34813 w TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 10/03/90 BUILDING /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/03/90 59 w '` H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4202-4304 00393 $152.90 00931 34813 52 '' TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 10/03/90 PUB WKS ADMIN /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/03/90 G3 Ge H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4601-4304 00454 $102.53 00931 34813 G' GG TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 10/03/90 COMM RESOURCES /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/03/90 G, G9 ,0 • ,2 ,3 74 ,5 ,y 1 y• U .1J 1J V it) • FINANCE-SEA340 TIME 16:39:38 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH nEMAND_LIST _ FUK 1u/09/90 III DATE 10/04/90 _..—__.PAY___VENDOR_NAME VND_#ACCOUNT__NUMDER ' 5 TRIC_# DESCRIPTION AMOUNT-___INV/REF...___ .__...... _ PO. # ----CHK # --_ 0 DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP Id ^I H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-6101-4304 00270 $10.46 TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 10/03/90 00931 34813 y� PARKS /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/03/90 n 9 ;o 13 14 5 H GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 109-400-3301-4304 00005 $10.00 TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 00931 34813 • 10/03/90 VEH PKG DIST /TELEPHONE $0. 00 10/03/90 H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 110-400-3302-4304 00387 $149.79 TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 00931 34813 10/03/90 PARKING ENF /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/03/90 "' G 18 .s ,s H GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 145-400-3401-4304 00068 $4.16 00931 34813 TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 10/03/90 DIAL A RIDE /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/03/90 21 22 z3 k. *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************** rat*tt******** **prat**** *****uaritattr************** * $1,794.63 pn 25 26 2) zn ' H LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 03261 001-400-1101-4317 00367 $100.00 00306 34804 CONF. REG/C. SHELDON 09/27/90 CITY COUNCIL /CONFERENCE EXPENSE 50.00 10/03/90 25 3O 3. J) H LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 03261 001-400-1101-4317 00368 $93.00 00304 34805 PRE—CONF REG/C. SHELDON 09/27/90 CITY COUNCIL /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $0.00 10/03/90 j i3 ," 1G 37 30 39 13 H LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 03261 001-400-1201-4317 00221 $140.00 00307 34804 CONF. REG/K. NORTHCRAFT 09/27/90 CITY MANAGER /CONFERENCE EXPENSE 50. 00 10/03/90 3 H LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 03261 001-400-1202-4317 00064 $140.00 00304 34804 CONF. REG/V. COPELAND 09/27/90 FINANCE ADMIN /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $0.00 10/03/90 40 az :3 H LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 03261 001-400-1203-4317 00058 $85.00 00311 34804 CONF REG/R. BLACKWOOD 09/27/90 PERSONNEL /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $0.00 10/03/90 44 45 "6 H LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 03261 001-400-1206-4317 00070 $155.00 00308 34804 CONF. REG/C. WILSON 09/27/90 DATA PROCESSING /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $0.00 10/03/90 "D 50 sl 10H 4 •f2 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 03261 001-400-2101-4317 00169 $100.00 00305 34804 CONF REG/S. WISNIEWSKI 09/27/90 POLICE /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $0.00 10/03/90 52 53 55 55 "' "" :5 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 03261 001-400-4101-4317 00033 $140.00 00310 34804 CONF. REG/M. SCHUDACH 09/27/90 PLANNING /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $0.00 10/03/90 ) 50 GD 1 H LEAGUE OP CALIFORNIA CITIES 03261 001-400-4601-4317 00115 $155.00 00303 34804 CONF REG/M. ROONEY 09/27/90 COMM RESOURCES /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $0.00 10/03/90 Gi G2 63 64 49 51 , *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,110.00 os GG 67 60 i2 5' 54 PERSONAL SUPPORT COMPUTERS 03529 001-400-2101-4305 01359 $60.00 00939 34802 EMERG REPAIR/PD COMPUTER 09/25/90 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 10/03/90 63 )o ),.. )2 55 56 \) 75 )3 74 75 F INANCE=SEA3440 TIME 16:39:38 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND_LIST PAGE —.0004 VWFA a v, v-„ -,v DATE 10/04/90 ! _ I.__ PAY VENDOR NAME VND 4$ ACCOUNT_NUMBER TRN_# AMOUNT INV/REF—....----..____ . PO -# __.__..._CHK. -#-- DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL *******tris*********************tr***********************ttit*****ar*** a $60. 00 0 U. H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00431 $84,539.22'3 34803 RETIREMENT/AUGUST 90 09/26/90 RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT $0.00 10/03/90 ,4 iG H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00432 $15,168.58CR, 34603 RETIREMENT/AUGUST 90 09/26/90 RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT $0.00 10/03/90 ,A ,9 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00433 $71,285.68CR 34603 RETIREMENT/AUGUST 90 09/26/90 RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT $0.00 10/03/90 22 23 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 105-400-2601-4180 00133 $661.45 34803 _I RETIREMENT/AUGUST 90 09/26/90 STREET LIGHTING /RETIREMENT $0.00 10/03/90 28 2c 2, 28 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 109-400-3301-4180 00003 $60.48 34803 RETIREMENT/AUGUST 90 09/26/90 VEH PKG DIST /RETIREMENT $0.00 10/03/90 . 29 30 3. 32 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 110-400-3302-4180 00134 $4,673.12 34803 ':, RETIREMENT/AUGUST 90 09/26/90 PARKING ENF /RETIREMENT $0.00 10/03/90 34 35 3i 3 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 145-400-3401-4180 00107 $56.06 34803 `' RETIREMENT/AUGUST 90 09/26/90 DIAL A RIDE /RETIREMENT $0.00 10/03/90 37 3, 30 39 40 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. ' 00026 145-400-3402-4180 00107 $19.01 34803 RETIREMENT/AUGUST 90 09/26/90 ESEA /RETIREMENT $0.00 10/03/90 42 -'3 44 34H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 145-400-3403-4180 00052 $16. 09 34803 RETIREMENT/AUGUST 90 09/26/90 BUS PASS SUDSDY /RETIREMENT $0.00 10/03/90 aG .15 45 n, 3' PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 155-400-2102-4180 00105 $103.13 34803 -'0 RETIREMENT/AUGUST 90 • 09/26/90 CROSSING GUARD /RETIREMENT $0.00 10/03/90 19 so 5, 52 "' H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 160-400-3102-4180 00132 $906.91 34803 41 RETIREMENT/AUGUST 90 09/26/90 SEWER/ST DRAIN /RETIREMENT $0.00 10/03/90 42 Si s, ss 56 43 PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 170-400-2103-4180 00006 $4,172.02 34803 ^^ RETIREMENT/AUGUST 90 09/26/90 SPEC INVESTGTNS /RETIREMENT $0.00 10/03/90 •15 so s0 GO H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026• 705-400-1209-4180 00056 $230.55 34803 '" RETIREMENT/AUGUST 90 09/26/90 LIABILITY INS /RETIREMENT $0.00 10/03/90 �,. 62 63 c4 "' PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS.. 00026 705-400-1217-4180 00056 $293.79 34803 sO RETIREMENT/AUGUST 90 09/26/90 WORKERS COMP /RETIREMENT $0.00 10/03/90 , GS G6 81 Ge c9 ,o ,1 72 I 74 75 2.51 3. s CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH J U L1 t1 J J •i1 J ♦+ J J vt1 IIF acabW 1 I li i 00 05 TIME 16:39:38 FOR 10/09/90 DATE 10/04/90 EAY VENDDR_NAMF VND # ACCOUNT_NUMBER—JRN__# AMOUNT TNV/REF—_________PO_-#------CHK.-#__' s s 5 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP N *** VENDOR TOTAL********************************************************•************ $9,277.56 ' 10 11 12 12 H OFCR R.*SALDANA 02165 001-400-2101-4312 01503 $77.25 00856 34806 MEALS/POST. CLASS 10/01/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 10/03/90 4 13 14 15 16 13 15 *** VENDOR TOTAL,******************************************************************** $77.25 .e i9 20 16 0 *** PAY CODE TOTAL****************************************************************** $14,805.67 21 22 23 24 2'726 21 R ADAMSON UNIFORM EQUIP. CORP. 00138 001-400-2101-4306 00869 $85.29 9890 00093 34820 MISC. CHARGES/SEP 90 9890 09/30/90 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE $0.00 10/03/90 25 27 213 .2 23 24 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $85.29 329 0 31 32 25 27 R ADVANCE ELEVATOR 00003 001-400-4204-4201 00396 $80.00 24261 00003 34821 ELEVATOR MAINT/OCT 90 24261 10/01/90 BLDG MAINT /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/04/90 33 34 36 35 '^ 30 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $80.00 37 39 40 3' 12 33 R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 00935 110-400-3302-4305 00719 $16.33 16107 00267 34822 RADIO REPAIRS/GEN SERV 16107 08/28/90 PARKING ENF /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 10/04/90 41 .v .,3 44 16 6 35 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $16.33 26 47 411 i1 30 33 R AMERICAN STYLE FOODS 00857 001-400-2101-4306 00868 $68.50 5562 00095 34823 PRISONER MEALS/SEP 90 5562 09/30/90 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE $0.00 10/03/90 SO s1 40 .11 .12 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $68.50 54 54 SS 56 43 45 R ANTHONY *ANTICH 00030 001-400-4202-4316 00155 $13.00 01034 34824 MONTHLY E`XP/AVG 90 08/31/90 PUB WKS ADMIN /TRAINING $0.00 10/04/90 s0 50 n 45 47 41304 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $13.00 6z 63 49 50 61 R AT & T 03423 001-400-2101-4304 00665 $11.73 00086 34825 LONG DIST/MOBILE PHONES 08/31/90 POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/03/90 68 w 67 G9 2 53 4 69 70 71 72 66 74 6 J U L1 t1 J J •i1 J ♦+ J J vt1 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:39:38 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND_LIST P L. I' II Ii n PAY VENDOR NAME VND * FOR 10/09/90 ACC.OUNT NUMBER TRN # DATE 10/04/90 AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP z 3 AMOUNT _INV/REF_.._-_.__._._..__._.PO..#CHK__#—_ DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL ********at*******iter**iter**.b.*****#*********u••xn*•irtF*****#.u.a.#ar•nir*****p•*•x* $11. 73 10 R ANTHONY*AUGI CITATION PAYMENT REFUND 32267 03660 09/24/90 110-300-0000-3302 36312 $46.00 /COURT FINES/PARKING 832267 00184 $0.00 34826 • 10/03/90 ,2 13 .•, ,P 9 *** VENDOR TOTAL*******************************************x•************************ $46.00 e 19 R BALL INDUSTRIES JANITOR SUPPLIES/STOCK 51782 00232 09/26/90 001-400-4204-4309 01762 $297.09 BLDG MAINT ./MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 551782 01018 $297.09 34827 ' 10/04/90 20 2, 222 3 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $297.09 24 25 26 2> 29 3. ; - 2.1 R PAUL*BARR ANIMAL TRAP REFUND 03588 00952 09/27/90 001-210-0000-2110 03913 $50.00 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE 03588 00571 $0.00 34828 10/04/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 33 34 '' '" 37 R BEACH CITIES SYMPHONY ASSOC ANNUAL PMT PER CONTRACT 01717 09/20/90 001-400-4601-4201 00649 $250.00 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 00714 $0.00 34829 10/04/90 16 ]' w 30 4 qo 42 4] 44 31 3 3 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $250.00 3' 35 R BEACH TRAVEL AIRFARE/M. FEHSKENS TR301 00252 09/25/90 001-400-1207-4317 00028 $83.00 BUS LICENSE /CONFERENCE EXPENSE TR301 00301 $0.00 34830 10/04/90 • •'n 42 32 ]n ,151 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $83.00 00 s2 00 1 BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC. ADOPTED BUDGET COPIES 592 02664 ' 09/25/90 001-400-1101-4305 00334 $1,457.14 CITY COUNCIL /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 592 00173 $1,457.14 34831 10/04/90 53 }.. 00 0> 00 co 61 45 R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC. BUSINESS CARDS/S. OWINGS 602 02664 09/25/90 001-400-1202-4305 00340 $37.36 FINANCE ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 602 00173 $37.36 34831 10/04/90 •1p n R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC. BUSINESS CARDS/G. DALE 682 02664 09/20/90 001-400-2201-4305 00397 $39.50 FIRE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 682 11230 $39.50 34831 10/04/90 t61'" 40 " 41 R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC.. BUS CARDS/P. CORNEAL 681 02664 09/20/90 001-400-4201-4305 00603 $42.70 BUILDING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 681 00625 $42.70 34831 10/04/90 66 G> S3 •.4 0 72 1 I.5 s 3 J J CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ' TIME PAY 16:39:38 VENDOR_NAMF DESCRIPTION VND # DATE INVC LrJiHrv" ]51.- FOR 10/09/90 ACGOUNLNUMBFR TRU It AMOUNT INV/REF PAGE DATE 0007 10/04/90 2 3 - 5 ] e PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION P0-#. AMOUNT UNENC CHK DATE EXP R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC. BUS 02664 001-400-4202-4305 00517 $85.40 616 00496 34831 9 ,0 9 CARDS/TERRY/BEHBOODI 616 09/13/90 PUB WKS ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $85.40 10/04/90 „ rz 13 R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC. 02664 110-400-3302-4305 00718 374.73 612 00248 34831 3 ,2 • BUS CARDS/LEE/TUBBS 612 09/12/90 PARKING ENF /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $74.73 10/04/90 ,5 .6 :3 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,736.83 i] 14 113 159 20 , R MARK*BRIGGS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 02478 140-400-4703-4201 00025 $2,079.48 430-2 21 `] .n CDBG ADMIN/SEP 90 430-2 09/30/90 CDBG ADMIN /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 10666 $0.00 34832 10/04/90 22 23 24 :. *** VENDOR TOTAL '>f**t***tiaraet**it*itarirar+t**u•trjratittt***a•a•****ira►ir•irirutrarir*airtr+ ***niririr+ttr****+ *** $2,079.48 35 2. . 26 2] ]n ` R BROWNING & FERRIS INDUSTRIES 00155 001-400-1208-4201 00693 3576.37 00005 34833 30 30 - TRASH PICKUP/OCT 90 10/01/90 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/03/90 3, 32 R BROWNING & FERRIS INDUSTRIES 00155 109-400-3301-4201 00011 $516.63 33 TRASH PICKUP/OCT 90 10/01/90 VEH PKG DIST /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 00005 $0.00 34633 10/03/90 34 35 3r, *** VENDOR TOTAL*******************tr******+r*****ir******stir+ta•ir•�ririrtrerir+ru"irira�ririrsru�rtriara•iruir $1,093.00 " 34 3° 39 20 40 31 32 R BROWNING FERRIS INDUSTRIES DUMP CHARGES/AUG 90 37002 00158 08/31/90 001-400-3103-4201 00290 ST MAINTENANCE $3,216.24 90800-0037002 00004 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 34834 10/03/90 42 a3 33 14 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $3,216.24 Q' 35 4' 47 35 46 '] R 'BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. 00630 001-400-4201-4201 00412 $162.50 39 PLAN CHECK/3129 STRAND 2574 • 09/04/90 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 2574 00632 $0.00 34835 10/04/90 541 0 s. 33 52 ° 53 R BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. 00630 001-400-4201-4201 00413 $674.70 2574 00615 34835 54 4. PLAN CK/1218 SIXTH ST 2574 09/04/90 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $612.82 10/04/90 .9 56 43 R BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. 00630 001-400-4201-4201 00414 $878.55 2574 00610 34835 .4 9,3 44 PLAN CK/350 MONTEREY 2374 09/04/90 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $878.55 10/04/90 45 69 46 6. R BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. 00630 001-400-4201-4201 00415 $512.72 2374 00609 34635 62 43 PLAN CK/636 GOULD AVENUE 2574 ,09/04/90 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $511.44 10/04/90 63 40 G4 45 R BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. 00630 001-400-4201-4201 00416 $134.42 2574 00611 34835 66 59 PLAN CK/741 24TH STREET 2574 09/04/90 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $131.04 10/04/90 67 5, 6a 52 6', ]0 53 54 2 55 ]3 56 ]5 a, r ]5, � ? T mS.•r :Y+p'r, N,-'1 3 as+N t- �.. �a�,k.;'a '.',fp '^'..� • ;, r V • Ake'v'i.a •'�!: FINANCE—SFA340 • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST A ' 11110 1.0.07.J0 FOR 10/09/90 DATE 10/04/90 z 3 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF is _PO _#._.___CHK.#_ DESCRIPTION ,DATE INVC PROD # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 6 7 R BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. 00630 001-400-4201-4201 00417 $625.56 2574 00612 34835 ='10 PLAN CK/1302 BONNIE BRAE 2574 09/04/90 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $654.68 10/04/90 11 R BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. 00630 001-400-4201-4201 00418 $1,682.59 2574 00608 34833 13 • PLAN CK/1634 PROSPECT 2574 09/04/90 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 4 $1,678.87 10/04/SO s 16 R BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. 00630 001-400-4201-4201 00419 $383.32 2574 00603 34835 PLAN CK/834 BARD 2574 09/04/90 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT4384.04 10/04/90 is 20 R BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. 00630 001-400-4201-4201 00420 $874.38 2774 00606 34835 ' 21 22 PLAN CK/829 15TH STREET 2574 09/04/90 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $870.86 10/04/90 23 •o 24 26 1:? R BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. 00630 001-400-4201-4201 00421 $523.64 2574 10399 34835 25 PLAN CK/27 16TH STREET 2574 09/04/90 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $522.11 10/04/90 27 26 R BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. 00630 001-400-4201-4201 00422 $456.30 2574 00601 34835 29 • PLAN CK/655 LONGFELLOW 2574 09/04/90 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $455.25 10/04/90 31 l l 32 R BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. 00630 001-400-4201-4201 00423 $361.66 2574 10393 34835 33 34 PLAN CK/1051 8TH STREET 2574 09/04/90 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $361.66 10/04/90 3s 35 ''3 R BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. 00630 001-400-4201-4201 00424 $320.84 2574 00630 34835 37 36 •' PLAN CK/2624 THE STRAND 2574 09/04/90 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $320.84 10/04/90 39 40 J1 ### VENDOR TOTAL #######################################*********—**** a*******A *sr# $7.593.18 42 43 133 44 R BUCHALTER, NEMER. FIELDS & 03151 001-400-1131-4201 00608 $300.00 H4890.00 09178 34836 46 I. RROW TITLE SEARCH/AUG 90 90.00 08/31/90 CITY ATTORNEY /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/04/90 47 35 49 W ### VENDOR TOTAL#################################################################### $300.00 50 1. 51 '3 S2 R BUSINESS SYSTEMS SUPPLY 00034 001— s4400-1206-4305 00465 $883.07 168441 09552 34837 54 41 GREEN BAR COMPUTER PAPER 68441 09/26/90 DATA PROCESSING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $883.08 10/04/90 55 .12 Y. '1J ### VENDOR TOTAL#################################################################### $883.07 56 56 45 60 61 R CA BEACH VOLLEYBALL ASSOC 01882 001-400-4601-4315 00067 $100.00 5053 00717 34838 62 47 DUES/T. EDISON 5053 09/17/90 COMM RESOURCES /MEMBERSHIP $0.00 10/04/90 63 64 ### VENDOR TOTAL#################################################################### $100.00 6' 67 R CALIF MUNICIPAL BUS TAX ASSOC. 00530 001-400-1207-4317 00029 $90.00 TR301 00301 34839 70 70 •3 CONF REG/M. FEHSKENS TR301 09/25/90 BUS LICENSE /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $0.00 10/04/90 71 72 73 74 76 • J FINANCE— J CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 6 0 .3 14 .5 16 1e '9 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 27 29 0 3. 32 J3 34 35 l6 30 39 40 43 .5' 4c 7 6 0 2 3 4 n 0 J LJ v Li V ll L U U JI y I umohNU_L157 PAGE 0009 , TIME 16:39:38 FOR 10/09/90 DATE 10/04/90 PAY VENDOR NAME • VND_# ACCOUNLNUMBFR TRN # AMOUNT INVJREF_.._____.____.__. PO_.#__...__._...CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL**********************************#+r************* r****** **********u $90. 00 R CALIF NARCOTICS OFCRS ASSOC. 01797 001-400-2101-4316 00595 $120.00 00858 TUITION/4 DETECTIVES 09/24/90 POLICE /TRAINING $0.00 34840 10/04/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $120.00 ' 9 R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-2101-4303 00011 $24.36 00910 WATER BILLINGS/SEP 90 09/30/90 POLICE /UTILITIES $0.00 34841 10/04/90 R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-3101-4303 00111 $334.83 00910 WATER BILLINGS/SEP 90 09/30/90 MEDIANS /UTILITIES $0.00 34841 10/04/90 R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-4204-4303 00411 $447.25 00910 WATER BILLINGS/SEP 90 09/30/90 BLDG MAINT /UTILITIES $0.00 34841 10/04/90 R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-6101-4304 00271 $3,204.57 00910 WATER BILLINGS/SEP 90 09/30/90 PARKS /TELEPHONE $0.00 34841 10/04/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL***************************************************u**************** $4,211.01 R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00671 180-400-2202-4201 00054 $2,010.05 4419-1 08379 HYDRANTS/3RD/4TH/5TH 419-1 09/17/90 HYDRANT UPGRADE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $2,573.00 34842 10/04/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $2,010.05 R CAM—MAR GROWERS 03412 001-400-8146-4309 00017 $1,761.37 1695 00490 PLANTS/MEDIANS 1695 09/14/90 CIP 89-146 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $1,761.37 34843 10/04/90 • *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,761.37 R CERTIFIED OFFICE EQUIPMENT 00389 001-400-2101-4305 01360 $76.33 3004/2632 00911 MISC. CHARGES/SEP 90 /2832 09/30/90 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 34844 10/03/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $76.33 R CHAMPION CHEVROLET 00014 001-400-2101-4311 00977 $103.37 124429/123890 00912 MISC. CHARGES/SEP 90 23890 09/30/90 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 34845 10/03/90 , 6 0 .3 14 .5 16 1e '9 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 27 29 0 3. 32 J3 34 35 l6 30 39 40 43 .5' 4c 7 6 0 2 3 4 n 0 J LJ v Li V ll L U U JI y I FINANCE-SFA340 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LISL PAGE._ _— 0010 • -••- ------ run 1U/VY/'IU DATE 10/04/90 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/_REF____. PO_#.___.. -___CHK_#._ DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP R CHAMPION CHEVROLET 00014 001-400-3101-4311 00019 $234.05 122931 01029 34849 SMOG CONVERTER/MEDIANS 22931 09/06/90 MEDIANS /AUTO MAINTENANCE $234.09 10/04/90 J 0 12 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $337.42 4 3 16 � R CHEVRON USA, INC. 00634 001-400-2101-4310 00279 $339.91 1417284419 00914 34846 MISC. CHARGES/SEP 90 84419 09/30/90 POLICE /MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES $0.00 10/03/90 u ID le 19 20 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $339.91 [s 22 23 24 COAST IRRIGATION R CO.00394 001-400-6101-4309 00997 $179.83 2878 01027 34847 REP JARVIS FOUNTAIN 2878 09/20/90 PARKS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $179.83 10/04/90 . 76 26 27 2s *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $179.83 I?' q 29 30 31 12 R COAST TURF & UTILITY 03590 001-400-6101-4309 00958 $3,043.68 911000659 00483 34848 SPRINKLER HEADS/PARKS 00659 09/10/90 PARKS /MAINTENANCE. MATERIALS $3.098.01 10/04/90 '3 ]4 3s 36 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $3,043.68 . .1 3n 3^ 40 R COM SYSTEMS, INC 00017 001-400-2101-4304 00667 $8.15 00323630 00917 34849 2 LONG DIST/PD/SEP 90 23630 09/18/90 POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/03/90 v 4, 44 31 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $8.15 45 .6 4, 46 R COOPERS & LYBRAND 03498 001-400-1202-4201 00233 $4,625.00 1217-000379 00185 34850 30 PROG PMT/FY 89-90 AUDIT 00379 09/17/90 FINANCE ADMIN /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/04/90 4' 52 40 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $4,625.00 41 S4 55 v: R CPRS PARK OPERATIONS 03426 001-400-4601-4316 00140 $30.00 00718 34851 "" SEMINAR RE`G/C. BELSER 10/01/90 COMM RESOURCES /TRAINING $0.00 10/04/90 .1`1, ;, .30 GO R CPRS PARK OPERATIONS 03426 110-300-0000-3302 36313 $493.00 00271 34851 17 CITATION COURT BAIL 09/27/90 /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 10/04/90 ts 6; 63 64 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $483.00 it 6'i 66 67 R DALE & BARNEY'S TELEVISION 02362 001-400-1101-4305 00333 $62.00 YL84287-& 09350 34852 53 REPAIR AUDIO RECORDER 287-& 09/18/90 CITY COUNCIL /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 10/04/90 1 b3 ,o ,, ,2 l3 5 3 J _J J CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH TIME 16:39:38 1 .,G.1"Y 1'3 1=, PAGE 0011 FOR 10/09/90 DATE 10/04/90 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACC.OUNT_NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF.._. _.._._ __ __._ PO _ # ...__....CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL *********************star**********************tray***star**************** $62.00 m ,2 _ ____ R DAMON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 03393 305-400-8142-4201 00003 $30,781.21 01051 13 34853 PAYMENT 3/SIDEWALK REP 08/24/90 SIDEWALK REPAIR /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/04/90 IA is 13 t., *** VENDOR TOTAL*******•**************•******************************************u**** $30, 781. 21 ,, " o 20 R DATA SAFE 00156 001-400-1206-4201 00763 $236.00 2, 17 ,a 51225 00015 34854 TAPE STORAGE/TO OCT 11 51225 09/18/90 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/03/90 22 23 24 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $236.00 25 2 26 21 27 26 R CINDY*DE VRIES 03652 001-210-0000-2110 03910 $50.00 29 05121 00572 34855 30 ANIMAL TRAP REFUND 05121 09/27/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 10/04/90 , 2•, 32 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 33 ]4 35 36 R DIVE N' SURF 00604 001-400-2201-4309 00965 $10.50 198440/197027 00923 34856 J1 3^ MISC CHARGES/SEP 90 97027 09/30/90 FIRE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 10/03/90 35 n •:o 1 32 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $10.50 42 l3 43 . R DIXIE USA, INC. 03326 001-400-2201-5401 00026 $104.90 216066 11235 34857 4G 35 BLOOD PRESSURE CUFFS 16066 09/11/90 FIRE /EQUIP—LESS THAN $500 $99.90 10/04/90 4. 3G :03 3 3.3 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $104.90 ,; si 39 57 '" R DUNCAN INDUSTRIES 00122 110-400-3302-4309 00709 $934.69 P000993-0 00256 34858 , '" PARKING METER PARTS 993-0 09/28/90 PARKING ENF /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $958.23 10/04/90 so .12 5G '1'*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $934.69 A 59 6i R EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY 02840 001-400-1208-4201 00692 $357.74 006M74452 00725 34859 62 47 COPIER METER USE/JULY 90 74452 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/03/90 63 M .09/09/90 6a R EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY 02840 001-400-1208-4305 00815 $171.87 013B42813 00183 34859 TONER/IBM COPIER 42813 09/25/90 GEN APPROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $171.87 10/04/90 6. . 70 5l 7, .2 m .J w • J.0wk • • ^ 8 K i0 7 '+ ... - I. .f i'1'. J q 0, .. �: .4. .fi•(.. C '' - 1 a! ,SN-°�. J J J J J J J J J L/ 14J 1,20 d' 2 2 J 3 3% 38 33 .11 .12 6t - 4 .6A CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 'ItnANU_ .1,- r PAGE 0012 TIME 16:39:38 FOR 10/09/90 DATE 10/04/90 PAY VENDOR NAME VND# ACCOUN_LNUMBE_R TRN * AMOUNT INVIREF PO_*.__—_CHK_p ' DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL************************************************tt*atitarttat#tri ***astir**** $529.61 R EASTMAN, INC. 02514 001-400-1208-4305 00813 $386.52 00925 MISC OFC SUPP/STOCK/SEP 09/30/90 GEN APPROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 4 34860 10/03/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $386.52 R EASY READER 00181 001-400-1121-4323 00110 $1,324.61 0268 00627 PUBLIC NOTICING/AUG 90 0268 08/31/90 CITY CLERK /PUBLIC NOTICING $0.00 34861 10/04/90 R EASY READER 00181 001-400-1203-4201 00706 $25.40 0268 00827 EMPLOYMENT ADS/AUG 90 0268 08/31/90 PERSONNEL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 34861 10/04/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,350.01 R ELEK—TEK,'INCORPORATED 02338 001-400-1206-4305 00464 $984.60 604468 09547 LASERJET TONER CARTRIDGE 04468 08/31/90 DATA PROCESSING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $1.059.30 34862 10/04/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $984.60 R EMBASSY SUITES CAMELHEAD 03658 001-400-2201-4317 00054 $82.69 TR302 00302 HOTEL/L. LICKHALTER TR302 . 09/26/90 FIRE /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $0.00 34863 10/04/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $82.69 R STEPHEN B.*FESUK 03654 001-210-0000-2110 03914 $250.00 00327 11035 BANNER DEPOSIT REFUND 00527 . 09/27/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 34864 10/04/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $250.00 R FRANKLIN PRODUCTS 03247 001-400-2201-4305 00396 $53.28 F1-11175 11231 FIRE PREY. WEEK STICKERS 11175 09/19/90 FIRE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $53.00 34865 10/04/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************* $53.28 < R GOODHEW AMBULANCE SERVICE 01910 001-400-2101-4201 00656 $298.50 001-586150-101 00941 PRISONER AMBULANCE SERV 0-101 09/06/90 POLICE • /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 34866 10/04/90 3 6 0 12 '3 14 15 I6 50 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 23 20 29 30 3' ]2 33 35 36 37 30 39 40 32 '3 36 Sn 51 52 5 9 3 6 0 2 • 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH L j TIME 16:39:38 VND # DEMAND 1 IST PAGE 3PAYVENDORJVAME FOR 10/09/90 ACO.QUNLNUMBER—LRN_# AMOUNT TNV/REF—______P0-4t-----CHK DATE UNENC 0013 10/04/90 6 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT # DATE EXP G . 7 *** VENDOR TOTAL*******************************n•i**********x******a•**************arra $298.50 8 9 w " f2 R DAVID M.*GRIFFITH & ASSOC, LTD PROG BILL/USER FEE STUDY 2 03567 09/25/90 001-400-1202-4201 00234 FINANCE ADMIN $7,750.00 2 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 00186 $0.00 i 34867 10/04/90 12 " ,14 s 13 5 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 57,750.00 16 0 19 • 17FAX 18 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED BILLING/SEP 90 —6186 00015 09/30/90 001-400-1121-4304 00334 CITY CLERK $0.46 372-6186 ./TELEPHONE 00933 $O. 00 34869 10/04/90 20 22 23 ' R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED FAX BILLING/SEP 90 —6186 00015 09/30/90 001-400-1141-4304 00356 CITY TREASURER .$1.30 372-6186 /TELEPHONE 00933 $0.00 34869 10/04/90 ?5 2G 2, .2 21 2' R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED FAX BILLING/SEP 90 —6186 00015 09/30/90 001-400-1201-4304 00376 CITY MANAGER 31.26 372-6186 /TELEPHONE 00933 50.00 34869 10/04/90 20 29 'O 3 26 • R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED FAX BILLING/SEP 90 —6186 00015 09/30/90 001-400-1202-4304 00386 FINANCE ADMIN $4.16 372-6186 /TELEPHONE . 00933 $0.00 3486933 10/04/90 32 34 32 "' 30 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED FAX BILLING/SEP 90 —6186 00015 09/30/90 001-400-1203-4304 00390 PERSONNEL $5.69 372-6186 /TELEPHONE 00933 $0.00 34869 10/04/90 36 313 39 40 ' 32 33 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED FAX BILLING/SEP 90 —6186 00015 09/30/90 001-400-1206-4304 00278 DATA PROCESSING $1.33 372-6186 /TELEPHONE 00933 $0.00 34869 10/04/90 :2 .,3 35 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 00015 09/30/90 001-400-1206-4304 00279 DATA PROCESSING 342.75 /TELEPHONE 00931 $0.00 34869 10/04/90 .14 .; 45 G 42 77R " n GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 00015 09/30/90 001-400-2101-4304 00669 POLICE 3321.75 /TELEPHONE 00931 $0.00 34869 10/04/90 50 5' 52 42 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 00015 09/30/90 001-400-2201-4304 00296 FIRE $163.63 /TELEPHONE 00931 $0.00 34869 10/04/90 ,. sG' 56 43 45 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED FAX BILLING/SEP 90 —6186 00015 09/30/90 001-400-2401-4304 00332 ANIMAL CONTROL $0.72 372-6186 /TELEPHONE 00933 $0.00 34869 10/04/90 . / .9 5 47FAX 4n R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED BILLING/SEP 90 —6186 00015 09/30/90 001-400-4101-4304 00389 PLANNING 34.78 372-6186 /TELEPHONE 00933 $0.00 34869 10/04/90 62 Gal G4 " • 50 51 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED. FAX BILLING/SEP 90 —6186 00015 09/30/90 001-400-4201-4304 00363 BUILDING 30.47 372-6166 /TELEPHONE 00933 50.00 34869 10/04/90 .•5 GG G, GO 52 3 54 ,O „G ,2 55 74 ,1 J J J J �.J / 415 u 110 r FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:39:38 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE --.0014 __ _ _. - "' ' - DATE 10/04/90 ' 1iPAY VENDOR NAME VND 5 7 9 9 +, # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT_ ' _INV/REF__________ ..___PO .#_____ _.CHK_.#__° DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION' AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4202-4304 00394 $40.03 372-6186 00933 34869 FAX BILLING/SEP 90 -6186 09/30/90w PUII WKS ADMIN /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/04/90 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4202-4304 00395 $42.78 00931 34869 TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 09/30/90 PUB WKS ADMIN /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/04/90 ,5 (; R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4601-4304 00455 $2.33 372-6186 p0933 34869 FAX BILLING/SEP 90 -6186 09/30/90 COMM RESOURCES /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/04/90 01 1' 0 ,'6 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4601-4304 00456 $42.78 00931 34869 TELE CHARGES/SEP 90 09/30/90 COMM RESOURCES /TELEPHONE $O. 00 10/04/90 29 21 2z 29 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 110-400-3302-4304 00388 $3.72 372-6186 00933 34869 FAX BILLING/SEP 90 -6186 09/30/90 PARKING ENF /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/04/90 1,1 24 z6 27 ?9 *** VENDOR TOTAL **************************** r******tri ************* r*************** r* $679. 97 , 124 .9 30 3, 32 R GTEL 01340 001-400-2101-4304 00666 $103.12 2433933 00934 34870 EQUIP RENT/AUG-SEP 90 33933 09/22/90 POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/03/90 J3 34 35 35 `'' R GTEL 01340 001-400-4202-4304 00396 $380.00 EA24873 00265 34870 ? i' TELEPHONE CHANGES/P. W. 24873 09/04/90 PUD WKS ADMIN /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/04/90 3, 37 39 39 0 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $483.12 33 42 43 R HARBOR CITY ENTERPRISES, INC. 03571 001-400-2101-4311 00981 $207.02 24398 09345 34871 5 MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/POLICE 24398 09/18/90 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 10/04/90 3'" ,G 47 49 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $207.02 9 50 5, 52 R PAUL*HAWKINS 02396 001-400-2201-4316 00253 $14.80 11239 34872 REIMB MILES/TRAINGING 09/26/90 FIRE /TRAINING $0.00 10/04/90 5, 55 55 43 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $14.80 an .15 a3 59 6O 4`' R HERMOSA ANIMAL HOSPITAL 00322 001-400-2401-4201 00255 835.00 08/24/90 00835 34873 4' MISC. CHARGES/AUG 90 24/90 08/31/90 ANIMAL CONTROL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 80.00 10/03/90 .:e z 63 64 Y, *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $35. 00 E< 67 FO R HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 00149 001-400-1206-4201 00764 $1,287.00 15M1D91 00009 34874 COMPUTER SYS MAINT/SEP90 M1D91 09/04/90 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/03/90 6, 7U 7, 72 �3 74 ,5 J ^[T v , 471,1'11 J CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH J 6 1 — ' J IRNll LIST PAGE 0015 1 TIME 16:39:38 FOR 10/09/90 DATE 10/04/90 ['AY VENDOR N9tlF VND # 3 ACCOUNT_NUMBER TRN_# AMOUNT INV/REF _—___._._p0#__—__CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 5 6 *** VENDOR TOTAL ********xiritit*ar**irirar*itarir*******ir*****hirer*irat*********a►************** r $1,287.00 9 R STOCKTON*HILTON 03659 001-400-1207-4317 00027 $140.40 TR301 00301 34875 HOTEL/M. FEHSKENS TR301 09/25/90 BUS LICENSE /CONFERENCE EXPENSE .$0.00 10/04/90 ,3 ,s I,_, , *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $140.40 h to 20 re R IMPERIAL FORMS 01258 001-400-2401-4305 00171 $264.21 1139 00252 34876 PET LIC. RENEWAL FORMS 1139 10/02/90 ANIMAL CONTROL /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $240.19 10/04/90 21 22 23 24 21 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $264.21 i zs 26 27 23 24 R INDEPENDENT CITIES RISK 01484 705-400-1210-4201 00062 $42.00 10984 34877 ADDITIONAL PROP. PREM. 09/17/90 AUTO/PROP/BONDS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/04/90 29 L9 30 3, 32 2si *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $42.00 01. 7 33 34 35 35 3 INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 02458 001-400-3104-4309 00566 $389.43 00974 34878 MISC. CHARGES/SEP 90 09/03/90 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 10/04/90 30 31 38 39 40 " R INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC ' 02458 105-400-2601-4309 00652 $127.62 49103/59-60 00974 34878 32 MISC CHARGES/SEP 90 59-60 09/30/90 STREET LIGHTING /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 10/04/90 33 n2 43 44 R INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 02458 105-400-2601-4309 00653 $681.49 49471 01003 34878 35 BOARDS/SODIUM ST LIGHTS 49471 09/04/90 STREET LIGHTING /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $681.49 10/04/90 3c 46 a6 48 ' INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 02458 105-400-2601-4309 00654 $449.21 49685 00497 34878 ST. LITE METER PARTS 49685 09/17/90 STREET LIGHTING /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $449.22 10/04/90 30 49 so s, 52 .10 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,647.75 ,t 4 2 63 s4 55 56 4' VITTORIO*JANCISI, ETAL 03655 .001-210-0000-2110 03915 . $250.00 01351 11030 34879 14 BANNER DEPOSIT REFUND 01351 09/27/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE '$0.00 10/04/90 4 53 59 co 45 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $250.00 47 48 6, 62 63 6•, n' JOBS AVAILABLE 01165 001-400-1203-4201 00707 $60.20 90-20-042 10985 34880 51 EMPLOYEE ADS/ENG. TECH. 0-042 09/25/90 PERSONNEL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/04/90 5 , 65 66 61' 66 .. 3 a 53 ro 7, 72 171/ i3 v4 '5 1 J J J J 6i v r kif FINANCE—S CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH l:, Dr1 ND LIST TIME 16:39:38FOR PAGE— 001." 10/09/90DATE PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCDUN_LNUMBER 10/04/90 CHK_.tk Z 3 a 5 6 7 TRN_# T DESCRIPTION AMOUNT INVJ_REF _ ____..PO_# DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 6 9 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 560. 20 a 10 R PAUL*JOHNSON 03650 001-210-0000-2110 03912 $100.00 02626 00574 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND 02626 09/27/90 /DEPDSITS/WORK GUARANTEE50.00 34881 10!04/90 12 13 4 s " *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $100.00 6 17 ,8 9 '" R SHERRIA*LAWRENCE 03044 001-400-1207-4316 00055 $28.61 REIMB BOOKS/FALL 1990 09/27/90 BUS LICENSE /TRAINING 11034 $0.00 34882 10/04/90 29 22 z� ., *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 528.61 24 25 26 27 '- 2a R LAWSON PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED 00076 105-400-2601-4309 00655 $140.52 VANDAL PROOFING BOX SUPP 19186 09/10/90 STREET LIGHTING /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 0519186 01016 5138.07 34883 10/04/90 25 29 30 3, 2736 R LAWSON PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED 00076 160-400-3102-4309 00330 $140.52 VANDAL PROOFING BOX SUPP 19186 09/10/90 SEWER/ST DRAIN /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 0519186 01016 $136.07 34883 10/04/90 32 3] ]a ]s .8 22 30 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 5281.04 37 3B 39 40 31 32 33 R LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 02505 001-400-1101-4317 00369 $110.00 CONF REG/K. MIDSTOKKE TR315 10/01/90 CITY COUNCIL /CONFERENCE EXPENSE TR315 00315 $0.00 34884 10/04/90 a2 a, _^ 35 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $110.00 a, 46 a7 a6 J7 19 39 R LEARNED LUMBER 00167 001-400-4204-5401 00012 $187.87 BELT SANDER/PUBLIC WORKS 63005 • 09/24/90 BLDG MAINT/EQUIPMENT—LESS THAN 5500 B63005 01032 $187.87 34885 10/04/90 45 5, 52 .:o 41 42 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $187.87 5] a ss 56 43 as a5 R LEE*LICKHALTER 00665 001-400-2201-4317 00053 $100.00 PER DIEM/SAFER CONF TR302 09/26/90 FIRE /CONFERENCE EXPENSE TR302 00302 $0.00 34886 10/04/90 '/ 59 w "' '17 66 R LEE*LICKHALTER 00665 001-400-2201-4317 00055 563.00 AIRFARE/SAFER CONFERENCE TR302 ,09/26/90 FIRE /CONFERENCE EXPENSE TR302 00302 50.00 34886 10/04/90 c2 63 66 a6 5 0 51 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $163.00 6 66 67 5.: 53 a R LIFE ASSIST 03596 001-400-2201-5401 00025 $876.57 81624/82031 11236 RESCUE SUITS/FIRE DEPT 82031 09/20/90 FIRE /EQUIP—LESS THAN $500 $880.69 3488769 10/04/90 70 7, 22 \ 75 J CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH J • l GTll]IVLI_L1.-L PAGE 0017 TIME 16:39:38 FOR 10/09/90 DATE 10/04/90 PAY VENDOR NAME VND_# AC.C.OUNT_.NUMBER__TRN 5 AMOUNT INV/REF.___....._...____...._P0.. 4 #___..._..CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 5 0 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** *876.57 9 i0 12 ° R COUNTY OF*L0S ANGELES 03648 001-400-2101-4316 00596 5310.00 80418 00949 34888 TRAINING COURSE/COCHRAN 80418 09/19/90 POLICE /TRAINING '50.00 10/04/90 13 15. 16 3 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $310.00 ,, ie 19 20 17 10 R LOS ANGELES UNIF. SCHOOL DIST. 03649 001-400-2101-4305 01362 5185.00 00944 34889' D.A.R.E. MATERIALS 09/27/90 210004 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 50.00 10/04/90 21 22 23 24 2 1 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $185.00 _' 26 2I 26 e2 23 24 R M & W ELECTRIC 01119 001-400-4204-4309 01761 596.98 177372 01035 34890 RESTROOM MOTOR/CITY HALL 77372 09/19/90 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 5100.00 10/04/90 29 30 31 32 25 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 596.98 G 2I) 33 34 39 36 3., R MANERI SIGN CO., INC. 01255 001-400-6101-4309 00956 589.67 3456 01001 34891 GREENBELT SIGNS 3456 09/21/90 PARKS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 589.67 10/04/90 3' 30 39 33 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 589.67 41 z 43 3'1 35 35 R MANHATTAN CAR WASH 01146 001-400-2101-4311 00978 $167.45 00843 34892 MISC. CHARGES/JUL-AUG 90 09/19/90 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE 50.00 10/03/90 46 4I .6 31 33 35 R MANHATTAN CAR WASH 01146 001-400-4101-4311 00117 515.40 00843 34892 MISC. CHARGES/JUL-AUG 90 09/19/90 PLANNING /AUTO MAINTENANCE 50.00 10/03/90 .4 61 52 40 .12 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** *182.855.1 94 55 G6 .13 45 R MANHATTAN FORD 00605 001-400-2101-4311 00979 *525.73 1480 00921 34893 EXHAUST SYSTEM SERV/PD 1480 08/24/90 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE 5525.21 10/04/90 o n 45i '1' r.0 MANHATTAN FORD 00605 001-400-2101-4311 00980 *426.90 1480 00917 34893 VEHICLE COMP REPAIR/PD 1480 .08/24/90 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE *427.42 10/04/90 i 62 63 64 . 51 R MANHATTAN FORD 00605 105-400-2601-4311 00184 *9.20 108130 00944 34893 MISC CHARGES/SEP 90 08130 09/30/90 STREET LIGHTING /AUTO MAINTENANCE 50.00 10/04/90 6, 66 G1 GP 3 5.1 O )1 72 ti: .J v vJ W 541 FINANCE—SFA3 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH .J J TIME 16:39:38 RAGE ____001890 FOR910/09590 DATE 10/04/90 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNLNUMER_7RN 2 , 0 # AMOUNT IN-V1REF DESCRIPTION _PO __#. _.._CHK_!! DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 6 . *** VENDOR TOTAL ************trot** titer*********it*********tt+t************************ *** $961. 83 R 109 R MASONRY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA 00782 001-400-4201-4316 00217 $50.00 00628 34894 PUBLICATIONS/BLDG 09/19/90 BUILDING /TRAINING $0.00 10/04/90 4 2 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 ,. 6 :6 : R MARTIN J.*MAYER 03220 001-400-1132-4201 00054 $2,685.50 00629 34895 LEGAL SERV/AUGUST 90 09/01/90 CTY PROSECUTOR:/CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/04/90 20 u 23 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** , $2.685.502 25 26 2. ' 24 R MED IMAGING ASSOC OF SO. BAY 02527 001-400-2101-4201 00655 $47.00 66255 00940 34896 PRISONER EMERG. SERVICE 66255 09/26/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/04/90 26, 29 30 3, 32 2 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $47.00 33 34 3S 36 30 R MICHAELS 03167 001-400-4601-4308 00432 $189.11 001/002/003 00945 34897 MISC. CHARGES/SEP 90 2/003 09/30/90 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS $0.00 10/03/90 31 330 0 3` 3l *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $189.11 Qo 43 ;c 5 3s R MONARCH BROOM 00084 001-400-3103-4309 01051 $264.85 7806 00947 34898 MISC CHARGES/SEP 90 7806 09/30/90 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 10/04/90 ` 36Q 4. 40 30 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $264.65 46 50 51 51 :0 .;2 R NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOC . 00399 001-400-4201-4315 00096 $75.00 M500632 00630 34899 DUES/B. GROVE 00632 08/27/90 BUILDING /MEMBERSHIP $0.00 10/04/90 53 s4 „ 66 45 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $75.00 69 co " 47 ,:0 R NEW HORIZONS 03587 001-400-2101-4316 00597 $1,500.00 18023 00907 34900 COMPUTER TRAINING/POLICE 18023 09/11/90 POLICE /TRAINING $1,547.88 10/04/90 61 63 63 6,, 4a 50 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,500.00 65 W 6. 6R R PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE 00321 001-400-2101-4304 00668 $156.55 00036 34901 COMPUTER HOOKUPS/SEP 90 09/01/90 POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 10/04/90 (.1 .0 ., .2 74 75 .J J FINANCE—SFA340 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST on ._J •J J J J J J J 1111t 16: JY: Jti FOR 10/09/90 DATE 10/04/90 PAY VENDOR NAME VND k AGOUNLNUMBER. TRN li 4 5 ) AMOUNT _INV/REF_..______..___.PO. #__._...._... CHK_..$t _ DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ N ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $156.55 9 10 " .5 6 R PACTEL CELLULAR — LA 03209 001-400-2101-4304 00670 $1,004.80 00930 34902 MOBILE PHONES/AUG—SEP 90 09/30/90 POLICE /TELEPHONE '$0.00 10/04/90 i'' *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,004.80 t6 1J ZO " R PAGENET 02487 001-400-1201-4201 00098 $11.30 1014234 00049 34903 • ') PAGING SERV/OCT 90 14234 10/01/90 CITY MANAGER /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/04/90 6 T 22 23 24 R PAGENET 02487 001-400-2101-4307 00241 $183.00 1014234 00049 34903 :; PAGING SERV/OCT 90 14234 10/01/90 POLICE • /RADIO MAINTENANCE $0.00 10/04/90 zo 2) 20 R PAGENET. 02487 001-400-2401-4201 00236 $11.30 1014234 00049 34903 `' PAGING SERV/OCT 90 14234 10/01/90 ANIMAL CONTROL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/04/90 2.: 30 3t 32 R PAGENET 02487 001-400-4202-4201 00283 511.30 1014234 00049 34903 PAGING SERV/OCT 90 14234 10/01/90 PUB WKS ADMIN /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/04/90 33 34 36 _6 .8 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $219.30 i0 37 36 39 40 11 R PAK WEST 00319 001-400-4204-4309 01758 $44.64 724919 00951 34904 MISC CHARGES/SEP 90 24919 09/30/90 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 10/04/90 t .12 43 4•: *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $44.64 ]5 ' 46 47 40 ' R PEP BOYS 00608 001-400-2201-4311 00364 $11.87 70454 00953 34905 " MISC CHARGES/SEP 90 70454 • 09/30/90 FIRE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 10/03/90 50 .7,, *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $11.67 ` 2 JI sa 55 I ] R PETER'S NURSERIES 02367 001-400-4601-4308 00435 $26.69 4217 00707 34906 '14 PRIZES/"ADOPT—A—BEACH" 4217 09/20/90 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS $26.69 10/04/90 5 sa =0 GO 46 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $26.69 4) ,..6• e 63 64 `" R PROF COMMUNICATIONS INSTALLERS 02926 001-400-2101-4311 00976 $376.60 00954 34907 MISC CHARGES/SEP 90 09/30/90 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 10/03/90 6 666 6) 6" v t )0 )1 )2 /3 )4 75 )y ._J •J J J J J J J FINANCE— CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH r. ♦. ' o " TIME PAY 16:39:38 VENDOR NAME VND # DEMAND LIST PAGE ___D020 10/04/90 DATE EXP 6 FOR 10/09/90 ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INVLREF PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION DATE __._PO_#_..._—_.CHK._.#_ AMOUNT UNENC DESCRIPTION DATE INVC *** VENDOR TOTAL +ttr*****a*****atitjt****iter****attratitt�-tt*u-trir*tf�rtr*tr+ttratit-ait*****x•+ttr-a-tr*tris******* $376. 60 9 to R RADIO SHACK MISC CHARGES/SEP 90 30843 01429 09/30/90 001-400-2201-4309 00966 FIRE $63.94 30705/30843 00935 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 34908 10/03/90 lz 13 1. 4 ,6 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $63.94 16 16 - ' •9 R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO SLIDE PROJECTOR/COUNCIL 6131 00173 09/18/90 001-400-1101-5401 00007 $351.21 CITY COUNCIL /EQUIP—LESS THAN $500 6131 00469 $331. 21 34909 10/04/90 zo 21 zz 23 R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC. CHGS/AUG—SEP 90 00173 09/30/90 001-400-2101-4305 01361 POLICE $41.53 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 00956 $0.00 34909 10/03/90 24 26 226 7 '3 71 R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC. CHCS/AUG—SEP 90 00173 09/30/90 001-400-2101-4306 00870 POLICE $201.03 /PRISONER MAINTENANCE 00956 $0.00 34909 10/03/90 70 29 30 R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC. CHGS/AUG—SEP 90 00173 09/30/90 001-400-4101-4305 00466 PLANNING $66.72 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 00956 $O. 00 34909 10/03/90 32 J3 3` 36 R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MI5C. CHGS/AUG—SEP 90 00173 09/30/90 001-400-4201-4305 00602 IIUILDING $25.09 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 00956 $0.00 34909 10/03/90 36 37 38 30 `? 42 ' if R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO 00173 001-400-4601-4305 00873 $50.17 00956 MISC. CHGS/AUG—SEP 90 09/30/90 COMM RESOURCES /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $O.00 34909 10/03/90 I.' 1� 3C *** VENDOR TOTAL*a-****************************************************#*************$735.75• ^6 46 41 ,s L„ 1,R R CITY OF*REDONDO BEACH FINAL HOUSING REHAB COST 03282 • 08/24/90 140-202-0000-2020 00010 $30.778.11 /ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 10864 $0.00 34910 10/03/90 43 4 sl s, CITY OF*REDONDO BEACH 03282 140-400-4701-4201 00009 $8,831.14 FINAL HOUSING REHAB COST 08/24/90 HOUSING REHAB /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 10864 $0.00 34910 10/03/90 ,'3 4 66 58 60 60 . *** VENDOR TOTAL ***************************************************** -a•************** $39.609.25 �, 13 R RMRS SYSTEMS POSTAGE METER RESET 96518 00300 09/18/90 001-400-1208-4305 00814 GEN APPROP $2,000.00 10596518 08034 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 34911 10/04/90 b1 662 3 64 10 r. 51 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $2,000.00 6s 66 67 69 R ROADLINE PRODUCTS SPRAY GUN PARTS 1088 02914 09/24/90 001-400-3104-4309 00565 TRAFFIC SAFETY $184.03 1088 01002 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $184.04 34912 10/04/90 6' 70 71 72 73 74 7s 7; J J J J FINANCE—SEA34O CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH • p J J J J J J J J J F TIME mita , 1U21 8 FOR 10/09/90 DATE 10/04/90 PAY VENDOR_IAMF VND # ACCDUNT_NUMBER TRN_A z\ 3 AMOUNT TNVJ_REF ___.-___—___PO_#_ _.CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROD # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP S 6 r. *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************* r********it****it****it***** $184.03 ' ,o n I' R LAWRENCE*RUSSELL 03651 001-210-0000-2110 03911 $100.00 03831' 00573 34913 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND 03831 09/27/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $000 10/04/90 . ,z 13 15 6 I'I IS 1 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $100.00 e ,9 22 " Iq R ED*RUZAK & ASSOCIATES 01578 001-400-3104-4201 00064 $1,212.50 90251 01037 34914 ENGINEERING SERV/AUG 90 90251 09/01/90 TRAFFIC SAFETY;/CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/04/90 Tz 23 24 VI ,1 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,212.5025 z6 z3 26 '2 .4 R S. A. ASSOCIATES 03339 105-400-2601-4201 00047 $1,403.34 3 00471 34915 SERV/ST LITE ASSESSMENT 3 08/01/90 STREET LIGHTING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/04/90 23 30 3, 32 R S. A. ASSOCIATES 03338 155-400-2102-4201 00067 $1,103.33 3 00471 34915 SERV/CR GUARD ASSESSMENT 3 08/01/90 CROSSING GUARD /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/04/90 33 35 35 , 21 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $2,506.67 3f' 30 39 40 J1 32 31 l3 R S. A. F. E. R 03070 001-400-2201-4317 00056 $20. 00 TR3O2 00302 34916 • CONF. REG/L. LICKHALTER TR3O2 09/26/90 FIRE /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $0.00 10/04/90 41 az 43 34 . 1 , *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $20.00 :5 ab 4) <0 1' 39 R SACRED LIGHT TEMPLE 03657 001-300-0000-3405 01021 $125.00 03778 00712 34917 ROOM RENTAL REFUND 03778 09/17/90 /COMM CTR RENTALS $0.00 10/04/90 49 so 5, 52 e 2 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $125.00 53 55 56 ." 5 R SAFEWAY SIGN COMPANY 00021 001-400-3104-4309 00562 $83.27 39131 01005 34918 "BUCKLE—UP" SIGNS 39131 09/26/90 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $83.27 10/04/90 S1 59 50 •' 47 R SAFEWAY SIGN COMPANY 00021 001-400-3104-4309 00563 $360.28 39110 00495 34918 "NO PARKING" SIGNS 39110 09/19/90 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $360.29 10/04/90 b: 63 6,, "' `'0 51 R SAFEWAY SIGN COMPANY 00021 001-400-3104-4309 00564 3752.59 39132 00446 34918 TRAFFIC INFORMATION SIGN 39132 09/27/90 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $750.83 10/04/90 66 62 o •- 5 3 • 65 ]6 n n 56 61 n vn 75 '% J J J J J J J J J F FINANCE—SFA340 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND_L1.ST: 0022 .1.11, .p. J7. JO FOR 10/09/90 DATE 10/04/90 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER e 0 TRN_*. AMOUNT CNV/REF_.__.__—_..__PO..#___.____CHK_#_-- DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP • *** VENDOR TOTAL ********ata*****it**it**tt******* stn*******ttitirjt****tt+t*at*at+ritit*it*trat*e ***stn $1, 196. 14 ' w ,5 R SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 00151 001-202-0000-2020 01113 $228.70 30118 00035 34919 PRISONER FEES/MAY 90 30118 09/20/90 /ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $0.00 10/03/90 R SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 00151 001-400-2101-4306 00867 342.39CR 30118 .00035 34919 PRISONER FEES/MAY 90 30118 09/20/90 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE $0.00 10/03/90 1e ,. *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $186.31 zl 22 23 24 R F.A.*SHERRY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 03644 160-400-3102-4309 00529 $48.04 32750 01043 34920 IWELDER/STORM DRAIN EMERG 32750 09/29/90 SEWER/ST DRAIN /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $48.04 10/04/90 2.!I 2' 27 20 *** VENDOR TOTAL.******************************************************************** $48.0429 I.' 3, 32 R SINCLAIR PAINT CO. 01399 001-400-4204-4309 01759 $49.59 25-82792 00959 34921 MISC CHARGES/SEP 90 82792 09/30/90 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 10/04/90 fill 33 34 3s x �u m *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $49.59 ' R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-2101-4306 00871 $116.01 00960 34922 MISC. CHARGES/SEP 90 09/30/90 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE $0.00 10/03/90 3; ,3 44 R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-4601-4308 00433 $164.73 00960 34922 MISC. CHARGES/SEP 90 09/30/90 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS $0.00 10/03/90 35m m 4' n *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $280.74 m 3., so 51 52 " R SOUTH BAY HOSPITAL 00107 001-400-2101-4201 00634 $677.44 00938 34923 41 BLOOD ALCOHOL TESTS 09/24/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/04/90 4? S3 ss s6 .0 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $677.44 A se GO R SOUTH BAY JUVENILE DIVERSION 01731 001-400-2101-4251 00327 $3.000.00 00933 34924 '1' ANNUAL PMT PER CONTRACT .09/19/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 10/04/90 G, 52 63 6. :, *** VENDOR TOTAL********************n*********************************************** $3,000.00 so 5•, Gs 67 s R STATE OF CALIFORNIA 00364 001-400-2101-4251 00326 $32.75 886037 00023 34925 `13 FINGERPRINT APPS/AUG 90 86037 09/18/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 10/04/90 ..1 4J vo ,1 z ,3 74 ,s 'a J FINANCE=SEA140 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH OEMAND_LIST J Is TIME FOR 10/09/90 ' ___—_PAY V_ENDOR_NAME VND # ACCDUNT_NUMBER_TRN AMOUNT r.svc 4-IV13 DATE 10/04/90 CHK..#.— AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP e ) .# INV/REF_.___..__..__._.._PO.$....__.__ DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $32.75 9 io R LYNN A.*TERRY 03061 305-400-8137-4316 00001 $29.10 MONTHLY EXP/AUG 90 08/31/90 CIP 85-137 /TRAINING 01033 $0.00 4 34926 13 10/04/90 ,5 s *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $291. 10 ,e i.) 29 _' 5 R TEXTILE RESOURCES 02825 001-400-4601-4308 00434 $82.24 AFTER SCHOOL PROG SUPP. 5769 09/27/90 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS 5769 00709 $82.24 34927 ;; 10/04/90 23 24 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $82.24 r; 26 27 20 ' `3 R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY 00124 001-400-4204-4309 01763 $124.35 VALLEY PARK/TOILET REP. 7489H 08/06/90 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 37489H 00482 $1.124.35 34928 o 10/04/90 3, 32 *** VENDOR TOTAL4******************************************************************* . $124.35 34 35 3G ^ R CITY OF*TORRANCE 00841 001-400-2101-4251 00325 $75.00 MISC. CHARGES/SEP 90 01821 09/13/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT 101821 00068 $0.00 34929 3, 36 10/03/90 3i Ap 31 32 33 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $75.00 4, n2 ^, m R TORRANCE NISSAN 00125 170-400-2103-4201 00063 $300.00 35 RENTAL PAYMENT/SEP 90 09/19/90 SPEC INVESTGTNS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 36 00066 $0.00 34930 45 4G 10/03/90 4) 3> *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $300.00 30 -) 45 50 50 si 5.2 '`3 R TRIMEN SALES, INC. 00119 001-400-4205-4310 00168 $174.96 `'' TRANSMISSION FLUID/STOCK 56196 09/19/90 EQUIP SERVICE /MOTOR FUELS AND LUDES n2 156196 01022 $174.97 34931 54 10/04/90 so 56 43 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $174.96 4., .15 90 53 CA t5 R UNIFORCE CORPORATION 01720 001-400-1206-4201 00765 $1,006.00 '') SOFTWARE MAINT/OCT—DEC90 00497 ;09/20/90 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 900497 00074 $0.00 34932 52 10/04/90 53 54 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1.006.00 55 St 55 65 6) (Jr '.2 R UNION WAR SURPLUS 03656 155-400-2102-4187 00076 $42.17 53 CROSSING GUARD UNIFORMS 21077 09/05/90 CROSSING GUARD /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 54 21077 00269 $0.00 34933 G. >o 10/04/90 >, :. 56 J )4 )5 J Is CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH EINFNC.E=5EA340 DEMAND_LISL T7MF 1f • 79• 7A FOR 10/09/90 DATE 10/04/90 PAY VENDOR NAME G , 8 ,0 11 VND # ACCOUNT_NUMBERTRN._#. AMOUNT INV/REF___.____....__ DESCRIPTION -._..PO. #. __..._._ CHK_ .#____^_ DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP ! *** VENDOR TOTAL**********#*****•n•rt*********sr*tr***** rtrtr*******a•#*#**sr#**•x**#•n•******** $42. 17 R URBAN FORESTRY CONSULTANTS 03647 001-400-4202-4316 00154 $45,00 SEMINAR REG/ANTICH 010.0 0/04/ 09/19/90 PUB WKS ADMIN /TRAINING 20.00 10/04/90 s R URBAN FORESTRY CONSULTANTS 03647 001-400-4601-4317 00116 i., $45.00 P1038 34934 SEMINAR REG/ROONEY 09/19/90 COMM RESOURCES /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $0.00 10/04/90 16 19 1.7 *** VENDOR TOTAL•n*#*x***************##***********tr***********•a-***a****************** $90.00 • Ri 20 21 22 23 21 R USA PRESS 03622 001-400-1203-4201 00708 $170.00 10979 34935 EMPLOYEE AD/ENG TECH 09/25/90 PERSONNEL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $170.00 10/04/90 24 20 2G 27 2(1 :4 *** VENDOR TOTAL.*************************************************+I*+r***•ef********at*** $170. 00 30 31 :' R VALLEN SAFETY SUPPLY COMPANY 01934 001-400-2201-4309 00967 $74.57 2512545 00971 34936 MISC. CHARGES/SEP 90 12545 09/30/90 FIRE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 10/04/90 34 3, VENDOR TOTAL #***n *t***in uir sa�rn t t t t t t rin ir �riia ai#rir 274.57 73** 38f:• 39 31 •` ,3 R VERNON PAVING COMPANY 00019 001-400-3103-4309 01052 $201.20 16565 00972 34937 MISC. CHARGES/SEP 90 16565 09/30/90 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 10/04/90 11 42 .3 ,, 3 ; *** VENDOR TOTAL ***'J'*sr***************#******************************** r************ $201. 20 aG 4] M 1' ° R WAXIE 03632 001-400-4204-4309 01760 $677.24 5956271 01017 34938 JANITORIAL SUPP/STOCK 56271 . 09/24/90 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $697.53 10/04/90 43 50 5, 42 *** VENDOR TOTAL ***********************u-tr*******************itit+r+titi►irir*********it***** $677. 24 5.3 `" so '`3 o.1 R WHITLOW EMERGENCY MEDICAL GRP 03457 001-400-2101-4201 00652 $65.00 325-906264 00392 34939 EMERG. PRISONER SERVICES 06264 08/17/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 40.00 10/04/90 •;,, so 60 •"' .q R WHITLOW EMERGENCY MEDICAL GRP 03457 001-400-2101-4201 00653 $65.00 325-906493 00937 34939 EMERG PRISONER SERVICES 06493 09/04/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 10/04/90 61 G2 L3 LA 49 so *** VENDOR TOTAL ##*****trt ******** •*************************** ********************** $130. 00 S LI Ln s, R WORKFORCE 2000 03661 001-400-1203-4316 00186 $35.00 10987 34940 SEMINAR REG/R. BLACKWOOD 10/04/90 PERSONNEL /TRAINING $0.00 10/04/90 1, 1 ,L 71' ]2 N ]a J Y.' FINANCE=SEA34_O CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND_LLST DATE Ov I lint 16:JY:3B RAY VENDOR NAMF VND # FOR 10/09/90 ACCOUNT_NUMBER TRN._# AMOUNT _--- DATE 10/04/90 PO..# ....._ ._.CHK #_ AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 1 \ a 7 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC ..INV/REF___.....______.._ PROJ Si ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL ********;rpt****************************************eta**************** X35. 00 ' n 1 t R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-1208-6900 00264 $321.83 326983666 00020 34941 12 LEASE PMT/OCT 90 83666 10/01/90 GEN APPROP /LEASE PAYMENTS $0.00 10/03/90 IG 1.1 R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-1208-6900 00263 $238.72 526983665 X00021 34941 ,e LEASE PMT/OCT 90 83665 10/01/90 GEN APPROP /LEASE PAYMENTS $0.00 10/03/90 le 20 15 i7 R XEROX CORPORATION LEASE PMT/OCT 90 83662 00135 10/01/90 001-400-2201-6900 00129 FIRE $47.74 /LEASE PAYMENTS 526983662 00026 $0.00 34941 10/03/90 22 23 m 24 10 R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-2401-6900 00074 $56.15 25 LEASE PAYMENT/OCT 526983663 00024 34941 2c . i 90 B3663 10/01/90 ANIMAL CONTROL /LEASE PAYMENTS $0.00 10/03/90 27 2e R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-4601-6900 00073 $189.65 526983664 00025 34941 30 :3 LEASE PMT/OCT 90 83664 10/01/90 COMM RESOURCES /LEASE PAYMENTS $0.00 10/03/90 3, 32 R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 110-400-3302-6900 00159 $114.40 526963663 00024 J3 25 LEASE PAYMENT/OCT 90 83663 10/01/90 PARKING ENF /LEASE PAYMENTS $0.00 34941 10/03/90 34 35 35 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $968. 49 3730 30 40 3i MICHAEL J.*ZIPPI 03653 001-300-0000-3115 03061 $164.00 07071 11037 34942 v J2 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 07071 09/27/90 /BUSINESS LICENSE $0.00 10/04/90 '3 3. :s MICHAEL J.*ZIPPI 03653 001-300-0000-3207 01137 $25.00 05981 11037 34942 :c BLDG INSPECTION REFUND 05981 09/27/90 /OCCUPANCY PERMITS $0.00 10/04/90 ,,... rn 3; *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $189.00 ., 113 30 52 4'' ,. R ZUMAR INDUSTRIES 01206 001-400-3104-4309 00561 $3,399.99 2182 01024 34943 y 41 STREET SIGNS/POSTS 2182 09/21/90 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $3,399.99 10/04/90 -- 42 5. .13 *** VENDOR TO 'AL ******************************************************************** $3,399.99 50 50 •. GO *** PAY CODE TOTAL****************************************************************** $154,285.46 62 47 63 40 64 :9 *** TOTAL WARRANTS****************************************************************** $169,091.13 G' G5 50 67 5, 1—HEREBY—CERTIFY—THAT'THE"DEMANOS�--DR`CLAIMS CM COVERED BY LISTED ON PAGES / c7 70 s, THE WARRANTS 53 WARRANT Tc7OO�471CLUSIVE OF THE1 s� /� REGISTER FOR___LOI /qD ARE ACCURATE n °2 ,,4 ANE FEIN ARE AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENT. THEREOF! ,3 74 56 BY 75 FINANCE ADMIN TRATOR . .. 7% DATE Ov I 4 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council October 23, 1990 October 3, 1990 City Council Meeting of October 11, 1990 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Responsible Agent Quarterly review of CIPs - thru September 30, 1990 RFP for Street Lighting/Crossing Guard Assessment Districts Loreto Plaza amendment to agreement Amendment to the ICRMA liability program to allow participation of Costa Mesa, El Segundo, & Upland Conceptual approval of Greenbelt steps Final report of Cable TV Board Approval of a joint powers agreement for compliance with AB939 - State Recycling Law Ordinance for new Chapter 19 of HBMC entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic" Abatement procedure for structures in right-of-way - north Hermosa Ave. 5/3 Energy Conservation report Public Hearing Text amendment to allow outdoor display in commercial zones Expediting City Council meetings Appeal of Planning Commission decision re. C.U.P. at 1081- 85-87 Aviation Blvd. Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Risk Manager Public Works Director General Services Director Building Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Building Director Planning Director City Manager Planning Director November 13, 1990 Presentations of donations - 1) landscaping by Women's Club 2) hearing impaired telephone by Kiwanis/Optimist Clubs Report on Biltmore referendum validation Award construction contract for basketball courts 8/14 Municipal Pier modifications Street rehabilitation, call for bids, CIP 89-141 Award of bid for truck with utility body Sale of FAU funds Designation of LACTC as County Congestion Management Agency Pedestrian jogger crossing mid - block at Greenbelt intersection Fee recommendations resulting from User Fee Study Slurry sealing, call for bids CIP 89-170 Review of 4 - 10 schedule Public Hearing Land Use Plan change re. Biltmore Site November 27, 1990 Award of contract, Sanitary Sewers, Target Area 4, CIP 88-406 Award of contract, Inspection, Sanitary Sewers, Target Area 4 CIP 88-406 Status after 1 yr. of sidewalk cleaning and scrubbing December , 1990 City Clerk Public Works Director Community Resources Dir. Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Finance Director Public Works Director Personnel Director Planning Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director I.! Project Touch lease agreement Community Resources Dir. January 8, 1991 7/30 6 mo. review of Farmers' market Community Resources Dir. January 22, 1991 7/24 Review Rule XV & parking fees for employees in 6 months Personnel Director Annual report and review of City Goals City Manager March 12, 1991 Historical Society relocation alternatives Community Resources Dir. Utilization of Prospect School House Community Resources Dir. ***************************************************************** Upcoming Items Not Yet Calendared Caltrans utility maintenance agrmt. Public Works Director Vehicle parking on pedestrian streets Public Works Director Historic Preservation Ordinance (with Land Use Element) Planning Director ***************************************************************** Initiated by Party Date Council 5/8 Discuss financial arrangements on oil project City Mgr. Council 5/8 Re. oil project CUP - define "temporary" as relates to height of project Planning Dir. Goal 2 5/16 Options to direct dial to City Hall Gen. Svcs. Dir. Goal 4 5/16 Options to computerize per- sonnel as part of payroll function Finance Dir. Goal 8 5/16 Options to increasing service level of street sweeping Public Works Dir. City Mgr. 7/24 3 -hr. vs. 2 -hr. parking meter limit in the downtown Gen. Svc. Dir. (refer to VPD) City Mgr. 8/20 Gann limit - Appropriations subject to Council 8/14 Review of standard CUP conditions Council 8/14 Obtain consultant's review of Cable Co. ascertainment Council 8/14 Review ways to enforce no parking in front yards City Mgr. 8/22 Joint meeting with Chamber of Commerce City Mgr. 9/4 Recommendation on Council Chamber chairs Finance Director Planning Dir. Gen. Svc. Dir. Planning Dir. City Manager Finance Director Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council October 2, 1990 City Council Meeting of October 9, 1990 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT OF INACTIVE PUBLIC DEPOSITS FOR HERMOSA BEACH Attached is a report of all Inactive Public Deposits for the month of September 1990. Respectfully submitted, ,Z/ 77112V2V Gary Bruts h City Treasurer NOTED: Kevin Northcraft City Manager 1d INSTITUTION INVESTMENT REPORT - SEPTEMBER 1990 TOTAL DATE OF INVESTMENT DATE OF MATURITY INTEREST LAIF BALANCE 9/01/90 $2,510,000.00 Investment 300,000.00 9/04/90 Investment 900,000.00 9/18/90 Withdrawal <200,000.00> Investment 100,000.00 9/27/90 BALANCE 9/30/90 9/19/90 $3,610,000.00 8.382% LACPIF Railroad Right -of -Way Account BALANCE 9/01/90 Withdrawal BALANCE 9/30/90 $ 336,188.77 138,739.84 474,928.61 8.42% CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT: Union Federal S&L Investment $ 500,000.00 CORPORATE NOTES: Ford Motor Credit Co. Investment $ 500,000.00 U.S. TREASURY BOND: Investment Investment $ 500,937.94 $ 499,326.42 2/22/90 5/19/88 2/21/91 8.10% 5/20/93 9.10% 2/22/89 1/31/91 1/03/90 12/31/91 9.20% 7.71% Investment $1,001,542.12 3/06/90 2/29/92 8.50% Investment $ 500,845.79 3/08/90 2/29/92 8.50% Investment $ 999,492.83 4/20/90 3/31/92 8.763% Investment $1,019,779.01 5/14/90 2/15/93 8.49% Investment $1,023,029.89 9/14/90 6/30/94 8.50% FHLMC: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. Investment $ 248,733.64 3/26/87 3/1/17 8.0% INVESTMENT TOTAL $10,878,616.25 SEATTLE 1ST NATL. BANK TRUST BALANCE 8/01/90 $ 516,905.08 Adjustment 446,188.72 BALANCE 8/31/90 TICOR TITLE INSURANCE CO. BALANCE 6/30/90 BALANCE 6/30/90 TRUSTEE TOTAL GRAND TOTAL 963,093.80 8.625% $ 10,711.04 10,711.04 $ 527,616.12 $12,369,326.17 Respectfully Submitted, Gary Brut h City Treasurer f, .47 -a 7.5% Octobe 1, 1990 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the Regular Meeting of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL October 9, 1990 SUBJECT: FINAL MAP #21270 (C.U.P. CON NO. 89-13) LOCATION: 704 FIRST PLACE APPLICANT(S): L & M ASSOCIATES INC. AND BILL JUCKES DEVELOPMENT INC. REQUEST: TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP FOR A 2 - UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Parcel Map #21270 which is consistent with the approved Tentative Parcel Map, and recommends the City Clerk be directed to endorse the certificate for said map. Background The Planning Commission approved their July 5, 1989 meeting. Tentative Parcel Map #21270 at Analysis The staff has reviewed the Final Map and found it substantially consistent with the Tentative Parcel Map approved by the Planning Commission and in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act. Respectfully submitted, CONCUR: '7 Michael `SChubach Planning Director • </- j,�/ / j ", sF7 'Kevin B. Norttycraft City Manager T/srfinmap Ken Robertson Associate Planner le r- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #21270 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 704 FIRST PLACE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on October 9, 1990 and made the following Findings: A. This project will not violate any of the provisions of Sections 66427.1, 66474, 66474.1, and 66474.6 of the Subdivi- sion Map Act; B. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan required by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300)- of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code, or any specific plan adopted pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code; C. The development of the property in the manner set forth on the subject division of land will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity and/ or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the subject division of land; D. The approval of said map is subject to all conditions out- lined in Planning Commission Resolution P.C. No. 89-49 adop- ted after public hearing on July 5, 1989. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the -City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to the recommendation of the County Engineer, the City Council does hereby grant final approval of Parcel Map #21270 in the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, being a Subdivision of Lot 124, Walter Ransom Company's Venable Place, as recorded in Book 9, Page 150 of Maps, in the Office of the Recorder of Los Angeles, for a two -unit condominium project on land commonly known as 704 First Place, Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: VED 145. TO T/rsfinmap F PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 9th day of October, 1990. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 2 September 26, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of October 9, 1990 CONTRACT AWARD FOR AIR CONDITIONING THE JAIL AREA AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCH COMPUTER ROOM RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that 1. Award the contract Air Conditioning for a City Council: for air conditioning, CIP 89-604 to Rusher cost not to exceed $17,457, and 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the contract, and 3. Authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary within budget limitations. BACKGROUND: At the September 25, 1990 meeting, City Council approved of contract to Rusher Air Conditioning for a cost not to $9,990 for air conditioning the jail and computer room. an award exceed Staff discovered that a mistake had been made in the recommendation and that the cost stated in the original agenda item was for the jail area only. The cost for the computer room was not added to the recommendation as it should have been, therefore this item is being brought back for re -consideration. ANALYSIS: Formal bid openings were held on August 2, 1990. There were three bids as follows: Jail Computer room Airflow Corp. $5,500. $4,900. Rusher Air Conditioning 9,990. 5,880 Los Angeles Air Conditioning -no separate bid - Staff recommends that a 10% contingency of $1,587 be the bid price. Total $10,400 15,870 31,411 applied to There is $18,768 budgeted in CIP 89-604 for this project. 1 ig Airflow Corp., the lowest bidder, did not come to inspect the job site prior to submitting their bid for the work. The General Manager, John Incoom, was contacted after the bid openings and informed that his was the low bid. Staff requested that various documentation be provided and that representatives conduct a walk through with staff to discuss the job prior to award of the contract. The General Manager met with staff, but did not provide the required documentation. He formally withdrew their bid after conducting a walk-through to inspect the job site stating that they could not meet the requirements for the work at their bid. Staff then contacted the next low bidder,Rusher Air Conditioning, and requested the same documentation and a walk through. They provided the requested information and met with staff to conduct the walk through. Rusher Air Conditioning is the lowest qualified bidder meeting all requirements and specifications it is staff recommendation that the contract be awarded to Rusher Air conditioning. evin B. North d"raft Cit Manager To Antich Director of Public Works Noted for fiscal impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director ctfullf .ubmitted, 2 Steve Wisniewski Director of Public Safety a2SHIII (19626 S. 2 3) 321-9696 NORMANDIE AVENUE, TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90502 (213) 323-1201 CONOITIONIMgQualit.v air conditioning. radiant & solar heating contractors & engineerc since /946 JOB ADDRESS 1315. Palley Drive, Hermosa Beach. CA 90254 PROPERTY OWNER City of Hermosa Beach PHONE BUYER Police Department PHONE: BILLING ADDRESS DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT AND/OR WORK PROPOSED: JAIL AREA Install one 5 ton package roof top heat pump unit & ren ductwork on roof & connect to existing ductwork in attic. Install two new return air registerd for system. Run electric with new outdoor fused disconnect to new unit. Run condensate to approved location.iL% �\'�.. Install new fully attomatic thermostats. 6 RCE vr,,,,\s_N� All cutting, patching, caane, & start up by Rushe . iiiU��ppIiV r. n •�� � 2 City CNrIt CRT of H.nnosa ts.e. EXCLUSIONS: Unless otherwise noted above, the following items are to be performed by others: High and low voltage electrical wire and conduit, condensate receptacle and lines, cutting and furring, patching and/or redecorating, gas lines. water lines. platform(s). roof curbs, roof access. structural supports, trenching and/or backfilling, equipment room, combustion air. 6-6-10-10 wire mesh, insulation other than ductwork. solar panel framework, and bonds. PRICE: The contract price shall be 5 plus amount of options and -o• alternates which+tave been initialed by buyer. This price shall remain valid for a period of 30 days from the date submitted. TERMS: Progressive Payments ( 1 Other: CONDITIONS: This writing, including the continuation of agreement on the reverse of this page and that which may be attached hereto, contains the entire agreement of the parties and no representatiors or warranties not specifically set forth herein shall be binding on the parties hereto. YOU, AS OWNER OR TENANT, HAVE THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE THE CONTRACTOR TO HAVE A PERFORM NCE A,'AYM: BOND. STATE LIC. NO 258423 Proposal submitted by W.W. Lund Manager, Sales & Servi e Buyer's Signature Date Submitted 8/2190 Date Accepted by Buyer PLEASE SIGN AND RETURN ONE COPY UIISHCO (196 2 2 3S. NORMANDIE AVENUE, TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90502 (213) 323-7201 CDMDITIONIN Quald.i. air conditioning. radiant R solar hearing contractors & engineers since 1946 JOB ADDRESS 1315 Vall#Y Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 PROPERTY OWNER City of Hermosa Beach BUYER Police Department PHONE: PHONE: BILLING ADDRESS DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT AND/OR WORK PROPOSED: COMPUTER ROOM Install one complete split air conditioning system (3 1/2 ton) for computer room. Job to include : Carrier equipment Authmatic thermostats All necessary ductwork Boxes & registers Electrical, Disconnects, & Conden Controls & Csane Start Up RECEIVtb AUG 021990b r2 CRf of H.rnrou BMefi CRY Cisrk Note* If you choose to install a humidifier with the system & decide to set up both air conditioning units to be on automatic change over „the price for this would be $750.00 EXCLUSIONS: Unless otherwise noted above. the following items are to be performed by others: High and low voltage electrical wire and conduit, condensate receptacle and lines, cutting and furring, patching and/or redecorating, gas lines. water Imes, platform(s), roof curbs, roof access, structural supports. trenching and/or backfilling, equipment room, combustion air. 6-6-10-10 wire mesh, insulation other than ductwork. solar panel framework. and bonds. PRICE: The contract price shall be $ 5880.00 plus amount of options and/or alternates which have been initialed by buyer. This price shall remain valid for a period of 30 days from the date submitted TERMS: , %. Progressive Payments I 1 Other: CONDITIONS: This writing, including the continuation of agreement en the reverse of this page and that which may be attached hereto. contains the entire agreement of the part:es and no representations or war-anties not specifically set forth herein shall be binding on the parties hereto. YOU, AS OWNER OR TENANT. HAVE THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE THE CONTRACTOR TO HAVE A PERFORMANCE A PAY.....; T BOND STATE LIC. NO. 258423 Proposal submitted by Gf/ i Date Submitted W.W. Lund ,.anager, Sales & Service 8/2/90 Buyer's Signature Date Accepted by Buyer PLEASE SIGN AND RETURN ONE COPY October 2, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of October 9, 1990 REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND THE HERMOSA BEACH FIREFIGHTER'S ASSOCIATION AMENDING ARTICLE 21 TO EXPAND THE ELIGIBILITY FOR ACTING ENGINEER PAY AND AMENDING ARTICLE 44 TO REFLECT THE P.E.R.S DECISION REGARDING CONVERSION OF ACCRUED LEAVE TO SALARY AT RETIREMENT AND APPROVAL OF REVISED CLASS SPECIFICATIONS FOR FIRE FIGHTER, PARAMEDIC, FIRE ENGINEER, AND FIRE CAPTAIN RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Man- ager to execute the attached supplemental to the Firefighter's Association Memorandum of Understanding (MOU); ratify the trans- fer of $4,000 from Prospective Expenditures to the Fire Depart- ment regular overtime account (001-401-2201-4106) to cover the additional cost of the acting pay for the remainder of the fiscal year; and approve the revised class specifications for Fire Fighter, Fire Fighter/Paramedic, Fire Engineer; and Fire Captain. BACKGROUND: When the current MOU with the Firefighter's Association was nego- tiated in 1989 the City agreed to have further discussion to ad- dress the anticipated change in the State's licensing requirement for apparatus drivers. At the time of negotiations a firefighter could legally drive the fire engine with a Class 3 license. In January of this year the State changed the license requirements and now a Class B license is required for driving a fire engine. Under the current MOU a firefighter who is assigned responsibili- ty for the second engine receives "Acting Pay" only when they "perform the duties of Fire Engineer at the scene of an emergency by laying lines, deploying hand lines, pumping water, or have water flowing through the engine, during a shift". On July 24, 1990 the City Council authorized staff to negotiate with the Firefighter's Association toward amending the existing article regarding Acting Pay. The amended article allows Acting Pay for those firefighters who obtain a Class B license, and meet other criteria for assignment as acting engineer, to receive the acting pay when assigned responsibilities as Fire Engineer. Also, in November 1989 California cities were advised by the Public Employees' Retirement System (P.E.R.S.) that the contract provisions which allowed converting previously accrued leave time to salary during an employee's final year's service were not le- gal under P.E.R.S. law. Since the MOU with the Firefighter's Association contained such a provision, Council authorized staff to re -negotiate this article to bring the provision in line with acceptable P.E.R.S. policy. ANALYSIS: Article 21(B) - Acting Pay Following the change in the State license requirements, all em- ployees of the Fire Department received the required training to obtain the Class B license. The Firefighters and Paramedics who have obtained the Class B license are eligible to be assigned as Acting Engineer and have been placed on an "Acting Engineer" list. The Fire Department is developing a training and evaluation pro- gram for yearly assessment of the appropriate skill level for continuing eligibility for acting assignment. Additionally, the program will provide a procedure for any new hires to obtain act- ing eligibility. The attached Supplemental to the Firefighter's MOU amends article 21(B) of the existing contract to allow for Firefighters and Paramedics assigned responsibility as Fire Engineer the 5% Acting Pay as authorized by the City Council. The additional cost is estimated to be $4,000 for the remainder of the fiscal year. Article 44 - Service Retirement The stated intent of the existing provisions of Article 44 - Ser- vice Retirement was to increase the employee's final year compen- sation for the calculation of service retirement benefits under P.E.R.S. In order to maintain that intent and to bring the lan- guage into line with acceptable P.E.R.S. policy, the City Council authorized the language to be amended to allow for the conversion of prospective accruals to salary and to add the employee's 9% P.E.R.S. contribution to base salary for the final year's service (the City currently pays the employee contribution). While the amendment maintains the employees ability to enhance their re- tirement, the change will save the City approximately $2,135 per retiring employee in P.E.R.S. contributions over the cost of the current language. It should be noted that the earliest any cur- rent member of the Fire Department will be eligible for retire- ment is 1993 and after that it would be 1995. The provisions of this Article apply only to members taking a service retirement and will not apply for Medical and/or Psy- chological retirements. The benefit is also reduced for em- ployees hired after July 1, 1989 because they do not have the ability to convert the 9% P.E.R.S. contribution and; the conver- sion amount is computed at a lesser hourly rate. Class Specifications The class specifications for Firefighter, Firefighter/Paramedic, Fire Engineer, and Fire Captain have been revised to include the new Class B license requirements. Other revisions to the class specifications were also made to make the format consistent with other class specifications recently approved; to update the duties and requirements described in the specification; and to make the specs for Firefighter and Paramedic more consistent. Also added to the specifications was language regarding a pro- hibition against smokers being considered for employment. This was negotiated with the Firefighter's Association in 1986. The justification for this provision lies in the fact that cancer is "presumed" to be job related in the fire service. All revisions were approved by the Civil Service Board at their September 19, 1990 meeting. Respectfully submitted, Concur: /44, ,,i1)6 Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director Noted for fiscal impact: Lk. ,/1G64.4c.;L Viki Copeland Finance Director ;4////( Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Concur: James Crawford, President H.B. Firefighter's Assoc. A SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE JULY 1, 1989 - JUNE 30, 1992 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND THE HERMOSA BEACH FIREFIGHTER'S ASSOCIATION 1 Effective October 1, 1990, Article 21(B) of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Hermosa Beach and the Hermosa Beach Firefighter's Association is revised to read in its entirety: ARTICLE 21 - ACTING POSITIONS & SPECIAL DUTY PAY B. In addition to the permanent Fire Engineer position, any employee covered by this agreement, who is assigned the duties and responsibilities of Fire Engineer on an engine and who may be called upon to perform the duties of Fire Engineer at the scene of an emergency by laying lines deploying hand lines, pumping water, or having water flowing through the engine during a shift, shall be eligible for Acting Pay for that shift. Should an employee so assigned not complete an entire shift (24 hrs.) he shall receive acting pay only for those hours actually assigned. Effective October 1, 1990, Article 44 of the Memorandum of Understanding is revised to read: A. Employees hired prior to July 1, 1989 may elect to receive the cash value of their monthly accrual for Vacation, Sick, and Holiday Comp included as part of their base monthly salary in lieu of receiving any further accrual during their final twelve months of service. No conversion of benefits that were accrued prior to the conversion period shall be allowed. B. In addition to "A" above, employees hired prior to July 1, 1989 may elect to receive the employee's 9% P.E.R.S contribution credited to base salary. Upon such election, the employee shall commence payment of the P.E.R.S. contribution from their salary. C. In order to be eligible for conversion of monthly accruals and the P.E.R.S. 9% provision, the employee must announce their service retirement a minimum of twelve (12) months in advance. D. The value of the converted leave (sick, vacation, Holiday Comp) shall be computed at the employee's 40 hour rate of pay. 2 E. At no time shall this additional compensation so received act in any way to increase any other premium pays (e.g. acting pay) which are computed as a percentage of base pay, nor shall the cash value of the accrual conversion be included in the computation of the value of any accrual cash -outs. F. Upon service retirement, 75a of any accrued sick leave shall be cashed out at the employee's forty -hour (40 hour) equivalent rate of pay (exclusive of any conversion amount). Applies to employees hired prior to July 1, 1989 only. G. For employees hired prior to July 1, 1989, the employee's accumulated holiday comp. and vacation accrual accounts shall be cashed out at the employee's forty -hour (40 hour) equivalent rate of pay (exclusive of any conversion amount). H. Employees hired July 1, 1989 or later may convert their monthly vacation, sick, and holiday comp. accrual during their final.. twelve months service on a prospective basis only. Conversion amounts shall be at the employee's regular rate of pay (56 hour rate). Excess accruals shall be cashed out at the employee's regular rate of pay (56 hour rate). I. The intent of this article is to increase the employee's final year compensation for the calculation of service• retirement under the P.E.R.S. J. Should P.E.R.S. change or otherwise amend the stated policy of not allowing the retrospective application of benefits to salary, the language of Article 44 as expressed in the July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1992 Memorandum of Understanding shall be reinstated in its entirety. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused their duly authorized representatives to execute this Supplemental Memorandum of Understanding this day of , 1990 Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager City of Hermosa Beach James Crawford, President Hermosa Beach Firefighter's Association 3 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FIRE CAPTAIN DEFINITION Under general direction, to be in responsible command of a fire station; to perform work in a specialized area such as training or fire prevention; and to do related work as required. EXAMPLES OF TYPICAL DUTIES Supervises the activities of personnel performing fire inspections; responds to alarms and gives direction to the work of extinguishing fires and in performing related life and property protection; assigns personnel to cleaning, maintenance, repair and inspection activities; reviews the work of subordinates and suggests improvements; conducts or assists in drill and other training activities; following an alarm, supervises salvage, clean-up and equipment maintenance activities; supervises company inspections of buildings for fire ,prevention purposes; maintains station log of activities and prepares necessary reports; maintains budgetary records; reports the need for repairs; takes roll call and reports absences; participates in drills and business meetings of volunteers; keeps informed concerning fire hazards, hydrants and equipment out of service; attends schools and other training activities; conducts training programs for the department; may relieve Director of Public Safety during his absence as relates to fire department issues and/or represents the department at various meetings. QUALIFICATIONS Training and Experience: Graduation from high school or G.E.D. Certificate supplemented by twenty (20) semester units in fire science or fire administration from an accredited college or university; and Five (5) years fire fighting experience in a full time, paid municipal fire department at the time of application. Knowledge, Skills and Abilities: Knowledge of: modern fire fighting prevention and suppression methods including size -up, hose -lay, pumping, ventilation, salvage and clean-up activities; fire service administration, procedures and equipment; modern methods of supervision and training; fire prevention policies and inspections; and principles of budgeting. Ability to: lead and supervise others in fire fighting activities; train others in such activities and in the operation of equipment; maintain records and prepare. reports; win the City of Hermosa Beach Fire Captain page 2 confidence and cooperation of subordinates including volunteers, representatives of other organizations and the public; effectively communicate both orally and in writing; learn and apply department rules and regulations; read and understand technical firefighting material and rules and regulations concerned with fire fighting; understand and follow oral and written directions promptly and accurately; deal courteously and effectively with the general public; willingness to work at night and to report for duty in any emergency. Willingness to work under strict; work under adverse and dangerous conditions; meet medical (height, weight and physical) standards. License: Possession of a valid California driver's license at time of appointment. Must qualify for and obtain a Class "B" California driver's license within twelve (12) months of appointment and maintain license during course of employment. Certification: Certification as State Fire Officer required within eighteen (18) months of appointment. Special Condition: An applicant who was not an sworn fire employee of the City of Hermosa Beach prior to January 1, 1986, shall be disqualified from further employment consideration -if said applicant has smoked tobacco within one year immediately preceding the date of the applicant's selection interview with the Director of Public Safety. Upon appointment, a new employee (after July 1, 1986) shall sign a statement affirming that, as a condition of continued employment, he/she will refrain from smoking tobacco. Approved by Civil Service Board: 9/17/90 Approved by City Council rab/captain CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FIRE ENGINEER DEFINITION Under direction, to drive, operate and maintain firefighting ap- paratus and other equipment in responding to fire and other emer- gency calls; to assist in the suppression of fires; and to do related work as required. EXAMPLES OF TYPICAL DUTIES Responds to fire and other emergency situations by driving assig- ned equipment to required position; operates engine pumping equipment; participates and assists in the suppression of fires and in the protection of life and property; operates resuscita- tors and administers first aid; assumes primary responsibility for the servicing and maintenance of assigned fire equipment; assists in maintenance of fire station and surrounding grounds; participates in continuing training and instruction program by individual study of technical material and attendance at scheduled drills and classes; instructs other fire personnel in operation and care of fire equipment and apparatus; may train or assist in training auxiliary firemen; when assigned, relieves Fire Captain. QUALIFICATIONS Training and Experience: Graduation from high school or G.E.D. Certificate supplemented by twelve (12) semester units in fire science at an accredited col- lege or university; and two years fire fighting experience in a full time, paid municipal fire department at the time of appointment. Knowledge, Skills and Abilities: Knowledge of: modern fire fighting prevention and suppression methods; technical fire fighting techniques; principles of hy- draulics applied to fire suppression; use and maintenance of fire fighting equipment and apparatus; first aid. Ability to: operate fire fighting equipment and apparatus safely and effectively; learn department rules and regulations; read and understand technical firefighting material and rules and regula- tions concerned with fire fighting; understand and follow oral and written directions promptly and accurately; deal courteously and effectively with the general public; establish and maintain cooperative relationships with those contacted in the course of work; willingness to work at night and to report for duty in any emergency. Willingness to work under strict City of Hermosa Beach Fire Engineer page 2 discipline. Ability to: analyze situations and adopt an effective course of action, giving due regard to surrounding hazards and circumstances; demonstrate physical endurance and agility; work under adverse and dangerous conditions; meet medical (height, weight and physical) standards. License: Possession of a valid Class "B" California driver's license at time of application and thereafter during course of employment. Special Condition: An applicant who was not a sworn fire em- ployee of the City of Hermosa Beach prior to January 1, 1986, shall be disqualified from further employment consideration if said applicant has smoked tobacco within one year immediately preceding the date of the applicant's selection interview with the Director of Public Safety. Upon appointment, a new employee (after July 1, 1986) shall sign a statement affirming that, as a condition of continued employment, he/she will refrain from smok- ing tobacco. Approved by Civil Service Board: 9/17/90 Approved by City Council • rab/eng CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FIRE FIGHTER/PARAMEDIC DEFINITION Under general supervision, to fight fires and perform rescue work and serve as paramedic in responding to fire alarms and other emergency calls for the protection of lives and property; to participate in fire company inspections and prevention, station maintenance, training and paramedic recertification activities; and to do related work as required. EXAMPLES OF TYPICAL DUTIES Responds to fire alarms with the fire company and serves as paramedic in operating advanced equipment for rescue and life saving activities, connects and lays hose lines and enters burning buildings with these lines; assists in operating nozzles and directing a stream of water onto the fire; carries and operates various types of fire extinguishers; raises, lowers and climbs ladders; makes forcible entry into buildings when necessary; ventilates buildings to drive out smoke and gases; performs salvage and overhauling operations; may drive or operate a piece of auxiliary equipment; inspects and tests equipment carried on pumpers; cleans and services fire fighting equipment; assists in the maintenance of clean and orderly conditions in and about the fire station; participates in inspections o,f, residential and commercial buildings for fire prevention and pre -fire planning purposes; attends and participates in special drills and other training and recertification activities; relieves Fire Engineer in the operation of various fire equipment/apparatus as assigned. May be required to work shifts, weekends, and/or holidays. QUALIFICATIONS Training and Experience: Equivalent to graduation from High School. College courses in fire science desirable. Must have one (1) year experience with a paramedic provider agency at time of application. Knowledge, Skills and Abilities: Ability to: renew paramedic certification as required by Los Angeles County and Department Rules; read and understand technical firefighting material and rules and regulations concerned with fire fighting; understand and follow oral and written directions promptly and accurately; deal courteously and effectively with the general public; establish and maintain cooperative relationships with those contacted in the course of work; willingness to work at night and to report for duty in any emergency. Willingness to work under strict discipline. Ability to: analyze situations and adopt an effective course of action, giving due regard to surrounding hazards and circumstances; demonstrate physical endurance and City of Hermosa Beach Firefighter/Paramedic page 2 agility; work under adverse and dangerous conditions; meet medical (height, weight and physical) standards. License: Possession of current certification with Los Angeles County as a Paramedic is required. Possession of a valid California driver's license at time of appointment. Must qualify for and obtain a Class "B" California driver's license within twelve (12) months of appointment and maintain license during the course of employment. Special Condition: An applicant shall be disqualified from further employment consideration if said applicant has smoked tobacco within one year immediately preceding the date of the applicant's selection interview with the Director of Public Safety. Upon appointment, a new employee (after July 1, 1986) shall sign a statement affirming that, as a condition of continued employment, he/she will refrain from smoking tobacco. Approved by Civil Service Board: 9/17/90 Approved by City Council .• rab/ffpm CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FIREFIGHTER DEFINITION Under general supervision, to fight fires and perform rescue work in responding to fire alarms and other emergency calls for the protection of lives and property; to participate in fire company inspections and other fire prevention activities, station main- tenance and training activities; and to do related work as required. EXAMPLES OF TYPICAL DUTIES Responds to fire alarms with the fire company, connects and lays hose lines and enters burning buildings with these lines, assists in operating nozzles and directing a stream of water onto the fire; carries and operates various types of fire extinguishers; carries, raises, lowers, sets up and climbs ladders; makes forc- ible entry into buildings when necessary; ventilates buildings to drive out smoke and gases; performs salvage and overhauling operations; mops, sweeps, and cleans after fires to prevent water damage; washes, polishes and services fire apparatus; inspects and tests equipment carried on pumpers; assists in maintaining fire apparatus and equipment; assists in the maintenance or clean and orderly conditions in and about the fire station; administers first aid; tests, washes and hangs hose; checks hydrants; may assist in repairing fire hydrants, hose couplings and other minor equipment; stands regular floor watch detail and assists callers; studies City lay -out and water systems; participates in inspec- tions of residential and commercial buildings for fire prevention and pre -fire planning purposes; participates in continuing train- ing and instruction program by attendance at scheduled drills and classes and individual study of technical material; may relieve Fire Engineer in the operation of various fire equipment/ apparatus as assigned. May be required to work shifts,.. weekends, and/or holidays. QUALIFICATIONS Any combination of experience and education that could likely provide the required skills and abilities would be qualifying. A typical way to obtain the required experience and education would be: Experience: None required. Education: Equivalent to graduation from High School. College courses in fire science desirable. Knowledge, Skills and Abilities: Ability to: read and understand technical firefighting material and rules and regulations con- cerned with fire fighting; to understand and follow oral and written directions promptly and accurately; deal courteously and - 1 - City of Hermosa Beach Firefighter page 2 effectively with the general public; establish and maintain cooperative relationships with those contacted in the course of work. Willingness to: work at night and to report for duty in any emergency; to work under strict discipline. Ability to: an- alyze situations and adopt an effective course of action, giving due regard to surrounding hazards and circumstances; demonstrate physical endurance and agility; work under adverse and dangerous conditions; meet medical (height, weight and physical) standards; demonstrate a mechanical aptitude. License: Possession of a valid California driver's license at time of appointment. Must qualify for and obtain a Class "B" California driver's license within twelve (12) months of appoint- ment and maintain license during course of employement. Special Condition: An applicant shall be disqualified from fur- ther employment consideration if said applicant has smoked tobac- co within one year immediately preceding the date of the appli- cant's selection interview with the Director of Public Safety. Upon appointment, a new employee (after July 1, 1986) shall sign a statement affirming that, as a condition of continued employ- ment, he/she will refrain from smoking tobacco. Approved by Civil Service Board: 9/17/90 Approved by City Council rab/ffclass ow'. of September 25, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of The Hermosa Beach City Council October 9, 1990 VEHICLE PURCHASE -BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council authorize the purchase of a 1990 Chevrolet Cavalier sedan, for $9,707.64 from Martin Chevrolet. Background: The purchase of the above mentioned vehicle has previously been approved for the Fiscal Year 1990-91 budget, to replace the inoperable 1980 Dodge Omni. The budgeted amount for this purchase is $11,000.00. Analysis: The notice inviting bids was advertised in the Easy Reader on August 30, 1990 and September 6, 1990. In addition, notices were mailed to six (6) area dealers. Five bids were received and on September 20, 1990, at 2:00 pm., were opened and publicly read aloud. Bids are available for review in the Office of the City Clerk Martin Chevrolet $9,058.81 Sales Tax and Documentation Fees 613.83 TOTAL $9,707.64 Manhattan Ford (2 Door) $10,650.00 Sales Tax and Documentation Fees 756.24 Less Manufacturer's Rebate -1,000.00 TOTAL $10,406.24 Manhattan Ford (4 Door) $10,750.00 Sales Tax and Documentation Fees 762.99 Less Manufacturers Rebate -1,000.00 TOTAL $10,512.99 Don Kott Auto Center $10,496.00 Sales Tax and Documentation Fees 911.48 TOTAL $11,407.48 Glenn E. Thomas Dodge $13,214.25 Sales Tax and Documentation Fees 893.94 TOTAL $14,108.19 As a municipality, the City is exempt from registration fees 1 Fiscal Impact: Amount of bid $9,707.64 FY 90-91 Adopted Budget $11,000.00 +$1,292.36 Concur: Kevin Northcraft City Manager Noted For Fiscal Impact: Difference Respectfully Submitted: Director of Building & Safety Viki Copeland Finance Director 2 1 October 1, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council October 9, 1990 APPROVAL OF BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN LANE APPLICATIONS FOR FUNDS TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE 3 FUNDS FOR FY 90-91 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Approve and adopt Resolution No. 90- , a resolution of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach approving the bicycle and/or pedestrian lane application for funds TDA Article 3 Funds for FY 90-91, and 2. Revise the estimated revenue for FY 90-91 to $5,656. Background: On July 5, 1989, staff received correspondence from the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) regarding the application for funds for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. All correspondence and claim forms are in the City Clerk's office for review. Analysis: Under the same guideline as last year, LACTC, under Article 3 of the TDA (SB 821), has apportioned $5,656 of local entitlement funds to the City,of Hermosa Beach for use on the following' activities relating to pedestrian and bicycle facilities (including sidewalk wheelchair ramps): Preliminary engineering leading to construction; Right-of-way acquisition; Construction and reconstruction; Repair and maintenance (off-street bikeways only); and, Purchase and installation of features such as bike parking racks, benches, drinking fountains and changing rooms. It is our intent that these monies be used for The Strand/Strand wall construction project. The application must to be submitted by November 20, 1990, in order to receive funds by January 1991, the earliest possible date. If the funds being claimed will be expended during the coming year, we will receive a check for the amount needed. Under state law, funds not needed during the coming year will be held in reserve and transferred to the City whenever they are needed. The complete packet received from LACTC is available for review in the Public Works Department. SB 821 local entitlement funding requires no matching funds from the City. There is no time limit for the expenditure of these funds; however the LACTC looks unfavorably upon agencies who have unspent monies from previous years and continue to apply for more funds. This is not the case with Hermosa Beach; however, we may forfeit the opportunity to receive this grant if we do not claim these funds at this time. Alternative: Another alternative available to City Council is: 1. Do not apply for the funds, thereby, allowing $5,656 to lapse to the County. Respectfully submitted, Con Barbara Conklin Administrative Aide Noted For Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Director Attachments: Resolution No. 90- ty/bpl 2 AU Anttho'ny Antich Director of Public Works evin B. Northcr=.ft City Manager 1 RESOLUTION NO. 90- 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA 3 BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR BICYCLE AND/OR PEDESTRIAN FUNDS UNDER SB 821 AND APPROVING THE 4 ADOPTION OF ITS BICYCLE AND/OR PEDESTRIAN PLAN 5 6 WHEREAS, SB 821 provides that 2% of each county's total 7 local transportation fund be annually set aside and used to 8 fund the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities; 9 and 10 WHEREAS, the City of Hermosa Beach has planned a bikeway 11 system in conformance with specifications of Caltrans' 12 Planning and Design Criteria for Bikeways in California and 13 the Regional Transportation Plan; and 14 WHEREAS, the City of Hermosa Beach desires to construct 15 the master bikeway system within their City utilizing the funds available under SB 821. 16 17 18 19 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 20 II SECTION 1. To adopt the Bikeway System in conformance 21 with the specifications of Caltrans' Planning and Design 22 Criteria for Bikeways in California and the Regional Transportation Plan. 23 24 SECTION 2. To apply for all funds available to the 25 City of Hermosa Beach allocated for Bikeways and Pedestrian 26 facilities (SB 821). 27 28 1 SECTION 3. To authorize the City Manager, or his 2 designee, to execute required documents and to designated 3 contact person for application of said funds. 4 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 9th day of October 5 1990. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney ty/resobpl October 1, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council October 9, 1990 RESOLUTION FOR THE STRAND BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PATH, CIP 90-144 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Approve and adopt Resolution No. 90- , a resolution of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, a) approving the application for discretionary regional funds for the reconstruction of the Strand walkway and retaining wall from 24th Street south to the City boundary. Background: 1. On August 8, 1989, City Council authorized staff to seek regional funds for reconstruction of the Strand & Strand wall and construction of a bikeway extension. 2. On April 6,1990, staff received notification from LACTC (Los Angeles County Transportation Commission) allocating $411,000 for reconstruction of the Strand walkway and retaining wall during FY 90-91 and for construction of the bikeway ending at 35th Street to connect with the bikeway in Manhattan Beach. These funds were received by the City on 5-30-90. 3. On May 15, 1990, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution #PC 90-34, finding that the CIP (Capital Improvement Project) is consistent with the General Plan. 4. On September 25, 1990, staff received correspondence from the LACTC regarding another application for regional funds for the construction or reconstruction of bicycle and pedestrian lanes. These funds must be applied for by November 20, 1990. All correspondence, fact sheets and claim forms are in the City Clerk's Office for. review. Analysis: This year, $1,748,092 of TDA Article 3 discretionary funds will be available County wide for bikeway and pedestrian projects of regional significance. These regional funds will be .allocated at the discretion of the Commission for new facility construction, major reconstruction, or for off-street bikeway maintenance. Such discretionary funds allocated to new facilities must be spent within two years of allocation, unless a one year extension is granted by LACTC. 1 1i a) The remainder of the analysis will be divided as follows: 1. Application for Regional (Discretionary) Funds for the reconstruction of the Strand Bikeway from 24th Street south to the City boundary. 1. Application for Regional Funds for the Reconstruction of the Strand Bikeway The length of the Strand bikeway (approximately 1.9 miles) is in need of repair, except that portion between 10th Street and 15th Street which was reconstructed in 1984. This project is estimated to cost $1,027,000 ($411,000 received from Los Angeles County) and represents a large portion of the funds available County wide. This application asks for LACTC to phase this project over a three year period and set aside approximately $206,000 annually for each of those years. Fiscal Impact: None at this time, as no funds are being expended. This is an application for funding. Alternative: An alternative to City Council is: 1. Do nothing; thereby, allowing possible available funds to lapse to the County. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Conklin Administrative Aide Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Director of Finance Attachments: Resolution No. 90 - Exhibit 1 ty/bikepath 2 cur : AIL<Wc) Anhony Antich Director of Ptjblic Works Mary Dire tor of Community Resources Kevin B. Northcr.ft City Manager ATTACHMENT TO THE tACTC REGIONAL BIKEWAY PROJECT FACT SHEET. PROJECT ATTRIBUTES 1. Residential areas within 1/4 mile of the facility Within a 1/4 mile of the Strand bikeway is one of the most densely_ populated communities within the South Bay. The bike path passes through several South Bay cities, including the cities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach and El Segundo. The bike path travels to the El Segundo employment center vicinity. Funding for this reconstruction of the Strand Bikeway has the potential of enhancing the commuter route. In April 1988, a study prepared by EKISTIC for the South Bay cities (and partially. funded by LACTC) identified more than 42,000 south bay residents as employees within the El Segundo employment center. Six _ percent of the 42,000 (approximately 2,500) represent residents within Hermosa Beach. Redondo Beach, to the south of Hermosa - Beach, has 7.8% of 42,000 (approximately 3,200 potential commuters to the El Segundo employment center). The City's 1979 General Plan - circulation element states that - the beach has up to 100,000 visitors to the beach. Many of the visitors use the Strand bikeway for access and transit. The Strand bikeway is also located adjacent to the Beach which is aregional recreational facility that attracts upwards of 100,000 visitors on a warm summer day ( as reported by the Los .Angeles County Lifeguards). During the non -summer months the Strand bikeway the numbers are less; however, the usage is still intense. 2. Safety problems to be corrected by project The Strand requires periodic repair on an as needed basis to correct cold joint separations and cracks which develop to eliminate potential safety hazards. With the ageing of the Strand, these conditions continue to occur. This project would correct those surface problems thereby, enhancing the desirability for commuters to use this route. This project is known as CIP 91-143. The Strand wall (known as the sand baffle wall) was constructed in the early 1950's (1953 & 1954) to protect the Strand bikeway and walkway from the sand; i.e. to keep the sand from blowing onto the area used by cyclists and pedestrians; thereby, eliminating a potentially hazardous condition. Over the past 35 years, due to exposure to the elements and vandalism, the wall has deteriorated. The wall has been repaired on an "as deeded" basis, but is due for replacement. The condition, loose blocks, etc., poses a potential safety concern. This project is known as CIP 91-144. 3•. Has the Bikeway' been funded by Regional Funds Previously? Yes, in FY 89-90 the Commission granted $376,000 for this project. 4. Existing Bikeway which will connect to this Bikeway The bikeway will connect to Redondo Beach on the south and Manhattan Beach to the north. 5. Aesthetic Attributes This project borders the Pacific Ocean providing the bicyclist with the most attractive view of the Santa Monica Bay and the Palos Verdes Peninsula. With the unobstructed view westward, the.. bicyclist is provided with breathtaking ocean views as well as outstanding sunsets. rnuJEUf MAP Showers (s) Restrooms (r) Wpter CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CAL II IF CD El N II A SCALE: I INCH•400 FEET ,r — i 8 V u i/7111 ........ 7_7 •),L E cz3 ... • .srw W S W 22nd St. - Rest Stop - Pier Ave. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 90- 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA 3 BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR REGIONAL FUNDS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF 4 THE STRAND/PEDESTRIAN BIKEWAY 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, $1,748,092 of TDA Article 3 funds will be available for a bikeway and pedestrian project of regional significance; and WHEREAS, these regional funds will be allocated at the discretion of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission for new facility construction, major reconstruction, or for off-street bikeway maintenance; and WHEREAS, the City of Hermosa Beach desires to reconstruct the surface of the bikeway system on the Strand, and to reconstruct the Strand wall adjacent to the bikeway within their City utilizing the funds available under SB 821. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. To adopt the Bikeway System in conformance with the specifications of Caltrans' Planning and Design Criteria for Bikeways in California and the Regional Transportation Plan. 1 SECTION 2. To apply for all funds available to the City 2 of Hermosa Beach allocated for Bikeways and Pedestrian 3 facilities (SB 821) . 4 SECTION 3. To authorize the City Manager or his 5 designee, to execute required documents and to be designated 6 contact person for the application of said funds. 7 8 9 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of October 1990. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of 10 Hermosa Beach, California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk ty/resopath City Attorney October 2, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council October 9, 1990 RESPONSE TO CALTRANS LETTER Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council receive and file this report. Background: On August 9, 1990, the City received a letter (attached) from Caltrans indicating their desire to remove parking on PCH from 3 P.M. to 7 P.M., Monday through Friday. The letter (and backup material) is available for review in the City Clerk's office. Analysis: Mr. Ed Ruzak, City Traffic Engineer, has reviewed the letter and prepared a response. A copy of his response will be forwarded to Caltrans after the October 9th Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, 111/011, Antes- ny Antich / Public Works Di/rector pworks/srcaltr 1 Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager City o f 2iermosa l�eaclt..) October 2, 1990 Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 Department of Transportation District 7, 120 South Spring St. Los Angeles, CA 90012 Attention: R.D. Gilstrap, Senior Transportation Engineer Traffic Operations Branch Subject: Peak hour parking restrictions Dear Sir: Thank you for your August 1, 1990 letter. The City Traffic Engineer does not concur with the conclusions reached and has prepared the attached response. I look forward to your written response and hope we can reach concurrence. If you have any questions please call Ed Ruzak directly at 714-964-4880 or me at 213-318-0214. Sincerely, Anthony Antich Public Works Director meh 3i TATE Or CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, 120 SO. SPRING ST. LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 TDD (213) 620-3550 (213) 620-3304 AUG 9 1930 August 1, 1990 Mr. Kevin P. Northcraft City Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Northcraft: RECEIVED AUG d 1990 P/ m! 1n lunPvC nrPT, 7 -LA -1 - Var. Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Hermosa Beach We are forwarding to you the request of Mr. Steve Case for p.m. Peak period parking restrictions along the west side of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) from 10th Street to Herondo Street. We strongly support Mr. Case's request. However, traffic conditions indicate that this proposed prohibition should extend from Boundary Place on the north to the south city limit .fust north of Herondo Street - Anita Street. and that the time period should be from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, holidays excepted. Our support for this proposal at this time is based primarily upon safety considerations. Studies produced for the Route Concept Report for Route 1 in District 7 indicate that the segment of Route 1 through Hermosa Beach has the highest accident rate of any similar segment in Los Angeles County. We have also recently completed an accident study on Route 1 in Hermosa Beach for the 5 1/4 year period of January 1, 1985 through March 31, 1990. This study is addressed to the issue of determining whether an accident reduction could be achieved by providing southbound p.m. peak period parking restrictions on Route 1 as discussed above. As a result of this, our most recent study, it has been determined that the accident rates on Route 1 in the City of Hermosa Beach are as follows: PCH. Anita/Herondo to Artesia/Gould NB & SB Actual* Expected* F F+I All F F+I All .008 2.54 5.33 .021 1.32 3.30 Mr. Kevin P. Northcraf August 1, 1990 Page 2 Sepulveda Blvd.. Gould To Boundary SB Only Actual* Expected* F F+I All F F+I All .000 2.13 5.20 .023 1.27 3.30 *These rates are accidents per million vehicle miles: expected is based upon statewide average for like facilities. Please notice that the rates for all actual accidents are far above the rates for all expected accidents. It is likewise for the fatal plus injury accidents. This history indicates the need for safety improvement. We also examined the relationship of the frequency of occurrence of the two primary congestion related accident types, rear -end and sideswipe, to all accidents, to all accidents on weekdays, and to all accidents on weekdays in the directional peak periods. It has been determined that a significant potential accident reduction can be achieved by implementing the aforementioned southbound p.m. peak period weekday parking restrictions, on Route 1 in Hermosa Beach. The potential accident reduction in the southbound direction on weekdays in the p.m. peak period (3:00-7:00 p.m.) would be 25% of congestion related accidents occurring in this direction during this period. It should be remembered that this is based on existing reported accidents, and that reportage of property damage only type accidents is quite low (about 30-40%). This represents a potential reduction of about 6 accidents per year within the 1.58 miles of southbound Route 1 in Hermosa Beach. However. .because of the existing accident history, any potentially achievable accident reduction measure deserves serious consideration. In view of this, we are renewing our request for the City of Hermosa Beach to pass the necessary ordinance to enable the implementation and enforcement of parking restrictions along the westerly side of PCH/Sepulveda Boulevard (Route 1) from the south city limit (north of Herondo Street) to Boundary Place. This ordinance should regulate parking by creating a "No Stopping 3 to 7 P.M. Monday thru Friday, Holidays Excepted" zone within the limits described. Mr. Kevin P. Northcraft August 1, 1990 Page 3 If you require any additional information. please contact Mr. Karl F. Berger of my staff at (213) 620-3829. R. D. GILSTRAP Senior Transportation Engineer Traffic Operations Branch Attachments: 1. Letter of Mr. Steve Case 2. Accident Study 3. TASAS Table B Selective Accident Rate Calculation Printouts 4. TASAS Selective Accident Retrieval Summaries, Only. cc: El Segundo Employers Association Attention Ms. Kathleen Meyers 4975 Marshall Drive Culver City, CA 90230 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Tony Antich, Director of Public Works FROM: Ruzak, City Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Caltrans Proposed Prohibition of Curb Parking on Pacific Coast Hwy. Southbound, Herondo to 10th Street DATE: September 4, 1990 Reference is made to an August 1, 1990 report from Mr. Jack Gilstrap of Caltrans relative to a recommendation for curb parking removal on Pacific Coast Highway. The Caltrans study was prompted due to a request by Mr. Steve Case, a resident of Lomita, and frequent Pacific Coast Highway commuter. I have reviewed the report and have the following comments and suggestions: - I agree that the current accident rate along the Pacific Coast Highway section in Hermosa Beach is well in excess of what is expected for "similar" facilities. I believe it is necessary for Caltrans to explain their rationale for "similar" facilities and the way that they determine what is a similar facility. This is important to compare "apples" to "apples". From what I know of Caltrans expected accident rates, they do have a valid basis for comparison. However, it is necessary to document this. - There is a serious question as to whether the peak period prohibitions will "reduce accidents". The report states that the predominant accident types are rear -end and sideswipes. It states that 25% of these types will be reduced with the peak period prohibitions. There needs to be much more documentation to convince me or others that this percentage is realistic. First, the peak period parking prohibitions will allow the curb lane to be transformed into a through lane. The width of this lane will not be 12', (the standard width). Throughout the section to be changed the lane will vary from 11.5' to 10.8'. As such, traffic will have to travel in the gutter to some degree. The propensity for loss of control or being sideswiped by an adjacent through vehicle will still exist. The cross street traffic that enters PCH will have good sight distance without the curb parking, but will enter directly into the through curb lane. If a driver places the front of their car in the through lane so it interferes with through curb lane traffic there is a greater possibility of a rear -end or sideswipe accident; i.e., the through vehicle stops suddenly or changes lanes into the adjacent through traffic. These geometric and operational conditions in the curb lane would lead to problems that could clearly offset the alleged 25% reduction of accidents due to the parking prohibitions. Parking prohibitions during the a.m. peak period were implemented on the east side of PCH for the entire length of Hermosa Beach several years ago. The merchants along this section are not open during the a.m. peak hours. Thus, they were not in opposition to the parking prohibitions. Nonetheless, Caltrans should have a sufficient accident base for the before and after time period in this section to show the benefit of prohibition in terms of accident reduction. These data should be cited in their report. Without further definition of these critical elements I cannot support the statement made in their letter request. er Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPELLANT: REQUEST: APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION 90-1 588 20TH STREET JOHN M. MILLER 575 20TH STREET HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 September 19, 1990 Regular Meeting of September 25, 1990 TO APPEAL THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO ALLOW A 3 -LOT SUBDIVISION Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council sustain the Planning Commission approval of the requested subdivision by adopting the attached resolution. Alternative Approve a modified subdivision for only two lots. Background The Planning Commission, at their August 21, 1990 meeting, approved the subject subdivision based on the finding that the proposed lots conform to zoning and subdivision requirements, and are not smaller than prevailing lot sizes in the area. Please refer to the attached Planning Commission Staff report for further background. Analysis The applicant is requesting to subdivide an existing 16,059 square foot lot into three lots with 40.25 feet of frontage each. The resulting lot sizes would be 5353 square feet each. The proposed lots conform to current zoning and subdivision requirements, as they front on a public street, exceed the minimum width of 40 feet and exceed 4000 square feet. Section 29.5-8 of the Subdivision ordinance also requires a finding that the "size of the proposed lots is not smaller than the prevailing lot size in the area in which they are located." Prevailing lot size means the "most frequent" or the "most common", which is easily determined in an area where all lots are the same or similar sizes. In this area, however, the lots sizes vary significantly. In the attached Planning Commission staff report, staff included an analysis of average lot sizes -- which shows that the average for the Valley area is 5,860 square feet, slightly larger than - 1 - the proposed lots. Please be reminded, however, that "average" is not necessarily "prevailing." Staff has further calculated that of the 140 lots in the Valley area (excluding those 11 unsubdivided lots with over 10,000 square) 37 lots are less than proposed 5353 square feet and 103 lots exceed that size. Closer to the subject property, 11 out of 17 lots along 20th Street are under the proposed size of 5353 square feet, 5 of these lots are 4000 square feet. Given the varying lot sizes and the fact that several lots located nearby have less than the proposed lot sizes, staff believes the Planning Commission decision was appropriate and should be upheld. Otherwise, the interpretation of "prevailing" is subjective enough that a different interpretation could possibly be justified. If the Council is so inclined, staff would recommend that the compromise of a two -lot subdivision be ponsidred. /47'• e/ /Keh Roberton CONCUR :;, Michael Schubach Planning Director (See below) y Tevin B. Northcraft City Manager Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution 2. P.C. Resolution 3. P.C. Staff Report/Minutes 8/21/90 4. Site Maps/Exhibits 5. Application 6. Correspondence 7. Public Notice Affidavit Associate Planner a/pcsr588 CITY MANAGER COMMENT: While there are valid reasons to support the Planning Commission's recommendation, the alternative recommendation - to limit to 2 lots - should be seriously considered, for these reasons - 1) 3 lots only barely meet the City's minimum frontage anywhere in the City. These lots are in an area where some of the larger lots in the City exist. 2) 74% of the "Valley area" lots are larger than those proposed. 3) The current Council can do little to improve on past zoning decisions in already developed areas, but this application represents such an opportunity. Where deficiencies are well recognized, and our density problems are, the current decision opportunity should tend to improve rather than repeat past decisions. Two lots rather than three seems to represent such an improvement. - 2 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 r7 RESOLUTION 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 21943 FOR A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION AT 588 20TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHWESTERLY 133' BY 120.75 PORTION OF LOT 9, BLOCK 71, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on September 25, 1990, to receive oral and written testimony regarding an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a request to subdivide said property into three (3) lots and made the following findings: A. The proposed subdivision will create lots which exceed the minimum required forty -foot width and four thousand (4,000) square feet; B. The proposed lots front on a public street; C. The proposed subdivision will in no way be detrimental to the surrounding lot pattern or tend to reduce property values in the area; D. The size of the proposed lots is not smaller than the prevailing lot size in the surrounding area, and are of a size and configuration consistent with the standards of development specified in the zoning ordinance for the R-1 zone; E. The creation of the proposed lots is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the City of Hermosa Beach General Plan; F. The tentative parcel map complies with the requirements for approval set forth in the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California. - 3 - 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 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby concur with the Planning Commission decision to approve Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 21943 for a 3 -lot subdivision at 588 Hermosa Avenue, subject to conditions in Planning Commission Resolution 90-68. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1990. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APP ED S TO.FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY a/pers588 84 C/ OR 01ND MATER/AL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P. C. 90-68 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 21943 FOR A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION AT 588 20TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHWESTERLY 133'. BY 120.75 PORTION OF LOT 9, BLOCK 71, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 21, 1990, to receive oral and written testimony regarding a request to subdivide said property into three (3) lots and made the following. findings: A. The proposed subdivision will create lots which exceed the minimum required forty -foot width and four thousand (4,000) square feet; B. The proposed lots front on a public street; C. The proposed subdivision will in no way be detrimental to the surrounding lot pattern or tend to reduce property values in the area; D. The size of the proposed lots is not smaller than the prevailing lot size in the surrounding area, and are of a size and configuration consistent with the standards of development specified in the zoning ordinance for the R-1 zone; E. The creation of the proposed lots is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the City of Hermosa Beach General Plan; F. The tentative parcel map complies with the requirements for approval set forth in the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby approve Vesting Tentative 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 Parcel Map No. 21943 for a 3 -lot subdivision at 588 Hermosa Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. All structures on the property shall be demolished prior to recordation of the final map. 2. The Final Map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits unless the Directors of the Planning Department and the Building Department give prior approval. 3. All requirements of the Public Works Department and the Building and Safety Department shall be met. 4. Approval of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map shall become null and void twenty-four months from the date of approval unless the final map is recorded. The applicant may apply in writing for an extension of time to the Planning Commission prior to the date of expiration. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Chmn.Ingell CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-68 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of August 21, 1990. ice._ ,-- LK : ; `—!�: Christine Ketz,`Vice Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary IS ycDate a/pers588 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION 90-1 LOCATION: 588 20TH STREET APPLICANT: BETTY AND WILLIAM RYAN 588 20TH STREET HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUEST: Recommendation Staff recommends that requested subdivision by Background Project Information: Zoning: General Plan Designation: Present Uses: Lot Size: TO ALLOW A 3 -LOT SUBDIVISION August 9, 1990 Regular Meeting of August 21, 1990 the Planning Commission approve adopting the attached resolution. Environmental Determination: R-1 Low Density A single dwelling 16,059 square feet (120' X 133') *Categorically exempt the *Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15303, up to three single-family residences in urbanized areas qualify for a categorical exemption. Analysis The applicant is requesting to subdivide an existing lotinto three lots with 40.25 feet of frontage each. The resulting lot sizes would be 5,353 square feet each. The proposed lots conform to current zoning and subdivision requirements, as they front on a public street, exceed the minimum width of 40 feet and exceed 4000 square feet. Section 29.5-8 of the Subdivision ordinance requires that the Planning Commission make findings that the proposed subdivision meets subdivision and zoning requirements, and additionally it requires a finding that the "size of the proposed lots is not smaller than the prevailing lot size in the area in which they are located." Staff has calculated the average lot size for the surrounding R-1 zoned area generally bounded by Valley Drive on the east, Hermosa Valley School on the south, the sand hill on the west and 25th -7- Street on the north (see exhibit A). By excluding other unsubdvided lots of over 10,000 square feet, the average size is approximately 5860 square feet. Within a much closer vicinity, between 18th Street and 21st Street, the average lot size is approximately 6,077 square feet (see exhibit B). Therefore, the proposed lots are slightly smaller than the average lot size of the surrounding area. The ordinance, however, uses the term prevailing lot size which, staff believes, gives the Planning Commission general discretion to determine if the proposed lots are reasonably consistent with lots in the vicinity. Since several lots in the vicinity are equivalent to or even smaller than the proposed lots, and since the lots are quite close to the average in the area, staff believes that this finding can be met. Otherwise, the proposed subdivision has appropriate public street access, available utilities, and is consistent with the both the R-1 zone and the density requirementsof e Gener.l Plan Low Density Residential category. CONCUR:, / 7-1 Miael/ Schubach Planning Director /1 Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Site Maps/Exhibits 3. Application 4. Public Notice Affidavit en Robe 'tson Associate Planner a/pcsr588 The subject portion of the building previously was part of the restaurant operation and sere,d as the pizza room. It consists of about 130 square feet and contains a counter for the store clerk and a few small racks of new clothing. Staff determined that adding this use constitutes a change of use of an existing notconforming structure toa.more intense use since it would involve a second business. ,The building is nonconforming to parking as only three parking spaces exist. Staff is recommending -approval, however, because the added use actu3lly requires less parking on a per square foot basis than the previous use. Therefore, although the proposed use intensifies the use of property, it lessens the parking impact. Currently, the operation and the 'use of the property is clean -amend well organized, and the City's code enforcement officer recently inspected the site and,found no problems. Therefore, staff would not anticipate any problems wittr.tthe addition of,a'second business. The proposed resolution incorporates conditions from the original CUP for beer and wine and the amendment to allow outside dining, into one document. /' \ Public Hearing opened at 10:21 P.M. by . Ketz. '\, Steve Triantas, 1242 Bonnie Brae, applicant, addressed the, Commission and stated that he has read the conditions and has no objection. Public Hearing closed at 122 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-69, as written. N. AYES: Comms. Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Ingell SUB 90-1 -- REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21943 FOR A THREE -LOT SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 588 20T11 STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 9, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the requested subdivision by adopting the proposed resolution. This project is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density. The present use is as a single dwelling. The lot size is 16,059 square feet, or 120 by "133 feet. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines, Section 15303, up to three single-family residences in urbanized areas qualify for a categorical exemption. The applicant is requesting to subdivide an existing lot into three lots with 40.25 feet of frontage each. The resulting lot sizes would be 5353 square feet each. The proposed lots conform to current zoning and subdivision requirements, as they front on a public street, exceed the minimum width of 40 feet, and exceed 4000 square feet. Section 29.5-8 of the Subdivision ordinance requires that the Planning Commission make findings that the proposed subdivision meets subdivision and zoning requirements, and additionally it requires a finding that the "size of the proposed lots is not smaller than the prevailing lot size in the area in which they are located." P.C. Minutes 8/21/90 9 Staff has calculated the average lot size for the surrounding R-1 zoned area generally bounded by Valley Drive on the east, Hermosa Valley School on the south, the sand hill on the west, and 25th Street on the north. By excluding other unsubdivided lots of over 10,000 square feet, the average size is approximately 5860 square feet. Within a much closer vicinity, between 18th Street and 21st Street, the average lot size is approximately 6077 square feet. Therefore, the proposed lots are slightly smaller than the average lot size of the surrounding area. The ordinance, however, uses the term prevailing lot size which, staff believes, gives the Planning Commission general discretion to determine if the proposed lots are reasonably consistent with lots in the vicinity. Since several lots in the vicinity are equivalent to or even smaller than the proposed lots, and since the lots are quite close to the average in the area, staff believes that this finding can be met. Otherwise, the proposed subdivision has appropriate public street access, available utilities, and is consistent with both the R-1 zone and the density requirements of the general plan low density residential category. Comm. Peirce noted that he lives near this property; however, he does not feel it is within 500 feet of the proposed project. Mr. Schubach, after questioning where Comm. Peirce lives and after consulting his map, stated that he does not feel Comm. Peirce has a conflict of interest. Public Hearing opened at 10:27 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that the applicants have owned this property for more than eight years, and they currently live there; (2) explained that they are requesting approval to create three lots, however, there are no building plans at this time; (3) said that any future construction plans would need to be approved; (4) said that the applicants are in full compliance in regard to this request and are asking for no exceptions or variances; (5) said that this proposal meets all of the technical requirements for subdivision, such as having adequate frontage, minimum lot size, and access to a public street; (6) said that the proposal is to create three lots of 5353 square feet each; (7) noted that this proposal meets all of the development standards within the general plan guidelines for this area, and the three lots will be very satisfactory building sites; (8) explained that there are no inherent constraints or topographical constraints which would render any of these lots unbuildable. Ms. Srour continued and: (1) said that this is not a flat lot, but rather has a slope of approximately eight feet from east to west at the front of the property; (2) commented on letters sent to the Commission by the neighbors, and stated that the letters contain some very serious inaccuracies; (3) stated that this is the first application for a lot division since the Ryans have owned this property; (4) explained that there are currently two units on this property, as the city records will prove; (5) continued by discussing Exhibit B, which had been provided to the Commission, and she specified the lot sizes of all lots in the surrounding area; (6) stated that there is no consistent lot size or configuration in this particular area. Ms. Srour went on and: (1) stated that when this property was first purchased, it could have been subdivided into five lots; (2) said that the prevailing average lot size in this particular area is 5276 square feet; (3) stated that it is an unfair burden to judge this site only from the school site all the way up to 25th Street, noting that there are very distinct neighborhoods in this area; (4) stated that when this tract was originally laid out, the lot sizes were 40 feet by 100 feet; (5) noted that people become very protective of their neighborhoods, however, the plan being proposed is in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood; (6) continued by discussing the various lot sizes and streets in this particular area, noting that the configuration of lots varies P.C. Minutes 8/21/90 — 10 - — in this area; (7) stated that approval of this subdivision will in no way be detrimental to the neighborhood, and she therefore requested that the request be approved. Ms. Srour, in response to questions from Chmn. Ketz, explained that there are currently two units on the lot. She stated that the units are owner occupied at the present. She noted that Mrs. Ryan would be able to answer those types of questions in more detail. Robert Roselle, 572 18th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted that he received his notice only three days ago and therefore did not have adequate time to prepare a presentation; (2) wanted to ensure that the lots would not be smaller than those required in the R-1 zone; (3) stated that he would return with building plans are submitted, but at this time he has no objection. Jack Miller, 575 20th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the various lot sizes in this neighborhood and stated that the frontage in most cases is 50 feet or more; (2) said that the neighbors are concerned about having three 40 -foot lots jammed together on their street; (3) noted that this neighborhood is unique in terms of lot size and frontage; (4) said that the character of the neighborhood would be destroyed if they are allowed to have three 40 -foot lots; (5) described the layout of the property owned by the Ryans; (6) said that the lot size is not the main issue, but rather it is the length of the frontage; (7) discussed the letter dated August 1990 which was sent to the Commission; (8) stated that approval of this request is not conducive to low density; (9) hoped that the Commission would reconsider staffs recommendation to approve this request; (10) expressed shock and disappointment that the Ryans are moving and subdividing the lot. Lisa Miscione, 585 20th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that 20th Street is a nice street, and the subdivision would not be compatible with the character of the neighborhood; (2) noted concern for increased traffic generated by three more lots, especially in light of the potential development of Power Street; (3) discussed prevailing lot sizes in the neighborhood and stated that 30 of the 56 lots in Exhibit B are larger than the proposal, and 26 of the lots are smaller. Warner Lombardi, 1849 Valley Park, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the area in question is very unique and he could not understand why the city is attempting to subdivide it; (2) stated that most of the lots are quite large; (3) noted that parking is already quite bad in the area, and adding more lots would make the situation worse; (4) noted that there are already drainage and sewer problems in this area; (5) commented that no building plans have been submitted, nor has there been any mention of such vital issues as sidewalks; (6) again noted that many other lots in this area are larger than those being proposed; (7) felt that lots with a 40 -foot frontage would be inappropriate in this neighborhood. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) objected to this project, in light of the fact that the city has in the recent past combined many lots; (2) noted that many people had asked to combine lots, but their requests were refused because there was a requirement to have contiguous lots under the same ownership; (3) felt that just because this lot is larger, it should not be allowed to subdivide without meeting the proper criteria. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and: (1) felt that this project is putting the horse before the cart; (2) stated that this is the most beautiful part of the city, and he expressed shock that the owner wants to subdivide into three lots; (3) discussed the past lot mergers and stated that this proposal just doesn't make sense; (4) noted that there are people who are willing to pay a premium for one large home on one large lot; (5) said that the neighbors have voiced their opposition to this project; (6) discussed the CEQA guidelines related to development of two or more units; (7) stated that Comm. Peirce may have a conflict and it should be determined whether he does or does not. John Barren, 1948 Valley Park, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he has lived at this address his entire life, and he has noted increased traffic and speed of vehicles in the area; P.C. Minutes 8/21/ 90 --1/— (2) noted safety concerns for this area, stating that there is a hazard for pedestrians and school children; (3) said that it is sad to see the quality of life diminishing in this area; (4) stated that there are drainage and sewage problems in the area, and he could see no reason to allow additional units thereby increasing the burden on those systems; (5) discussed the issue of frontage and noted that smaller frontages are conducive to houses which cover a greater percentage of the lot, thereby creating runoff problems since water cannot be absorbed into the ground; (6) did not feel that a great deal of thought has been expended in regard to this project: (7) voiced his opposition to approval of the subdivision; (8) responded to questions from Comm. Peirce related to where the drainage problems occur. Vickie Garcia, 1835 Valley Park Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) agreed with the previous comments; (2) noted concern over traffic congestion and parking problems; (3) stated that prevailing frontages should be addressed as well as prevailing lot sizes before a decision is made; (4) could see no difference between lot splitting and subdivisions. Ms. Srour addressed the Commission and: (1) stressed that the code allows certain opportunities for development, and this proposal is within the guidelines; (2) emphasized that the homes in the 20th Street tract are slightly larger than other lots in the area; (3) discussed various frontages in the area, stating that they vary, and the precedent is well established for 40 -foot lots; (4) stated that the Building Department will analyze drainage and sewage issues at the appropriate time, however, there has been no indication that there are any problems with either of those items; (5) said that it is unfair to relate this proposal to that of Power Street, noting that the two projects are very different; (6) stated that low density does not mean no growth at all, and this proposal is well within the established pattern in this area. Betty Ryan, 588 20th Street, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that there will be adequate sized lots created by this subdivision; (2) stated that they have considerably improved this property; (3) explained in detail the structures which currently exist on this lot; (4) stated that the cottage is not rented out, however, it is frequently used as a guest house; (5) explained that they are not moving out of the area; they merely want to move so that they can have a home with an ocean view; (6) asked that her request be approved. Public Hearing closed at 11:15 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz. Comm. Moore felt that this is an open and shut case. He stated that the main issue is the prevailing lot size, and he felt that this project is well within the reasonable definition of prevailing lot size, and this is a right which the property owners certainly enjoy. He therefore favored approval of the project. Comm. Moore addressed the concerns voiced by the neighbors, and stated that those concerns relate mainly to building design itself, not the actual lot size. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chinn. Ketz, explained the reasoning behind the past lot mergers undertaken in the city. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-68, as written. AYES: .Comms. Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chinn. Ketz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Ingell Chinn. Ketz advised that the decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. P.C. Minutes 8/21/90 n ' tc N lT,' t-iAP No. of Lots - 140 EXHIBIT A Avg. Lot Size - 5,860 sq. ft. - /3-- EXHIBIT B No. Lots - 56 Avg. Lot Size - 6,077 sq. ft. 21sT 4l ',S 25 1,5 S I N. h i C� X49 °� 59S z 50 I C 6 60 6 720. 7s 8 Mz 8 N O 12770 15 ST City of Hermosa Leach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attn: City Clerk Mme. alai e iberf ling 575 20th Street Hermosa Beach, SCA 90254 30 August, 1990 As I discussed with you last week in your office, a group of neighbors living in the immediate vicinity of 588 20th Street wish to appeal the Planning Commi ss i on is decision on August 21 1990 which approved a proposed three lot subdivision of the property at 588 20th Street. I am writing on -behalf of my neighbors and myself to request the opportunity for us to persQnally appeal to the City Council against the proposed three lot subdivision at the first available date. I/we understand that our appeal before the City Council will be part of a public hearing on the matter. Enclosed is our check in the amount of $348.50 to cover the cost of the required appeal fee. I understand that the City Clerk will apprise us of any notification requirements and of the public hearing date after it is set. i_f you have any questions, I can be reached at (213) 376-3871. My home address is 575 20t: Street, Hermosa Beach. Since I am the acting coordinator for our neighborhood group, I would appreciate having any telephone calls or correspondence on this matter directed to me. Vel Ll l ly yours Miler JOHN M. MILLER 575 - 20TH STREET HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 ts--40220 2 716 -30/406057' 19 't) gay !o !ie Order 01 / /742470 7 or6 cf ��$ 301-61 74/-i7c-e7/74,449rie,q0-z 7 >/`7V/1 al a r, SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK O. Westchester ONice x0045 8740 S. Sepulveda Blvd. Los Angeles, CA L. A 641wJT PROPSc-J v7 PoOtvIS)t.+ 1: L 2 200004 31: 2 7 L611104 511,04 2 -.r CR" OF HERMOSA SE �H PROJECT ADDRESS ; )r,yn I, 5// t Q-1 / 22y-74,7)17 /7c°:2('�,1 • Project Name (If applicable) Usee-) :Ing—^�-�lht 1i•. LEGAL DESCRIPTION / /,1(4' 7 ) 1./. iv ZONING i )c fh P° f -7-51&4 3 : k ,3 I t f z �3 rn6 APPLICANT INFORMATION: Name (s) /2)0./f/ . { l34.el'.c,(7•,,,,., ; (ot Phone ,37) - / 7r - 795? , //I 9e)z- Relationship to Property APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE t, � ��. �� (727-e� /tL ,( SATE ii_ ZCLC Mailing Address Applciant's PROJECT REQUEST Conditional Use Permit -Commercial Conditional Use Permit -Condominium Number of Units Development Agreement Environmental Staff Review Final Subdivision (Parcel/Tract Map) General Plan .1 1.1 L_ 3 1990 Lot Line Adjustment }� Lot Split Parking Plan Precise Plan Specific Plan Specific Plan Amendment Ai Tentative Subdivision (Parcel/Tract Map) Zone Change Zone Variance TOTAL FEES $450.00 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY- Date of submittal: Received by: DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT \/ eh--; ,. cl4 LOT SPLIT TO CREATE THREE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING LOTS.., each lot 'to be 40.25 x 133 e.ch lot (attach additional pages if necessary) LAUREL LEE ROBERTS NOTARY PUBLIC • CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY r mm Explcys 6mr FL 19143 OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT* We4,-,6i1-;!.j,'ZI44h`; 47v being duly sworn, depose and say that _we/I r, are -the owner of'th:e property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are true and/correct to the best of our/my knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn before me this L[.day of -C . , 19 . Lausg, kaz6ie NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the County of State of California. * Signature required from current • Si nedf`a g Lc.c- Owner's Address: - ' :t Telephone/ i3) j7.2_ -,y j — property owner, not ownerjn escrow. ib Va tr Drive r•arxia ?eac .321943 for a thr e! .9 v ap apr'ova1 of t- yes- 4e}vve iivision of prope locat t^f*e.. t `u fd = g1 -es dents of the }fir yir r, -i; "; 1 ea c -).Y iib 2;011 : ? r=r 3 `t"'.- t-,, _? t. _ :.r'+ �Tf;t l ari;-1 � t k E?' MR I a i ?`tc.. i! sr 'x:: t ice' e' 3 a'-, r 'i1 tlt-,e iuiv('<,a ,c)--, to "t xropDsed a'tibdivi a. n. c't 8 20t, .r 1Ler``',tS �1 you :� w away € , -, , iV tz,Lo t: t he s b.i c cr t ear P :o !��11 ' t t il- ' 01, '(.. 1 ?ri 1 t T. i+ An rct t T i» ::�aa `'�2 c: 7` ' �i tvi3 E�t' ° `Gig iig % 1cia lvis ._.,)Itr. now a ;ron € r t: t1 over. i : ; City has moi) 9.: en :.,i;S.3 t ;it x, en ,.dV,iE,7Cw.. i?i 5.. deri3 c' 3', ' `1. +iy ✓.p�,:. Ise of iie ' :''s c t' 1, ii1 S 3i ans iiC ng present # w - 0 .T. -Ty wore than it already i. A. 10w:Lr +r; tr,J,e�tMc+ t�i of ;t 1 t` ; 'onsi stent wit. the 'con � t _i ow ii�YL`,..-i y. £tC� '17t: 1 � i� LY: neigh as ours -rt T k321 .. � f}6Srt Lepc- C" :, f ;:t C__i k4,__11 which` Wl 1 , ented to the Plan1sr s3 ' 1C, 1C i at .t -s r!E et C:i:i At 1 po i nt;.S tIt l -,:a tthe +Yoposec ` 1 of : a W' sc} .i �i s r t SItY't'VU.rhel'u'L area »Yt.? T1 �?"1V V31 th t.'Jtt s=:: t�:f mac, ge ii:!.'„':�1.1i7` ' a1. -g :r 'i id t.t:F?it 'r� T4?.ry' �9, 't.1 -le_ - ii`k r td l' :tc.�..'y} f�"C's?:-_' ]i. �.ic' propos lots tret r_;: -yclaCJ. % C .o —. i,. O tt::' L t i h. Lo^.� 2 [ Le V t .= t c.:...r r'rr,,P^' +I'ii*`:si r-. �r i' :+;. i- i� } .e r a r, :-v- w«e ; ' „'-.- deter. T 1 rL" l J • d atP the at ..:,. a4 ; sii i .1i.._ rOrt: EsT"ir 2 ; i - 1: r h c> i, 1. 14T - M to tai i ang WCULL. nt. L t i` ax; l i' ., .a- 1 >'� 1 ,c. 'v �'" 'v14Y W' S "`i w: t .. ac i. [," . t _'r• `�.il < OM. ,+'. ..a n:- ivw ...a ticC a:t Ilr CrtUrs ,i' . .." Jai v• ' he C:i. ;• ' t` ub'ae ti`ye 'f .,l i OC3 tt 1 ,Z->t7eY_' +treet i1iS zith Street,. Zi: r. the tl'<l'}f? at : tf)... .5._C'.' -ent`.. .1-:1 tt3e ec"."1 't -::a it V T S not fail til :wo en tbe s i t;i,'atir` 3 wi sl ci? :.moi ty deve.ic raent at :588 ' h Str t- 't='' 1Y t i `a .7:.i `Ic n ?C -r' c t 4?It3 Ca.Sj �:f T,T y" Vkx in i .nis _ - .'.��.'tT.� �. .. i..}.....�. .i.,t'�'--f'aISJ .jdl °.•f�',::. ,:;�`'a•a �t+:�e'a"'..:i:, ty - a. ,i_vvn .-ac r, SFr:, ±i .:.r ro^4. Tt{ nce Y_"3>Y.c 1r. , s:.-+' t. di .� F' 1 ., tl aCe •�'.-�t;;N e d vili�.ia ce c ti i'::rry-y l { i_ `T_ 1 ,-.7. K •i S jv1,In '=ved, �}# i ,,- k ee�- �J ! , 1rF,(,„in? ":s) 1 t t e llou. tT7 '� :.- e5 Wt k..n F .``'. (11.7,ring tn.,:. 4 11:evat' i: 'v : .'i..' t Z_.,,tet... yy,,Hov. ie'tJ�'.: r we L:!�'. : i fee-:_' ti, D::: "' nsIs .Inc iv- ' _':.,-.0. : 3 L t �..,:-�` .. J v✓ l it }r-, , .).i, - :':;:ki ! We . 1oi;e he } r_na no. (k?.,Dar tight ',..1.11g and `_) i,_: sJpro. eacia time tins su;xi iv �t t�2'+ lP he mir!... ,t :rte J ypos ar i YYNi. :-1,��t gi`^��ef t',,7n Yyt� �v1.�3{a L4}1� e�iat t is �tletter ( �Si4itv:.::,J.: r'S{n 3-LlZS.ijar I�eat_ in-a,C' .tut there 7n r..:.3 :sf± ca :I:.* t.F-n"e L.'�J-10t (''t �'�T D+.�. our collective t e t1t.+r ho ,3: a - r 'iii _ a ..t �. rrx, attendance at theorft i ' C n i Ioni tF?c . ay , k . 6 , .. 21----ve_ 0 2. e) uomei pett lc cL0.4..._ -ti- i ,..) ::;/ („:_) 7'4' --.t: . --/2/ . 13:7 0-,"..1.0., n.c. (..,) if_-_.7.,e,e..?... c.4 - --) \./ .—/ 7) ',.\-, ( ; ‘, S 5 ) s , /4ztz, 4-E /kz, ,,L1,0321,,A_ 577 J. G.+ • .4 -66"- g (3 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the 12_-1- day of S -7,1 -47t -i-11:52- , , deposit into the United States Post Office, first class postage prepaid, a copy of the public notice attached as Exhibit "A" to each and every person attached on Exhibit "B". I warrant that the persons named on Exhibit "B" are all the persons required by applicable law to receive the public notice attached as Exhibit "A". I also posted the two (2) signs in two (2) clearly visible locations at the subject property. I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to cause these public notices to be made in an accurate and timely fashion and agree to hold the city harmless against any liability whatsoever for any defect of said notice or notices. In the event an action is instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction which questions the legality of the public notices, then the City may in its exclusive discretion suspend all hearings or cause the cessation of a hearing which was held in accordance with the public notice. In the event that the court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be defective, then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke any permits granted and cause any approvals given pursuant to those public notices to be declared null and void and I agree on behalf of myself and my heirs, assigns, or successors -in -interest to hold the City harmless in connection therewith. I declare, under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. I have executed this declaration on this the /Z/ 7!4 day of , 19E-_,) at Hermosa Beach, California. (Project Location) F6907x'712 3-Lo7 -Sci 3V ! L 15 / cj Application for (CUP, Tract Map, etc.) State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) SS: \0001 /14./{.7/LC c- 7 (Nam nature) �/Cr2 7` (Capacity) / / On this the /f day of Jr/ , 19 5Q , before me, �&&7'" I. /w�� / , the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared %k,/,?) %?% ALLP/^ and Yv proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence or ( ) personally known to me to be the person(s) whose name(s) /5 subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that /�e executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (seal) OFFICIAL SEAL LAURICE M. DUKE Notary Pub$IC • Cd"arMS PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN L A. COUNTY Ny Comm. Exp. Mar. 12, 1093 -20 — RECEIVED OCT 0+1990 1 October, 1990 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attn: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Kathleen Midstoke Roger Creighton Chuck Sheldon Robert Essertier Albert Wiemans Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to allow a 3 -lot subdivision of 588 20th Street Dear Members of the City Council: As you know, the residents in the immediate vicinity of 588 20th Street are very much opposed to the Planning Commission's recent approval of the proposed subdivision of 588 20th Street into three 40 foot wide lots. • It is our position that allowing that property to be broken up into three small 40 foot lots would create an incompatibility which would forever change the unique character, ambience and way of life of our neighborhood. We have no disagreement with Mr. and Mrs. Ryan's right to subdivide their property. What we object to is their proposal to subdivide it into three lots of 40 feet each. It is the consensus of the neighborhood that a compromise solution whereby only two lots of 60 feet each would be created would "save..the neighborhood" and still allow the Ryan's to make a substantial profit on their investment. The Planning Department's report of September 19, 1990 (copy attached) clearly states that the the average lot size for the "Valley area" is larger than that of the proposed lots; and that 103 of the 140 lots (74%) are larger, than the proposed lots. By definition, therefore, the prevailing lot size.in the "Valley area" is greater than the proposed lot size.. For this reason we believe that the proposed three 40 foot lots are not consistent with the Subdivision ordinance which requires a finding that the "size of the proposed lots is not smaller than the prevailing lot size in the area in which they are located." The Planning Department has conceded in its own report that in this instance a subdivision compromise of two lots on the subject property could be considered. Also, the City Manager has made several pertinent low density related observations about the proposed subdivision and recommends that the Planning Department's suggested alternative recommendation - that the proposed subdivision be limited to two lots - be seriously considered. dF 4 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 5 While we agree that an adequate lot size is important, our main. concern is the marginal frontages that would result from the proposed subdivision. With just one exception, the frontage of each of the lots on the streets surrounding the 588 20th Street property is 50 feet or larger. From this perspective, the proposed three 40 foot wide side-by-side lots are clearly not consistent with the prevailing frontages in the immediate area. We believe it is inappropriate to allow the proposed 40 foot lots, which just barely meet the City's minimum frontage requirements, in a neighborhood where most of the lots are 50 feet or larger in width. The City has long been a proponent of low density housing and that is what our objection to the proposed subdivision is all about. Many of us were recently required to merge our lots with the understanding that this was being done to preclude the possibility of their being subdivided in the future, which would, of course, increase density. It would seem that the proposed three lot subdivision is inconsistent with the intent of the merger program as well as the concept of low density. Recently we were encouraged to learn that the proposed Power Street Project (which is only t.wu lots west of the proposed 588 20th Street subdivision) was being down -sized to a rrore acceptable number of lots and dwellings. We think the same low density logic should be applied in this case too. Parking on 20th Street is already very limited. There can be no question that the inevitable addition of three side-by-side new homes on the proposed 40 foot lots would make the existing parking situation much worse. To summarize, we recommend a compromise solution whereby the 588 20th Street property would be subdivided into two 60 foot wide lots! This will allow the Ryan's a reasonable profit and will preserve the unique character, ambience and way of life of our neighborhood. We hope that each of you will be able to take the time to drive by the 588 20th Street property and see for yourself just how inappropriate the proposed three lot subdivision would be. We strongly urge you to approve a two lot subdivision in lieu of the proposed three lot subdivision! /1-Z5, ee&-x) 14J3 ,3 Sincerely, The Residents of the "Vali y area;, zzi 7 7 S- i ley 1/({,I;-ey )w Ave / C/ j £ p //L7 /-2/ 2 or 4 1? , `--1( iA 'V -770-9n Arn-74 y-250 Cf. -I" 74)71,-)7lTf.,1 WY 0.14 97/ 712 -2,7 CC?) 'Th71Y,) rq-Pf 7173 p 4\1).2 )_..s,v0.-..k7;v — • / -0:v11.27, L 1- -;-" 77 412? ec5- c2/ -c5" -\ 174 0--c itg t' -47 ,21./ >-1-712./ /-1 >5' 2:7 6/ ,c-4272-29, 77774/ p-kv /12 1:q tic -r• a QatcY,ikt it,ta 8:50 `'Lc -Q. ()iv 1 SsO \) CiSa r&OZL ()25'Li (t&ati 4(1).1r4 q. • (i_44_ nlciykeeacA _ 1(1 J ��� 4:( 9 6;' s /6-6r,L( aF CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Schubach, Planning Director FROM: Ken Robertson, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Approximate Lot Widths for Valley Park Area DATE: October 1, 1990 The following is an approximate percentage of lots within the given range of lot widths within the entire "Valley Park" area (see map in exhibit A, staff report) and the focused area between 18th and 21st Street west of Power Street (Exhibit B map) LOT WIDTH: = or < 40' > 40',< 50' = or > 50' Valley Park (Exhibit A Map) 15% 12% 73% Focused area (Exhibit B Map) 12% 9% 78% SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 5 1907 T1le CorNiNoi } T)erA y \fa I ()Ag,Avg 06905e_, the., 3U-0/iv, DP 53g ,201--k Si j bc, 1t1Q,E, )oro L. okieoj 'Jho Diez, Jo' • . _ 113 J tn1,S eArgan A o^' 020th 3.114, ! r-khn tuoolo{, `P/ocJ op) -F Vi 1 I PiRk . IAA) J U&i IS buou%aL DCc'.TT L k h l tho u J _No.; 1'I€ , . . SUPPLEMENTAL IMIFORMATION 5 C /9--xmtvcc cx- ts)- /2 414v2k- /(141 TPT 6)(,01 /47 a'A7'z)/1___722 (oP sys ?‘f-/ /t1/(CWea /7-06 lo4 1/16 - INFORMATION 1 October 1990 RECEIVED OCT 0.1 1990 Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council, My purpose in writing is to propose a solution to the problematic way in which the city determines prevailing lot size. Specifically this issue arises when a property owner attempts to split a large lot into smaller ones - the municipal code states that the newly created lots shall be "not smaller than the prevailing lot size in the area". This issue has been contested in two proposed projects in my neighborhood and I suspect elsewhere in the city as well. I do not know how the city makes this determination at present (and this in itself is a problem). I do know that city staff has expressed discomfort with the current method in at least two planning commission meetings. Lack of a clearly defined and visible policy invites controversy. My proposal is to break down the wording of the municipal code into three pieces and operationally interpret them to form a simple algorithm to answer the question of how small or large the new lots can be. 1) The municipal code says "not smaller than". It does not say "not significantly smaller than" or "not substantially smaller than". It clearly intends a single threshold below which lot splitting is not allowed. 2) The literal meaning of "the prevailing lot size" is the single most frequent lot size. In statistical terms this is the mode of a sample as opposed to the mean, median or other measure. For example, in a mythical collection of 21 lot sizes shown below, the arithmetic mean is 6532 sq ft and the most frequent lot size class is the 6400-6499 sq. ft. class. I have arbitrarily chosen to group lots in 100 sq. ft. classes. 4 f r 3 e q u 2 e n c 1 y 0 Mythical Distribution of Lot Sizes mode = 6400-6499 sq ft class mean = 6532 sq ft 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 100 sq ft classes 3) The meaning of "in the area" is less clear because "area" is undefined. We don't have an unambiguous definition of how much of an adjacent area should be SUPPLEMENTAL 5 INFORMATION considered. But there is an existing policy for public notices (I believe it is a 300' radius from the subject property) that could be used as a minimum. If the city has a policy of notifying people 300' away of a pending hearing, but defines those same people as being outside the subject property's area, then a disturbing inconsistency results. A possible exception to this would be the case of a neighborhood border defined by a geographic separation. For example, view lots on the top of the sand hill should probably be considered a different "area" from the valley lots on the east side of the sand hill even though the physical separation may be less than 300'. The intent of the minimum lot size rule could be construed as a means of guaranteeing that future lots will not degrade the value of the neighboring lots. Usually value is synonymous with sq. footage, but not necessarily when a view is involved. Piecing these three elements together produces a simple algorithm that could be used to answer the question at hand. I am familiar with two specific matters before the council that have been controversial because of questions about the legally required minimum lot size in a proposed lot split. Here is how the algorithm might be applied in these two cases. Case 1. The recent proposal to split a large lot on 20th Street into 3 lots (the Anderson property). In the planning commission hearing (decision to allow a lot split was appealed and is headed to the city council October 9), proponents of the lot split presented detailed data on lot sizes of adjacent properties, purportedly showing that the newly created lots would be slightly larger than the average of the adjacent lots. Although this may yet turn out to be a valid finding, the "evidence" presented to the planning commission was based on specious reasoning. The proponent chose to consider only certain properties on 20th Street itself and excluded properties on Valley Park Avenue which admittedly were larger and would raise the overall average considerably. The grounds on which the larger properties were excluded form the "sample average" was that they were larger lots! Under the proposed algorithm, city staff would take a 300' radius around the Anderson property, include all lots in this radius as a sample, group these lots into 100 sq. ft. classes, and recalculate the "prevailing lot size" as the mode of this sample. Armed with a detailed map and a pencil, someone could resolve this question in a few minutes. Case 2. The Power Street project. I will not address the project except as directly applicable to the theme of lot size determination. Some months ago, a resident mailed a letter to the planning commission asking how 8 lots could be created from a property that is currently 4 lots and whether this would violate the spirit, if not the law governing lot mergers and downzoning. Commissioner Moore read aloud from the letter and asked Mr. Schubach to respond. Mr. Schubach answered by saying that the 4 lots were extremely large and thus it was quite permissible to divide them into 8 smaller lots that would be roughly the size of the other lots in the area. As I recall, Mr. Schubach estimated without benefit of notes that the proposed Power Street lots averaged a little under 6000 sq ft and that the typical lot size in the area was also about 6000 sq. ft. so that the 8 lots met the city code. This response defused the issue but it may have missed the point. First, as I have noted above, the municipal code doesn't say anything about approximation so a rough fit isn't good enough. The code strictly defines a minimum threshold. Second, even if we were to use the statistical mean instead of mode (violating the municipal code wording), the figures cited were inaccurate. In fact, the Power Street subdivision lots run about 5600 sq. ft. and the average lot size on Valley Park Avenue and Power Street is more like 6400 sq. ft. To resolve this issue, I propose city staff take a 300' radius around the subject property, compute the statistical mode using 100 sq. ft. classes, and arrive at a minimum lot size for the project (I predict that after the footage for the cul de sac is subtracted, the answer will be that 6 or 7 lots will fit, but not 8). It does seem that an exception could be made to exclude from the sample those lots that may be within 300' but are situated atop the sand hill. The view lots are in a demonstrably different neighborhood (cf. the reasoning employed for the Anderson property). I offer the proposed algorithm as a way of determining lot size in a fair and consistent manner from one case to the next. I believe its use would make the process clear and visible to the citizens. It should simplify the task of the city staff and it should reduce the controversy that seems imbued in these matters. If the current method is not working well, why not try something new? (c) William R. Thomas 1947 Valley Park Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 October 2, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council October 9, 1990 SUBJECT: HOUSING ELEMENT REVISION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-4 PURPOSE: TO COMPLY WITH STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW AND UPDATE OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT INITIATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION Recommendation The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council adopt the revised Housing Element which covers the 1989 - 1994 planning period by adopting the attached resolution. Said Housing Element consists of the "1989 Housing Element, Draft Revision," dated July 9, 1990, and recommended modifications and additions generated from workshops, the State Department of Housing and Community Development review comments, and the City Attorney's comments. Copies of the Draft Housing Element are available at the Hermosa Beach Library, City Clerk's Office, Police Department and Planning Department. Background At their meeting of September 18, 1990, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Housing Element revision, including the modifications and additions noted below. The revision being considered is the second revision to the 1979 Housing Element of the General Plan of the City. Work was begun on this revision in early 1989 and the draft being considered has assembled data and information, with the objectives of the community, to produce a housing component to guide the City to 1995. Two workshops have been held with the Planning Commission and City Council. The first, on February 15, 1990, was held to review objectives from the 1984 revision and suggest adding objectives to comply with newly adopted state requirements. The workshop also added specific policies that related directly to actions desired at the local level. The second meeting, on August 8, 1990, was for the purpose of review and public input of the completed draft revision. Corrections and changes from the workshops have or will be included in the element. The draft revision has also been reviewed by City staff and those interested of the general public. Basically, the revision provides updated information from the 1984 revision and the current situation for housing. New policies in the revision come mostly from the recognition of local problems. Several new sections have been added to the revision as state requirements or emphasis from the City. Analysis The completion of the draft revision and the holding of the two workshops began the formal review process which will conclude with two public hearings. The hearings held before the Planning Commission on Sept. 4, 1990 and Sept. 18, 1990, and the City Council hearing on Oct. 9, 1990, end the review with the consideration of the final action to adopt the revisions as part of the General Plan. MODIFICATIONS/ADDITIONS From the workshops and hearings some refinements to the revision have been proposed and were included in the Planning Commission recommendation as follows: Request: Add "handicap" to the first State goal on Page 10 and add "handicap" to first City goal on the same page. Action: To be added in the final draft. Request: Eliminate Objective #1 on page 11. Action: Will be deleted in final draft. Request: Eliminate Objective #23 on page 12. Action: Will be deleted in final draft. Request: Add the word "ecologically" to policy #17 on page 16 of the Goals and objectives section. Action: Will be included final report. Request: Study and report on the quantified objectives noted on page 14. Action: Report has been prepared as Appendix G to the draft revision and the quantified objectives on page 14 will be changed in the revision to 45 lower income units and 150 total added units. Also the following will be added to paragraph 2, page 23, "City projections are lowerthan the SCAG allocation, takin• into consideration chan•in• employment, vacancy rates and other local conditions see Appendix G). SCAG figures will be used onl if the following. numbers .ro.osed b the Cit are found to be unacce.ta le: 2 very low low moderate high 43 45 58 149 Request: Add cities to chart on page 34 to be the same as those on page 57. Action: Will be added in final draft. Request: Add discussion about the change to using a special prosecutor for the abatement of illegal units. Action: To be added at the top of page 44, "Originally the legal work was handled by the District Attorney's office and proved to be too slow to be most effective. In 1989 the City hired a special prosecutor to increase the quality of legal work in the program and speed up the system when prosecution became necessary." Request: Investigate and discuss how to use health, safety and general welfare concerns including parking deficiencies to restrict number of persons in one household, unless related, as another feature of bootleg units. Action: To be added as paragraph 2, Page 44, "The emphasis placed on the abatement of illegal units in Hermosa Beach continues to increase as more information is gathered and the cumulative effects on the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Along with minimum code violations is the tendency for landlords to allow units to become overcrowded by permitting occupancy of more tenants than a unit was intended to house. In Hermosa Beach, that usually means a household of unrelated individuals, overtaxing their housing unit and the public facilities. This situation would include creating a problem of adequate parking for the extra tenants who are impossible to compute in the attempts to solve the parking dilemma. Additional demands for water, sewer, fire protection and other services are also hard to determine when actual numbers of residents are unknown." Request: Consider civil prosecution for recovery of City's costs of the abatement program. Action: To be added as part of paragraph 1, page 44, " The costs of the administrative and legal work done by the City may also be recoverable by the City through civil prosecution of the violator. The County of Los Angeles has used the process recently and it has proved successful." Request: Add comment about the fee survey currently underway in the City. 3 Action: To be added to paragraph 3, page 46, "The typical cost, in 1989, in Hermosa Beach...on the average. To insure that fees remain related to actual City costs, Hermosa Beach has an on-going fee survey program. The program monitors all related fees and projects impacts from any changes." Request: Add explanation of density on a per acre basis to make the narrative about density in the Housing Standards section clearer. Action: To be added after Table IX, page 57, "Table IX compares densities on the total area of the specified cities, which includes commercial and industrial uses. The City of Hermosa Beach, using only the 433 acres of residential land and the 10,129 units existing, has an average density of 23.4 units per acre. Some areas will be higher and some lower in order to obtain the average." Request: Study and include results of impact of a limit of two units per lot in the R-2 zone. Action: To be added to paragraph 3, Page 59, "The R-2 zone contains about 16 lots that would be affected by only being able to build a duplex on a large lot, where 3 or 4 units are now allowed. These lots contain at least 5,250 square feet of lot area and the largest lot (70x108.12) has 7,568.40 square feet would permit four units. This limitation would reduce the number of potential units by another 17 units. Request: Increase guest parking from 1/2 to 1 space per. unit. Action: To be included as a part of the implementation of the housing element. (No additions to the revision are needed). Request: Review impact of including subterranean space on FAR, height, etc. Action: Mentioned in the revision, detailed study of the impact to be a part of the implementation of selected standards. (No additions to the revision needed). The City Attorney has also recommended that to comply with legislative mandates regarding affordable housing that the Section on "Program Selection," page 84, be amended to add the following: Incentives for Housing Development The City shall consider all housing programs available through the State Department of Housing and Community Development for a which a developer may request City assistance for the development of affordable housing Objective: Provide Affordable Rental and/or sale of Housing for Low and Moderate Income Families Responsible Agency: City of Hermosa Beach Financing: Private sources using various State tax exempt financing vehicles. Implementation: On-going action program. Also to be added as objective 42, page 14, "Provide Affordable Rental and/or Sale of Housing for Low and Moderate Income Families. Other modifications to respond to suggestions and comments by the State Department of Housing and Community Development are proposed to be included (Appendix H). These changes are contained in the attached response letter which will also be included as Appendix H (attached) to the revision. The modifications and additions as noted in this analysis, and the modifications as contained in the letter to HCD will be included in the final document with any other requested changes after the final decision by the City Council. CONCUR: evin B. North City Manager Attachments Michael Schubach Planning Director 1. Appendix G (Housing Quota Appeal) 2. Appendix H (HCD review letter and City response) 3. Proposed Resolution for adoption 4. P.C. Resolution 90-75 5. P.C. Minutes 9/4/90 and 9/18/90 6. City Attorney letter dated October 2, 1990 p/pcsrhsng APPENDIX G HOUSING QUOTA APPEAL Vacancy rate: The different documents from SCAG (RHNA and the revisions) explain that SCAG has used readily available figures to make the determinations for Fair Share housing. For the vacancy rates SCAG used State of California, Department of Finance published figures (see RHNA, page A-8, SCAG Data Source). However, the figures in Table 29A, page F-30, revised RHNA, show an actual vacancy rate for the City of 1.60%, which is quoted in the draft revision. The Table also shows that the rate translates into an allocation of 104 housing units by 1994 to increase the vacancy to a number considered to be optimum for availability of housing. The vacancy rate from the Department of Finance for the same period was published at 4.34%, according to several different newsletters and bulletins. The vacancy adjustment is added to the base allocation to arrive at the total figure of 513 units to be built by 1994, according to SCAG's distribution. The total is then distributed further among the four income groups as shown in Appendix C. The vacancy rates are discussed in the draft revision and the lowering of the assigned allocation from SCAG is as proposed in the quantified objectives section. It would seem reasonable to lower the allocation by the 104 units based on the following: a) the data source (Dept. of Finance is the same) b) SCAG figure disagrees with DOF figures c) SCAG recognition of DOF as a data source. It may also be possible to logically make an adjustment that will result in a negative factor in the allocations, as in the case of Pomona, Palmdale, and Agoura Hills. This adjustment would still be directed toward achieving the ideal vacancy rate of 3.55%, down .89°I from the 4.34%. Instead of providing more units, the Fair Share would be reduced so that existing units would fill up and lower the current vacancy. Current Density levels: In the draft revision, density is discussed in relation to the infrastructure, compared to other cities in the South Bay region, and documented concerning recent actions. One missing set of - calculations is the average density in the City on a per acre determination with only residential land used to arrive at the final figures. - 6 - The existing acreage for residential purposes totals 433 acres in Hermosa Beach. Existing units total 10,129. Dividing the units by the acres the average density of the City is 23.4 units per. acre. (This piece of information will be added just after Table IX in the Housing Standards section). It is difficult to directly correlate existing or desired density with the Fair Share allocations. As the past few years prove, the number of units may be built that fill the SCAG allocation and density can be lowered at the same time. It has been pointed out, however, that this condition is only temporary and, in fact, the City is quickly approaching a point where new housing will only be replacing the same number of units. How soon that will occur is speculation dependent upon market conditions in the near future. Even so, average number of units provided per year can be expected to decrease as replacement approaches. Numerical reductions in the Fair Share allocations may depend upon actual figures from the next two years for added housing units and past trends to indicate a reasonable reduction. The years 1988 and 1989, for example, only provided 30 added and 28 added units, respectively. Infrastructure: Like density, the problem of adequate public services and continued provision of those services does not translate very well when attempting to analyze Fair Share allocations. The local situation does exist so that care must be taken to review development proposals in light of insuring delivery of public services. No new dwelling should be granted if it is determined that there is a lack of capacity in regard to any public facility. Jobs/Housing Balance: Since the figures were assembled for the computation of the Jobs/Housing ratios there have been substantial changes in the regional market for the outlook of new jobs in the next five years. The greatest impact has been in the aerospace industry where 20,000 plus jobs have been eliminated in recent months. The outlook is for additional jobs reductions and possible reductions in the military presence in the region. As a result, the pressures to produce new housing units have been lessened for the immediate future. Planning for the near future would mean through 1994 that added units would not be encouraged. The discussion in the draft revision centered on the fact that the regional needs of housing directly conflict with the local needs for jobs creation. CONCLUSION: The expected number of units to be added to the housing stock by the end of 1994 will be substantially less than the projected numbers from SCAG. While some of the issues are difficult to C transfer into quantifiable objectives, the building of actual units for the past three years does not indicate that past annual averages will continue. The decrease in added units reflects how the building of new units has been directly affected by local conditions. Until additional reasons can be developed and background information assembled, consideration might be given to lowering the quantified objectives by 104 to 409, on the basis of excessive vacancy. Affordable housing amounts could be reduced on a ratio basis from 158 to 127. It would also be appropriate that the SCAG allocation be lowered to reflect current regional trends in employment and local conditions. As was already noted, employment and jobs creation have suffered recently from substantial layoffs in aerospace and the yet to be determined military role in the region. Using, again, the excessive vacancy rate as a leading factor and major indicator of demand for new housing, coupled with diminished jobs creation, and the number of new units actually built over the last two years, the projected need for new housing units is less than SCAG's estimates and allows for reducing the anticipated need. This reduction would lower the allocation to an estimated 150 total added units for 1989-1994 and the number of affordable housing units to 45, and also includes a provision that a lower allocation be considered if public facilities are unable to handle the load. 8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA .. A P NDix H GEORGE DEUKMEIIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 1800 THIRD STREET, ROOM 430 P. O. BOX 952053 RECEIVED SACRAMENTO, CA 94252-2053 (916) 323-3176 Sr? 4 August 31 , 1990 Kevin Northcraft City Manager Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3385 Re: Review of the Hermosa Beach Draft Housing Element Dear Mr. Northcraft: Thank you for submitting the Hermosa Beach draft housing element, received July 19, 1990, for our review. As you know, we are required to review draft housing elements and report our findings to the locality under Government Code Section 65585(b). Identified concerns were reviewed in a telephone conversation on August 29, with Benjamin Inman, the City's Senior Planner. This letter and appendix summarize the conclusions of that conversation. The draft element contains good objectives for addressing the identified housing needs and provides much useful information about the City. However, there are a number of areas which, in our opinion, require revision to bring the element into compliance with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code). In particular, the element should identify adequate sites to accommodate.Hermosa Beach's share of the regional need for housing for lower-income households, and should include additional programs to assist in the development of low- and moderate -income housing. As you know, legislation adopted in 1989 requires additional housing elementanalysis by January 1, 1992, regarding assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to non -low-income use during the next ten years. A description of this legislation, Chapter 1451, and other recent changes to housing element law, is attached for your information. The City may wish to address this requirement now to avoid having to amend the element again by January 1, 1992. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is developing a technical assistance document to assist localities in meeting this new requirement. Mr. Kevin Northcraft Page Two We hope our comments are helpful to the City. We appreciate the cooperation of Mr. Inman during the course of our review. If you have any questions about our comments or would like assistance in the revision of your housing element, please contact Maggie Coulter of our staff at (916) 323-4475. In accordance with their requests pursuant to the Public Informa- tion Act, we are forwarding copies of this letter to the persons and organizations listed below. erely, an. y J. Div sion D=velopment NJJ:MC:mc Attachments olicy cc: Benjamin Inman, Senior Planner, City of Hermosa Beach Carlyle W. Hall, Jr., Hall and Phillips Western Center for Law and Poverty, Inc. Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley Jonathan Lehrer-Graiwer, Attorney at Law Dennis Rockway, Legal Aid Foundation of Long Beach Ana Marie Whitaker, Calif. State Poly -Tech University, Pomona Mark Johnson, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles Joe Carreras, Southern California Association of Governments Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General Bob Cervantes, Governor's Office of Planning and Research Richard Lyon, California Building Industry Association Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Christine D. Reed, Orange County Building Industry Association Appendix City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element The following changes would, in our opinion, bring Hermosa Beach's housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. At the beginning of each comment, the applicable section of the Government Code is cited. Where particular program examples or data sources are listed, these are suggestions for your information only. We recognize that the City may choose other means of complying with the law. A. Housing Element Review and Revision Review the previous element to evaluate effectiveness of the element, progress in implementation and appropriateness of goals, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element (Section 65588(a) and (b)). 1. "Effectiveness of the element" (Section 65588 (a)(2)): A description of the actual results of the earlier element's goals, objectives, policies, and programs. The results should be quantified where possible (e.g., the number of units actually constructed under a specified program) but may be qualitative where necessary (e.g., mitigation of governmental constraints). Include a review of all programs from the previous element. For example, the 1984 element included three components of the Housing Improvement Incentives program yet these were not reviewed. 2. "Progress in Implementation" (Section 65588(a)(3)): An analysis of the significant differences between what was projected or planned in the earlier element and what was achieved. Include more detailed analyses of previously proposed programs, especially programs that were not as successful as planned. For example, the problems associated with the program to retain affordable units in condominium conversions should be analyzed. 3. "Appropriateness of goals, objectives and policies" (Section 65588(a)(1)): A description of how the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the updated element incorporate what has been learned from the results of the prior element. The element describes suggested changes to some of the programs but it does not appear that any of these recommendations have been implemented. B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints 1. Analyze population and employment trends and quantify existing and projected housing needs for all income levels (Section 65583(a)(1)). If the additional service industry jobs, noted on page 32, were not taken into consideration when the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) developed its regional share allocation, the City may wish to plan for additional growth through its quantified objectives and/or programs. 2. Analyze and document household characteristics including overcrowding and housing stock condition (Section 65583(a)(2)). We have included information from the 1980 Census which can be used in the analysis of overcrowding. Several sources are available to determine the number of substandard units in need of repair and in need of replacement. These sources include: a recent (within last 5 years) windshield survey or sampling; estimates by the local building department, knowledgeable builders, nonprofit housing organizations or redevelopment agencies; updated figures from a HUD Housing Assistance Plan; or estimates derived from census data such as percentage of units built before 1940, which can serve as an estimate of maximum rehabilitation need. 3. Expand the inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, and analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites (Section 65583 (a)(3)). Clarify the development potential of the two remaining large sites: 1) under the general plan; 2) as currently rezoned or planned for rezoning; and 3) based on typical development patterns. Clarify whether services and facilities will be provided to these sites. Include the development potential of the vacant scattered sites, both in terms of allowable densities and actually developed densities. The element indicates that there may be scattered sites (page 54) that can be assembled for larger development but does not identify these sites or quantify the potential development. If the land inventory does not demonstrate adequate sites to accommodate the regional housing need,.the element could also identify land not currently zoned, but suitable for residential use (provided that the element include a program to rezone such sites within the 2 planning period). This could include publicly -owned surplus land, aging nonresidential uses that may be suitable for recycling to residential use, and areas with mixed-use potential. Given the apparent lack of land, the City may want to reconsider the use of the noted surplus school sites for housing. 4. Expand the analysis of the City's land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements and processing and permit procedures as potential and actual government constraints to the maintenance, improvement and development of housing, (Section 65583(a)(4)). This analysis should utilize specific objective data, quantified where possible. A determination should be made for each potential constraint as to whether it poses an actual constraint in the locality. Actual constraints should be addressed in the housing program (Section 65583(c)(3)). The element should analyze the following: a. Land use controls including zoning (e.g., density, parking requirements, lot coverages, setbacks), the provisions for second units, and attempts to reduce density including the growth control measure, Proposition Q. The City's non -conforming second unit abatement program has the potential to result in the loss of affordable units. The impact of this program should be assessed. Measures to mitigate the loss of these units, including more flexible standards for second units, could be addressed in the program section. Although the element includes a district -by - district assessment of the density reductions due to Proposition Q, it does not analyze the overall impact of the proposition. We are sending the City, under separate cover, a technical assistance paper, Statutory and Constitutional Requirements with Regard to Growth Control Measures, to assist in analyzing the impacts of Proposition Q. b. Building codes and their enforcement including any local amendments to the State Housing Law or Uniform Building Code, and degree or type of enforcement. c) On- and off-site improvement requirements (including street widths, curbing requirements, water and sewer connections, circulation improvements, etc.). Water (which is apparently private) and sewer services are noted as constraints, but there is no quantification of the impact on new development. d. Fees and exactions, including a review of actual itemized fees (only the total is given); a comparative analysis with surrounding jurisdictions may also be useful. The impact of fees on affordable housing development should be assessed. e. Actual permit processing time and standard approval procedures. 5. Include an analysis of the availability of financing and expand the analysis of the price of land and the cost of construction as potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels (Section 65583 (a) (5)) . The element should evaluate whether financing is generally available, whether interest rates are significantly different from surrounding areas, whether there are mortgage deficient areas in the community for new construction or rehabilitation loans, and whether there are underserved income groups in the community for new construction or rehabilitation loans. 6. Expand the analysis of the special housing needs of the handicapped, elderly, large households, farmworkers, families with female heads of household and the homeless (Section 65583(a)(6)). The element contains an estimate of the total numbers for each of these groups, but should also provide: tenure information where available; a quantitative and qualitative description of the need; and identification of potential solutions and resources to address the needs. Sources of information on special needs include the census as well as agencies or organizations which serve these populations. Programs should be identified to address any significant unmet needs for these groups. In our opinion, the analysis of the homeless should be expanded. The estimate given (3-6) may only cover the visible permanent homeless and not include the transient population. To establish a better count, and determine the specific needs of this population, the City should consult with shelter service providers, homeless hotline referrals, beach patrols, merchants, the police and churches and other appropriate agencies. Following the analysis the City may need to identify adequate sites for homeless shelters. To assist the City, we are sending the Department's paper "Shelter for the Homeless: Housing Element Requirements" under separate cover. C. Quantified Objectives Include quantified objectives for the maximum number of housing units that can be rehabilitated over the planning period (Section 65583(b)). D. Proposed Housing Programs 1. Incorporate the results of the assessment of the progress in implementation and appropriateness of the previous element's goals and objectives, as discussed in A.2 & 3 (Section 65588). 2. Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including rental housing, factory -built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters and transitional housing to meet the City's housing goals (Section 65583(c)(1)). Without a complete land inventory, it is not possible to determine compliance with this requirement. 3. Include programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate - income households (Section 65583(c)(2)). Several of the element's 41 objectives (pages 11-14) do not have accompanying programs. Of particular concern are those objectives aimed at providing affordable housing to meet the City's low- and moderate -income housing needs. The element notes that 28 percent of the City's households are low-income (and half of those are overpaying) and includes a quantified objective to provide 158 low- and very low-income housing units, but provides no programs for this purpose. Of the element's seven programs, only three appear to be directed at affordable housing; two of those are for seniors and one is for the homeless. None relate to new housing development. Programs which could be used for the development of low- income housing include, but are not limited to: a. Programs of the State Department of Housing and Community Development (included in the attached Supplemental Housing Element Information) for which the City could apply or assist a developer to apply. b. A density bonus program as required by Government Code Section 65915. Some localities have expanded upon State law and offer additional bonuses (more than 25 percent) or provide bonuses for housing meeting the special needs of their community. c. Land write-downs or sales of surplus lands for affordable housing. d. Federal programs including Community Development Block Grant, which was mentioned in the previous element but not in this one. e. Local programs to facilitate lot assembling (page 54) to make larger sites available for development. 4. Include program actions to address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for all income levels (Section 65583(c)(3)). Programs may be needed to address governmental constraints identified as a result of the analysis discussed in section B.4., above. 5. Include programs to conserve and improve the existing affordable housing stock (Section 65583(c)(4)). The element raises concerns about condominium conversions but proposes no programs to restrict such conversions or ensure that converted low- and moderate -income units remain affordable. The housing maintenance program mentioned from the last element appears to have been deleted; no rehabilitation programs are included in the present element. 6. To ensure that the City can meet its objectives and address housing element program requirements, the element should include more details about the programs and include a stronger commitment to implement (Section 65583(c)). Add specific activities with target dates or time lines within the planning period. For example: a. Shared Housing: Specify funding availability. This program was previously funded by CDBG which we understand is no longer being used by the City. In the absence of CDBG, can the City Housing fund support this program as well as the Affordable Housing Fund program? Have private funds been secured? b. Affordable Housing Fund: Specify the funding source and develop and include specific actions. c. Regional Homeless Advisory Committee: Describe specific actions to be undertaken by the City. For example, if necessary pursuant to comment B.6 above, identify adequate sites for emergency shelters and transitional housing. d. Ordinance Revision: Include the ordinances proposed for revision and the purpose of the revisions. This program could be used to address the government constraints discussed in B.4 above. If contemplated ordinance revisions would add government constraints, these should be included in the analysis discussed in B.4. E. General Plan Consistency Describe the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements (Section 65583(c)). F. Public Participation Describe how the City has made a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element (Section 65583(c)). In addition to holding public hearings at the planning commission and government body level, the locality should take additional steps to ensure the public participation of all economic segments (including low- and moderate -income households) of the community. Localities have found the following actions useful in facilitating public participation: 1. Establishment of a citizens! advisory group to assist in the development of the element. 2. Circulation of draft elements to housing interest groups. 3. Special advertising and outreach measures to church groups, organizations representing low-income households, and community and senior groups. Notices regarding public meetings on the element could be posted in community centers, libraries, City Hall and throughout the community in public places. G. Coastal Zone Housing Include the following information regarding housing in the coastal zone (Section 65588): 1. Number of new units approved for construction after January 1, 1982. 2. Number of units for low- and moderate -income households required to be provided either within the coastal zone or within three miles of it. 7 3. Number of units occupied by low- and moderate -income households and authorized to be demolished or converted since January 1, 1982. 4. Number of units for low- and moderate -income households required either within the coastal zone or within three miles to replace those being demolished or converted. For further information regarding housing in the Coastal Zone, you may wish to contact the California Coastal Commission at (213) 590-5071. 8 DRAFT LETTER September 13, 1990 Ms. Nancy J. Javor, Chief Department of Housing and Community Development Housing Policy Development Division P.O. Box 952053 Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 Dear Ms. Javor: We have received your detailed review of the draft Housing element revision for the City of Hermosa Beach. This letter is in response to the specific suggestions you have included in the Appendix to the letter. Perhaps the best way to respond is to follow the order of the Appendix for easy reference to your comments and the draft. In section A.1 the comment is to address each of the previously listed programs from 1984. Some of the programs are already mentioned (see pages 6-9). To clarify the status of the others the following will be added to Program Experience, page 9, paragraph 2, "On-going programs have been incorporated into the standard procedures used by the City. These include code enforcement, residential reports, land use controls, "bootleg" abatement, and the housing information system. The programs for conservation of affordable housin conservation - mobilehome ark zoning, manufactured housing regulations, coastal zone housing (SB 626) were single step activities which have een completed. The CDBG repair program was terminated due to the high cost of administering the program. The Housing Improvement Incentives Program was not implemented as intended in the 1984 revision. However, the information about cost impacts and Zoning code requirements, has been available though not in booklet form." Section A.2 suggests further analysis of the condo conversion problems discussed on pages 7 & 8 in the revision. To be added, page 7, paragraph 7,"...to recover the balance due from the agreement. Recent state legislation sets a minimum time availability of ten years in order to qualify for density bonuses in new projects and that might be a reasonable duration for converted units. Future affordable housing will probably need a monitoring provision enabling the City to avoid what has occurred in the past." Section A.3 Implementation of the amended programs a .s. in the program section, pages 82-84. Suggested changes to programs cannot be implemented until adoption of the revision. Section B.1, RHNA data from SCAG does take into account future events and includes them in the Fair Share housing allocations, see page 21, paragraph 4 and page 22, paragraph 4. Section B.2 comments on housing characteristics. The revision has a specific section, Housing Stock, see pages 40-41, which describes a recent survey of condition and permit activity over the last 10 years. Section B.3 suggests expanding on the inventory of land for residential development. The Site Inventory section, pages 53-55, describes the entire inventory with the type of development that may occur. Scattered sites are developed through private sector efforts and are done randomly without City participation. No programs have been suggested to convert needed open space to residential use, especially the vacant school sites (page 24) which represent an essential part of the park and recreation requirements of the residents of Hermosa Beach. Mentioned several times in the revision, pages 34 and 57, it is important to note that the density of Hermosa Beach is two and one-half times that of the City of Los Angeles with approximately 95% of the land already developed and improved. As the most dense city in the South Bay, balanced land use has been a priority versus imposing increased density. Section B.4a is regarding land use controls and their discussion in the revision. The section entitled "Housing Standards", pages 56-81, presents a detailed discussion of land use controls including comparisons to other local communities and current standards in the City. B.4a also mentions the City's abatement program but incorrectly identifies the program as second unit abatement. In the 1984 revision and again in the 1989 revision, pages 43-44, the abatement program is discussed in terms of illegal units built below minimum safety and health standards, without building permits and, in some cases, in violation of zoning densities. The removal of illegal units from the local inventory is in the general welfare of the community by insuring that residents should be confident that existing units are safe for habitation. In regards to Proposition Q, it is only a confirmation of existing density levels already in the zoning ordinance. Density permitted by the zoning ordinance is found in all cities, and is not "Growth management control" per se. Section B.4b, refers to Building Code analysis,.. is unclear and an example of other cities treatment of this requirement could be helpful. The statute requires discussion and analysis of constraints due to code enforcement, which is not considered to be the situation in Hermosa Beach. To be added to paragraph 4, page 46, "...all which lower the fees. Enforcement of the Uniform Building Code has raised the minimum standards for housing construction in the City over the ears. Like all other jurisdictions in the state, administration of the code is a typical program activity, and therefore does not result in any unique constraint to development not found in all other cities in the state." Section B.4c, relating to public improvements, does not apply to development in Hermosa Beach. All sites are served by physical infrastructure, as described in the revision, and connection to or replacement of these is not viewed as governmental constraints. Capacity of lines, age and cost of replacement of lines were the focus of constraints discussed in the revision on pages 48-50. Section B.4d is about fees and exactions. To be added to page 46, paragraph 3, "Generally, the fee schedule for a single family home is as follows: ITEM FEE ITEM FEE Building permit $2000 Sewer $ 900 Plan check 1300 Hydrant 1210 Open space acquisition 4290 Seismic 15 A current fee survey is underway which will relate comparability of fees to services performed. Actual permit processing time, on the average, is not considered to be a constraint and is not discussed in the revision. Section B.5 suggests a. more complete statement about financing in the area. To be added, page 45, paragraph 2,"...financing seems to be readily available. No differences in interest rates or loan availability is apparent compared with other surrounding areas." Section 6 deals with the special needs categories specified by state law. The revision, pages 29 & 30, is careful to address each category and to state whether or not a need is perceived at this time for that category. Regarding the homeless, pages 26 - 28, that section is detailed and accurate as written. Using the police department of the City of Hermosa Beach as a primary source for homeless counts, a range of 3-6 was used. Inclusion of the transient population could only be an estimate that would change from day-to-day based upon the experience of the police and the small geographical size of the City. The unofficial census count for 1990 was one homeless. The count was taken on March 22, 1990 as the Federal government's effort to accurately reflect homeless numbers for the 1990 census. Section C is a recommendation to estimate units to be rehabed during the planning period. To be added to Quantified Objectives, page 14, number 4. "Maintain recent trends and assist in the repair, remodel and rehabilitation of 800 units."To be amended, same section, number 1. "Provide 150...and replace 145 units for a total of 295 units. 2. Provide 45 . " See added Appendix G, Appeal of Fair Share Housing, for complete explanation of the proposed reductions. Section D.l seems to indicate that a restatement of the A.2 & 3' comments be included at the beginning of the program section. As an introduction to the programs, the following is to be amended paragraph 1, page 82, "The following are the program actions from the revision. These actions are considered to be appropriate as the im.lementation of stated :oals, ob'ectives, and .olicies in - LI I the revision. Review of the continued effectiveness of each program action will be done throughout the planning period and changes may be made in order to reflect community desires." Section D.2 is discussed in the revision in the Site Inventory section, pages 53-55. With the addition of scattered sites the section is a complete inventory of sites for the planning period. The following sentence will be added to paragraph 6, page 53, "...complete breakdown of housing activity). It is estimated that there are currently only 20 lots that are vacant in the City which represents .4 of 1% of the number of lots." Section D.3 is directed toward affordable housing programs in the City. Most of the efforts will continue to be private sector initiated projects, such as the seniors project on Pacific Coast Highway, page 53, which is in the design phase by the property owners. The City has, however, included the density bonus program as required and specifically mentioned as a policy in this revision, page 15, number 9. The revision also discusses the Section 8, rental assistance program, and that will be added to the program actions section on page 84, CDBG Rental Assistance (Section 8 Housing) Administered through the County of Los Angeles, the Section 8 program provides assistance to targeted households which are overpaying for housing. Subsidies are provided in order to reduce the amount of monthly rent to no more than 30% of the income of a household. Objective: Provide assistance to lower income households in the form of rental assistance. Responsible Agency: County of Los Angeles Financing: Community Development Block Grants Implementation: On-going program Section D.4 is concerned with the removal of governmental constraints, where legal and appropriate to do so. One of the efforts was the revision of the zoning ordinance to allow for the maintenance of non -conforming residential units. No other program changes are suggested in the revision with respect to governmental regulation. Section D.5, conserve and improve existing affordable housing, is discussed in relation to maintaining the Marineland Mobilehome Park, page 24 and the number of repair and remodel permits is documented on page 40, which indicated an acceptable level of unit maintenance. To be added to paragraph 2, page 41, ..from several decades ago done without benefit of codes. The zoning code already includes provisions to protect legal non -conforming dwelling units, allows for expansion and encourages re air and upkeep as a part of the conservation objective. -22- Section D.6a deals with shared housing and funding availablity. Also a part of the affordable housing subject, D.6b, is the earmarked fund for housing that came from the already mentioned settlement. No decision has been made concerning how funds will be spent, whether as assistance or other method of insuring affordable housing. Section D.6c comments about the homeless are addressed in the required section Homeless in the revision. As indicated above, no need is perceived on a local basis to provide shelters for as few as one person or a maximum of six persons, except on a regional basis as suggested in the revision. Section D.6d, about ordinance revisions, seems inappropriate until adoption of the revision and at such time that further information is assembled and the City Council can determine which standards might be modified during the current planning period. The Housing Standards section, pages 56-82, discusses a number of topics related to ordinance changes but only as a starting point with considerable research to occur as a step in the implementation phase. Section E, General Plan consistency will be achieved through monitoring any and all revisions to the General Plan and its separate elements during the planning period. Section F has to do with the requirement to document the -efforts of the City relating to involving the members of the community in the formation of the revision of the Housing element. To be included in the final document will be a chronological recap of the workshops, hearings, televised proceedings and public noticing done by the City. Section G needs no comment because no units have been required as a part of the Coastal zone housing requirements. Would you please respond to the above response and offer any further comments. Sincerely yours, Michael Schubach Planning Director .23 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 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY REPLACING THE 1984 HOUSING ELEMENT WITH "THE 1989 REVISION TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT", AS REVISED, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, on September 4 and September 18, 1990, the Planning Commission held public hearings as part of the third quarter General Plan amendments to consider the revision to the Housing Element, and; WHEREAS, on October 9, 1990, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the revision to the Housing Element and made the following findings: A. The amendment of the Housing Element of the General Plan to include goals, policies, and objectives for the preservation, inprovement, and development of housing, as provided for in the revised Housing Element, updates the Element for the 1989-1994 period; B. The revised Housing Element is consistent with the General Plan, and does not result in any direct or indirect significant impacts on the environment; C. The revised Housing Element contains the necessary information and analysis to meet the requirements of Chapter 3, Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580), Housing Elements, of the Planning and Zoning Law for the State of California, and is consistent with the policy and intent of Article 10.6; NOW, THEREFORE, the the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, does hereby adopt the revised Housing Element, which consists of the Draft Revision dated July 9, 1990, and incorporates the modifications and additions attached hereto (a list of modifications/addditions resulting from the workshops; - �y 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 changes noted in the response letter to the Department of Housing and Community Development; appendix G - Housing Quota Appeal) and appendix H - the review comments of HCD and the City's response, and adopts an environmental negative declaration. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1990, by: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: p/pershsng CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY MODIFICATIONS/ADDITIONS From the workshops and hearings some refinements to the revision have been proposed and were included in the Planning Commission recommendation as follows: Request: Add "handicap" to the first State goal on Page 10 and add "handicap" to first City goal on the same page. Action: To be added in the final draft. Request: Eliminate Objective #1 on page 11. Action: Will be deleted in final draft. Request: Eliminate Objective #23 on page 12. Action: Will be deleted in final draft. Request: Add the word "ecologically" to policy #17 on page 16 of the Goals and objectives section. Action: Will be included final report. Request: Study and report on the quantified objectives noted on page 14. Action: Report has been prepared as Appendix G to the draft revision and the quantified objectives on page 14 will be changed in the revision to 45 lower income units and 150 total added units. Also the following will be added to paragraph 2, page 23, "City projections are lower than the SCAG allocation, taking into consideration changing employment, vacancy rates and other local conditions (see Appendix G). SCAG figures will be used only if the following numbers proposed by the City are found to be unaccepta le: very low low moderate high 43 45 58 149 Request: Add cities to chart on page 34 to be the same as those on page 57. Action: Will be added in final draft. Request: Add discussion about the change to using a special prosecutor for the abatement of illegal units. Action: To be added at the top of page 44, "Originally the legal work was handled by the District Attorney's office and proved to be too slow to be most effective. In 1989 the City hired a special prosecutor to increase the quality of legal work in the program and speed up the system when prosecution became necessary." Request: Investigate and discuss how to use health, safety and general welfare concerns including parking deficiencies to restrict number of persons in one household, unless related, as another feature of bootleg units. Action: To be added as paragraph 2, Page 44, "The emphasis placed on the abatement of illegal units in Hermosa Beach continues to increase as more information is gathered and the cumulative effects on the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Along with minimum code violations is the tendency for landlords to allow units to become overcrowded by permitting occupancy of more tenants than a unit was intended to house. In Hermosa Beach, that usually means a household of unrelated individuals, overtaxing their housing unit and the public facilities. This situation would include creating a problem of adequate parking for the extra tenants who are impossible to compute in the attempts to solve the parking dilemma. Additional demands for., water, sewer, fire protection and other services are also hard to determine when actual numbers of residents are unknown." Request: Consider civil prosecution for recovery of City's costs of the abatement program. Action: To be added as part of paragraph 1, page 44, " The costs of the administrative and legal work done by the City may also be recoverable by the City through civil prosecution of the violator. The County of Los Angeles has used the process recently and it has proved successful." -- Request: Add comment about the fee survey currently underway in the City. Action: To be added to paragraph 3, page 46, "The typical cost, in 1989, in Hermosa Beach...on the average. To insure that fees remain related to actual City costs, Hermosa Beach has an on-going fee survey program. The program monitors all related fees and projects impacts from any changes." Request: Add explanation of density on a per acre basis to make the narrative about density in the Housing Standards section clearer. Action: To be added after Table IX, page 57, "Table IX compares densities on the total area of the specified cities, which includes commercial and industrial uses. The City of Hermosa Beach, using only the 433 acres of residential land and the 10,129 units existing, has an average density of 23.4 units per acre. Some areas will be higher and some lower in order to obtain the average." Request: Study and include results of impact of a limit of two units per lot in the R-2 zone. Action: To be added to paragraph 3, Page 59, "The R-2 zone contains about 16 lots that would be affected by only being able to build a duplex on a large lot, where 3 or 4 units are now allowed. These lots contain at least 5,250 square feet of lot area and the largest lot (70x108.12) has 7,568.40 square feet would permit four units. This limitation would reduce the number of potential units by another 17 units. Request: unit. Increase guest parking from 1/2 to 1 space per Action: To be included as a part of the implementation of the housing element. (No additions to the revision are needed). Request: Review impact of including subterranean space on FAR, height, etc. Action: Mentioned in the revision, detailed study of the impact to be a part of the implementation of selected standards. (No additions to the revision needed). The City Attorney has also recommended that to comply with legislative mandates regarding affordable housing that the Section on "Program Selection," page 84, be amended to add the following: Incentives for Housing Development The City shall consider all housing programs available through the State Department of Housing and Community 28 Development for a which a developer may request City assistance for the development of affordable housing Objective: Provide Affordable Rental and/or sale of Housing for Low and Moderate Income Families Responsible Agency: City of Hermosa Beach Financing: Private sources using various State tax exempt financing vehicles. Implementation: On-going action program. Also to be added as objective 42, page 14, "Provide Affordable Rental and/or Sale of Housing for Low and Moderate Income Families. E `, 1/7 (OP /-1-77-4(1/1/44/1/7-- APPENDIX G HOUSING QUOTA APPEAL Vacancy rate: The different documents from SCAG (RHNA and the revisions) explain that SCAG has used readily available figures to make the determinations for Fair Share housing. For the vacancy rates SCAG used State of California, Department of Finance published figures (see RHNA, page A-8, SCAG Data Source). However, the figures in Table 29A, page F-30, revised RHNA, show an actual vacancy rate for the City of 1.60%, which is quoted in the draft revision. The Table also shows that the rate translates into an allocation of 104 housing units by 1994 to increase the vacancy to a number considered to be optimum for availability of housing. The vacancy rate from the Department of Finance for the same period was published at 4.34%, according to several different newsletters and bulletins. The vacancy adjustment is added to the base allocation to arrive 'at the total figure of 513 units to be built by 1994, according to SCAG's distribution. The total is then distributed further among the four income groups as shown in Appendix C. The vacancy rates are discussed in the draft revision and the lowering of the assigned allocation from SCAG is as proposed in the quantified objectives section. It would seem reasonable to lower the allocation by the 104 units based on the following: a) the data source (Dept. of Finance is the same) b) SCAG figure disagrees with DOF figures c) SCAG recognition of DOF as a data source. It may also be possible to logically make an adjustment that will result in a negative factor in the allocations, as in the case of Pomona, Palmdale, and Agoura Hills. This adjustment would still be directed toward achieving the ideal vacancy rate of 3.55%, down .89% from the 4.34%. Instead of providing more units, the Fair Share would be reduced so that existing units would fill up and lower the current vacancy. Current Density levels: In the draft revision, density is discussed in relation to the infrastructure, compared to other cities in the South Bay region, and documented concerning recent actions. One missing set of calculations is the average density in the City on a per acre determination with only residential land used to arrive at the final figures. The existing acreage for residential purposes totals 433 acres in Hermosa Beach. Existing units total 10,129. Dividing the units by the acres the average density of the City is 23.4 units per. acre. (This piece of information will beadded just after Table IX in the Housing Standards section). It is difficult to directly correlate existing or desired density with the Fair Share allocations. As the past few years prove, the number of units may be built that fill the SCAG allocation and density can be lowered at the same time. It has been pointed out, however, that this condition is only temporary and, in fact, the City is quickly approaching a point where new housing will only be replacing the same number of units. How soon that will occur is speculation dependent upon market conditions in the near future. Even so, average number of units provided per year can be expected to decrease as replacement approaches. Numerical reductions in the Fair Share allocations may depend upon actual figures from the next two years for added housing units and past trends to indicate a reasonable reduction. The years 1988 and 1989, for example, only provided 30 added and 28 added units, respectively. 'Infrastructure: Like density, the problem of adequate public services and continued provision of those services does not translate very well when attempting to analyze Fair Share allocations. The local situation does exist so that care must be taken to review development proposals in light of insuring delivery of public services. No new dwelling should be granted if it is determined that there is a lack of capacity in regard to any public facility. Jobs/Housing Balance: Since the figures were assembled for the computation of the Jobs/Housing ratios there have been substantial changes in the regional market for the outlook of new jobs in the next five years. The greatest impact has been in the aerospace industry where 20,000 plus jobs have been eliminated in recent months. The outlook is for additional jobs reductions and possible reductions in the military presence in the region. As a result, the pressures to produce new housing units have been lessened for the immediate future. Planning for the near future would mean through 1994 that added units would not be encouraged. The discussion in the draft revision centered on the fact that the regional needs of housing directly conflict with the local needs for jobs creation. CONCLUSION: The expected number of units to be added to the housing stock by the end of 1994 will be substantially less than the projected numbers from SCAG. While some of the issues are difficult to transfer into quantifiable objectives, the building of actual units for the past three years does not indicate that past annual averages will continue. The decrease in added units reflects how the building of new units has been directly affected by local conditions. Until additional reasons can be developed and background information assembled, consideration might be given to lowering the quantified objectives by 104 to 409, on the basis of excessive vacancy. Affordable housing amounts could be reduced on a ratio basis from 158 to 127. It would also be appropriate that the SCAG allocation be lowered to reflect current regional trends in employment and local conditions. As was already noted, employment and jobs creation have suffered recently from substantial layoffs in aerospace and the yet to be determined military role in the region. Using, again, the excessive vacancy rate as a leading factor and major indicator of demand for new housing, coupled with diminished jobs creation, and the number of new units actually built over the last two years, the projected need for new housing units is less than SCAG's estimates and allows for reducing the anticipated need. This reduction would lower the allocation to an estimated 150 total added units for 1989-1994 and the number of affordable housing units to 45, and also includes a provision that a lower allocation be considered if public facilities are unable to handle the load. 32- DRAFT LETTER / t September 13, 1990 Ms. Nancy J. Javor, Chief Department of Housing and Community Development Housing Policy Development Division P.O. Box 952053 Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 Dear Ms. Javor: We have received your detailed review of the draft Housing element revision for the City of Hermosa Beach. This letter is in response to the specific suggestions you have included in the Appendix to the letter. Perhaps the best way to respond is to follow the order of the Appendix for easy reference to your comments and the draft. In section A.1 the comment is to address each of the previously listed programs from 1984. Some of the programs are already mentioned (see pages 6-9). To clarify the status of the others the following will be added to Program Experience, page 9, paragraph 2, "On-going programs have been incorporated into the standard procedures used by the City. These include code enforcement, residential reports, land use controls, "bootleg" abatement, and the housing information system. The programs for conservation of affordable housing conservation - mobilehome park zoning, manufactured housing regulations, coastal zone housing (SB 626) were single step activities which have een completed. The CDBG repair program was terminated due to the high cost of administering the program. The Housing Improvement Incentives Program was not implemented as intended in the 1984 revision. However, the information about cost impacts and Zoning code requirements, has been available though not in booklet form." Section A.2 suggests further analysis of the condo conversion problems discussed on pages 7 & 8 in the revision. To be added, page 7, paragraph 7,"...to recover the balance due from the agreement. Recent state legislation sets a minimum time availability of ten years in order to qualify for density bonuses in new projects and that might be a reasonable duration for converted units. Future affordable housing will probably need a monitoring provision enabling the City to avoid what has occurred in the past." Section A.3 Implementation of the amended programs is in the program section, pages 82-84. Suggested changes to programs • cannot be implemented until adoption of the revision. Section B.1, RHNA data from SCAG does take into account future events and includes them in the Fair Share housing allocations, see page 21, paragraph 4 and page 22, paragraph 4. - 33- Section B.2 comments on housing characteristics. The revision has a specific section, Housing Stock, see pages 40-41, which describes a recent survey of condition and permit activity over the last 10 years. Section B.3 suggests expanding on the inventory of land for residential development. The Site Inventory section, pages 53-55, describes the entire inventory with the type of development that may occur. Scattered sites are developed through private sector efforts and are done randomly without City participation. No programs have been suggested to convert needed open space to residential use, especially the vacant school sites (page 24) which represent an essential part of the park and recreation requirements of the residents of Hermosa Beach. Mentioned several times in the revision, pages 34 and 57, it is important to note that the density of Hermosa Beach is two and one-half times that of the City of Los Angeles with approximately 95% of the land already developed and improved. As the most dense city in the South Bay, balanced land use has been a priority versus imposing increased density. Section B.4a is regarding land use controls and their discussion in the revision. The section entitled "Housing Standards", pages 56-81, presents a detailed discussion of land use controls including comparisons to other local communities and current standards in the City. B.4a also mentions the City's abatement program but incorrectly identifies the program as second unit abatement. In the 1984 revision and again in the 1989 revision, pages 43-44, the abatement program is discussed in terms of illegal units built below minimum safety and health standards, without building permits and, in some cases, in violation of zoning densities. The removal of illegal units from the local inventory is in the general welfare of the community by insuring that residents should be confident that existing units are safe for habitation. In regards to Proposition Q, it is only a confirmation of existing density levels already in the zoning ordinance. Density permitted by the zoning ordinance is found in all cities, and is not "Growth management control" per se. Section B.4b, refers to Building Code analysis, is unclear and an example of other cities treatment of this requirement could be helpful. The statute requires discussion and analysis of constraints due to code enforcement, which is not considered to be the situation in Hermosa Beach. To be added to paragraph 4, page 46, "...all which lower the fees. Enforcement of the Uniform Building Code has raised the minimum standards for housing construction in the City over the ears. Like all other jurisdictions in the state, administration of the code is a typical program activity, and therefore does not result in any unique constraint to development not found in all other cities in the state." 0 Section B.4c, relating to public improvements, does not apply to development in Hermosa Beach. All sites are served by physical infrastructure, as described in the revision, and connection to or replacement of these is not viewed as governmental �- constraints. Capacity of lines, age and cost of replacement of lines were the focus of constraints discussed in the revision on pages 48-50. Section B.4d is about fees and exactions. To be added to page 46, paragraph 3, "Generally, the fee schedule for a single family home is as follows: ITEM Building permit Plan check Open space acquisition FEE ITEM FEE $2000 Sewer $ 900 1300 Hydrant 1210 4290 Seismic 15 A current fee survey is underway which will relate comparability of fees to services performed. Actual permit processing time, on the average, is not considered to be a constraint and is not discussed in the revision. Section B.5 suggests a more complete statement about financing in the area. To be added, page 45, paragraph 2,"...financing seems to be readily available. No differences in interest rates or loan availability is apparent compared with other surrounding areas." Section 6 deals with the special needs categories specified by state law. The revision, pages 29 & 30, is careful to address each category and to state whether or not a need is perceived at this time for that category. Regarding the homeless, pages 26 - 28, that section is detailed and accurate as written. Using the police department of the City of Hermosa Beach as a primary source for homeless counts, a range of 3-6 was used. Inclusion of the transient population could only be an estimate that would change from day-to-day based upon the experience of the police and the small geographical size of the City. The unofficial census count for 1990 was one homeless. The count was taken on March 22, 1990 as the Federal government's effort to accurately reflect homeless numbers for the 1990 census. Section C is a recommendation to estimate units to be rehabed during the planning period. To be added to Quantified Objectives, page 14, number 4. "Maintain recent trends and assist in the repair, remodel and rehabilitation of 800 units."To be amended, same section, number 1. "Provide 150...and replace 145 units for a total of 295 units. 2. Provide 45 " See added Appendix G, Appeal of Fair Share Housing, for complete explanation of the proposed reductions. Section D.1 seems to indicate that a restatement of the A.2 & 3 comments be included at the beginning of the program section. As an introduction to the programs, the following is to be amended paragraph 1, page 82, "The following are the program actions from the revision. These actions are considered to be appropriate as the implementation of stated goals, objectives, and policies in p the revision. Review of the continued effectiveness of each program action will be done throughout the planning period and changes may be made in order to reflect community desires." Section D.2 is discussed in the revision in the Site Inventory section, pages 53-55. With the addition of scattered sites the section is a complete inventory of sites for the planning period. The following sentence will be added to paragraph 6, page 53, ..complete breakdown of housing activity). It is estimated that there are currently only 20 lots that are vacant in the City which represents .4 of 1% of the number of lots." Section D.3 is directed toward affordable housing programs in the City. Most of the efforts will continue to be private sector initiated projects, such as the seniors project on Pacific Coast Highway, page 53, which is in the design phase by the property owners. The City has, however, included the density bonus program as required and specifically mentioned as a policy in this revision, page 15, number 9. The revision also discusses the Section 8, rental assistance program, and that will be added to the program actions section on page 84, CDBG Rental Assistance (Section 8 Housing) Administered through the County of Los Angeles, the Section 8 program provides assistance to targeted households which are overpaying for housing. Subsidies are provided in order to reduce the amount of monthly rent to no more than 30% of the income of a household. Objective: Provide assistance to lower income households in the form of rental assistance. Responsible Agency: County of Los Angeles Financing: Community Development Block Grants Implementation: On-going program Section D.4 is concerned with the removal of governmental constraints, where legal and appropriate to do so. One of the efforts was the revision of the zoning ordinance to allow for the maintenance of non -conforming residential units. No other program changes are suggested in the revision with respect to governmental regulation. Section D.5, conserve and improve existing affordable housing, is discussed in relation to maintaining the Marineland Mobilehome Park, page 24 and the number of repair and remodel permits is documented on page 40, which indicated an acceptable level of unit maintenance. To be added to paragraph 2, page 41, ..from several decades ago done without benefit of codes. The zoning code already includes provisions to protect legal non -conforming dwelling units, allows for expansion and encourages repair and upkeep as a part of the conservation objective." -36- • Section D.6a deals with shared housing and funding availablity. Also a part of the affordable housing subject, D.6b, is the earmarked fund for housing that came from the already mentioned settlement. No decision has been made concerning how funds will be spent, whether as assistance or other method of insuring affordable housing. Section D.6c comments about the homeless are addressed in the required section Homeless in the revision. As indicated above, no need is perceived on a local basis to provide shelters for as few as one person or a maximum of six persons, except on a regional basis as suggested in the revision. Section D.6d, about ordinance revisions, seems inappropriate until adoption of the revision and at such time that further information is assembled and the City Council can determine which standards might be modified during the current planning period. The Housing Standards section, pages 56-82, discusses a number of topics related to ordinance changes but only as a starting point with considerable research to occur as a step in the implementation phase. Section E, General Plan consistency will be achieved through monitoring any and all revisions to the General Plan and its separate elements during the planning period. Section F has to do with the requirement to document the efforts of the City relating to involving the members of the community in the formation of the revision of the Housing element. To be included in the final document will be a chronological recap of the workshops, hearings, televised proceedings and public noticing done by the City. Section G needs no comment because no units have been required as a part of the Coastal zone housing requirements. Would you please respond to the above response and offer any further comments. Sincerely yours, Michael Schubach Planning Director 3? October 2, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council October 9, 1990 SUBJECT: THIRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PURPOSE: REDESIGNATION/REZONING OF SELECTED INCONSISTENT AREAS EAST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY LOCATIONS: I. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF PROSPECT AVENUE BETWEEN 15TH AND 17TH STREET III. BETWEEN GENTRY STREET AND HOLLOWELL AVENUE (435 - 453 HOLLOWELL AND 436 - 508 GENTRY) INITIATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Recommendation The Planning Commission and Staff recommend adoption of the attached ordinance and resolution to accomplish the following: AREA I: Rezone the property from R-1 to Open Space AREA III: Amend the General Plan for the subject property from Open Space to Low Density Background At their meeting of September 4, 1990, the Planning Commission considered three selected inconsistent areas for general plan or zoning amendments. For areas I and III their recommendations were consistent with staff recommendations to bring the areas into consistency. For area II, located on the west "side of Prospect Avenue north of Aviation Boulevard, between 1235 and 1255 Prospect, the Planning Commission directed staff to study the subject area and its surroundings in the revision of the Land Use Element. For further. background please refer to the Planning Commission staff report. Analysis Pursuant to State law a city may amend its general, plan up to four times per year. The proposed amendment and zone change -are part of the City's ongoing effort to bring the Land Use Map of the General Plan and the Zoning Map into consistency. For these two areas to be considered, the Planning Commission recommendation is based on the current uses of the subject sites, and recognition that for these sites the current land use is the appropriate designation for the future. For analysis of each subject area please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report. CONCUR/k-' • «/ . 4 Michael`Schubach Planning Director evin $. North*aft City Manager Attachments en Rose s Associate Planner 1. Maps 2. Proposed Ordinance and Resolution 3. Planning Commission staff report 9/4/90 4. P.C. Resolutions 90-70 and 90-73 5. Planning Commission minutes 6. Public Notice Affidavit plandoc/pcsrqtr - 2 : SUBJECT AREA I CURRENT GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: OPEN SPACE CURRENT ZONING: R-1 PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE: R-1 TO OPEN SPACE LD: LOW DENSITY MD: MEDIUM DENSITY HD: HIGH DENSITY OS: OPEN SPACE CC: COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR • 2I 60' 0/oo. 1//. 7 bit! 2J CODE 4340 FOR PREY. ASSMT. SEE: 160-5 Q ALF �ti ANGELA HEIGHTS TRACT M. B. 9-14 9 SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH M. B. 3-11-12 PARCEL MAP P. M . 20 - 8 ,.:SS6WS u N COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.! / : SUBJECT AREA III CURRENT GENERAL PLAN: OPEN SPACE CURRENT ZONING: R-1 PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: OS TO LD LD: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MD: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HD: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OS: OPEN SPACE CC: COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR LD AD C) L • LD MD ▪ D -5 - HOPK/NS 40 :ODE 1340 'OR PREY. ASSIJ'T SEE: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 -12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE 90 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO OS, OPEN SPACE, FOR THE CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF PROSPECT AVENUE BETWEEN 15TH AND 17TH STREET AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the Third Quarter General Plan Amendments and zone changes to bring selected areas into consistency (ZON 90-3) on October 9, 1990, and made the following Findings: A. The subject area has inconsistent General Plan and Zoning map designation, and state law requires consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance; B. In order to make the subject area consistent requires either an amendment to the General Plan Map or the Zoning Map; C. A zone change from R-1 to Open Space recognizes the existing and historic land use of the subject area and will bring the zoning map into consistency with the General Plan; D. The Open Space zoning designation will recognize the existing land uses of the subject property and therefore does not cause any impact on the environment; NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby amend the zoning map as shown on the attached map and described as follows, and further adopts an environmental negative declaration: SECTION 1. Zone Change from R-1, Single -Family Residential to OS, Open Space for the California' Water Service Company property located east of Prospect Avenue, between 15th Street and 17th Street and legally described as follows: 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 - portion of lots 4 and 5 block 88, Second addition to Hermosa Beach. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. SECTION 3. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15). days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1990, by following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of, the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: p/perszc3a CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM OPEN SPACE TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE AREA BETWEEN GENTRY STREET AND HOLLOWELL AVENUE (435 - 453 HOLLOWELL AND 436 - 508 GENTRY) AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the Third Quarter General Plan Amendments (G.P.A. 90-3) on October 9, 1990, and made the following Findings: A. The subject area has inconsistent General Plan and Zoning map designations, and state law requires consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance; B. In order to make the subject area consistent requires either an amendment to the General Plan Map or the Zoning Map; C. General Plan amending the subject area from Open Space to Low Density Residential recognizes the existing land uses of -the subject area and will bring the General Plan into consistency with the existing zoning; D. The Low Density designation will recognize the existing land uses of the subject property and therefore does not cause any impact on the environment; NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby amend the land use map of the general plan as shown on the attached map and described as follows, and further adopts an environmental negative declaration: General Plan amend from Open Space to Low Density Residential the area located between Geritty Street and Hollowell Avenue from 435 to 453 Hollowell Ave. and from 436 to 508 Gentry Street, and legally described as follows: 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 - lots 5 through 9, inclusive, Hollowell Tract, and lots 23 through 29, inclusive, Dillon Tract. ATTEST: PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1990, by: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY p/persgpa3 0 FO -/0- B4CHOROUND 4MTER/4L August 22, 1990 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission September 4, 1990 SUBJECT: THIRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PURPOSE: REDESIGNATION/REZONING OF SELECTED INCONSISTENT AREAS EAST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY LOCATIONS: I. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF PROSPECT AVENUE BETWEEN 15TH AND 17TH STREET II. WEST SIDE OF PROSPECT AVENUE BETWEEN 1225 AND 1255 PROSPECT AVENUE III. BETWEEN GENTRY STREET AND HOLLOWELL AVENUE (435 - 453 HOLLOWELL AND 436 - 508 GENTRY) INITIATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Recommendation Adopt the attached Resolution to recommend the following to the City Council for each of the noted areas: AREA I: Rezone the entire property from R-1 to Open Space AREA II:. Amend the General Plan from Low Density Residential to General Commercial for 1235 Prospect, and Rezone 1245 - 1255 Prospect from C-3 to R-1 AREA III: Amend the General Plan from Open Space to Low Density AREA I Current General Plan Designation: Open Space Current Zoning: R-1 Land Area: 2.66 acres Current Use: Water Utility Number of Lots: 2 General Plan History: 1965: Utilities 1975: Open Space - Water 1979: Open Space - Water 1984: Open Space Zoning History: 1925: Industrial 1943: M-1 1956: R-1 1960: R-1 1978: R-1 1983: R-1 The subject property is currently developed with water tanks and a support building, and is largely vacant with abundant grass and trees which historically has served as neighborhood open space. The property is surrounded by R-1 zoned and single-family developed property to the north and west, the City boundary to the east, and R -2B zoned property to the north. Analysis Given the current and historic use of the property, staff believes that it can be assumed that the open space designation was more a recognition of the public facility/utility related use of the property rather than a prescription for future park or recreation use. It is therefore more like the open space designation given to the City Hall complex, and the Community Center. Nonetheless, these types of areas are scarce in the City, and should be protected. Also, given the historic character of this lot it would not seem appropriate for the development of residences. The Water Company property was not included in the group of Open Space designated properties that were protected by the initiative vote in 1986 which prevents changes in the open space designation unless by vote of the people. AREA II Current General Plan Designation: Current Zoning: Land Area: Low Density Residential C-3 w/ R-3 potential 1.32 acres Current Use: Residential Commercial Mix Number of Lots: 6 Lot Sizes: 2125 - 2980 square feet General Plan History: 1965: High Density Residential 1975: Low Density 1979: Low Density 1984: Low Density Zoning History: 1925: R-1 1943: R-2 1956: Commercial 1960: C-3 1978: C-3, R-3 Potential 1983: C-3, R-3 Potential The subject area consists of six lots fronting on Prospect Avenue. Two lots are currently used commercially, and three lots are residentially developed, the final lot appears to contain a garage and storage building used for storage only. See the attached parcel map for a detailed depiction of the land uses. The area is surrounded by Low Density, R-1 zoned property to the north and west, General Commercial, C-3 zoned property to the south, and General Commercial, C-3 zoned property across Prospect. The northerly limits of this area are approximately equivalent to the northerly limits of the shopping center across the street. Analysis These parcels were zoned commercially at the time of the 1956 comprehensive rezoning probably because of their proximity to the Aviation corridor, and to match the depth from Aviation across Prospect. Staff's recommendation is to rezone and General Plan amend the properties to approximately reflect the existing land use pattern. The first lot (1235 Prospect) closest to Aviation is used commercially (the northerly half of Buck's Body Shop), and therefore staff is recommending a General Plan Amendment to General Commercial. -/3- Of the next five lots going northward (1245 to 1255 Prospect) the first one is developed residentially with three units, the second contains a garage and rear storage building which appears to be used in conjunction with the 3 -unit, but which may be for commercial storage purposes only. The next two lots are joined together and contain 4 -units and the northerly most lot is developed with a small office building. Staff is recommending a zone change from C-3 to R-1 for these 5 lots as the majority use is residential. This will result in the small office building becoming nonconforming, but since it is an isolated commercial use, zoning it R-1 is more appropriate than spot zoning it to a commercial designation. Also staff is recommending the elimination of the R-3 potential designation. The residential lots are developed at a higher density than some of the surrounding areas, with seven units on four lots, and may be considered inconsistent with a Low Density/R-1 designation. In staff's judgement, however, because adjacent properties are zoned R-1, and the lots are rather small, R-1 is more appropriate than any other alternative. AREA III Current General Plan Designation: Open Space Current Zoning: R-1 Land Area: 30,000 sq. ft. Current Use: Single Family Residential Number of Lots: 12 Lot Sizes: 2500 square feet General Plan History: 1965: Institutional - School 1975: Open Space - School 1979: Open Space - School 1984: Open Space Zoning History: 1925: R-1 1943: R-2 1956: R-2 1960: R-2 -/4- 1978: 1983: Unclassified Unclassified The subject lots were developed with single-family homes in 1985 pursuant to the city's ordinance that unclassified property be treated as R-1. The surrounding area is zoned R-1 and developed with primarily single-family residential dwellings. The adjacent property to the south is the remaining portion of the Prospect Heights school property which is zoned Open Space. Analysis Staff's recommendation to General Plan amend the lots to Low Density would recognize the existing development on the parcels, and would be consistent with surrounding zoning designation. Given that these properties were developed fairly recently and are each owned separately, the current Open Space General Plan designation does not seem appropriate. CO CUR: Associate Planner Michael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Maps 2. Proposed Resolution and Ordinances 3. Photographs Area II 4. Public Notice Affidavit plandoc/pcsrqtr 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1'3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 90-70 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM OPEN SPACE TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE AREA BETWEEN GENTRY STREET AND HOLLOWELL AVENUE (435 - 453 HOLLOWELL AND 436 - 508 GENTRY) AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Third Quarter General Plan Amendments (G.P.A. 90-3) on September 4, 1990, and made the following Findings: A. The subject area has inconsistent General Plan and Zoning map designation, and state law requires consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance; B. In order to make the subject area consistent requires either an amendment to the General Plan Map or the Zoning Map; C. General Plan amending the subject area from Open Space to Low Density Residential recognizes the existing land uses of the subject area and will bring the General Plan into consistency with the existing zoning; D. The Low Density designation will recognize the existing land uses of the subject property and therefore does not cause any impact on the environment; NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend that the land use map of the general plan be amended as shown on the attached map and described as follows, and further recommends adoption of an environmental negative declaration: 1. General Plan amend from Open Space to Low Density Residential the area located between Gentry Street and -/6 - 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Hollowell Avenue between 435 to 453 Hollowell Ave. and 436 to 508 Gentry Street, and legally described as follows: - lots 5 through 9, inclusive, Hollowell Tract, and lots 23 through 29, inclusive, Dillon Tract. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Rue,Chmn.Ingell NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-70 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commi-.ion of tri- Ci y of Hermosa Beach, California ,at their reg . �r meet.g tf -stember 4, 1.9.90. AAA o Inge; airman /Y716 Date p/persgpa3 /7 Michael Scbitibaci', Secretary.. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 90-73 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CHANGING THE ZONING MAP FROM R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO OS, OPEN SPACE, FOR THE CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF PROSPECT AVENUE BETWEEN 15TH AND 17TH STREET AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Third Quarter General Plan Amendments and zone changes to bring selected areas into consistency (ZON 90-3) on September 4, 1990, and made the following Findings: A. The subject area has inconsistent General Plan and Zoning map designation, and state law requires consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance; B. In order to make the subject area consistent requires either an amendment to the General Plan Map or the Zoning Map; C. A zone change from R-1 to Open Space recognizes the existing and historic land use of the subject area and will bring the zoning map into consistency with the General Plan; D. The Open Space zoning designation will recognize the existing land uses of the subject property and therefore does not cause any impact on the environment; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend that the zoning map be amended as shown on the attached map and described as follows, and further recommends adoption of an environmental negative declaration: 1. Zone Change from R-1, Single -Family Residential to.OS, Open Space for the California Water Service Company property located east of Prospect Avenue, between 15th Street and 17th Street and legally described as follows: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - portion of lots 4 and 5 block 88, Second addition to Hermosa Beach. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ketz,Moore,Peirce,Rue,Chmn.Ingell NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-73 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commis 'on of t - City of Hermosa Beach, California at -their egu mee g�.� `.tember 4, 1990. r // Inge l , hairman p/perszc3a 7'? Michael' Schubach; Secretary GP 90-3/ZON 90-3 -- GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION/REZONING OF SELECTED INCONSISTENT AREAS EAST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION: AREA I: CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF PROSPECT AVENUE BETWEEN 15TH AND 17TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 22, 1990, and recommended that the entire property be rezoned from R-1 to open space. The current general plan designation is open space, with a current zoning of R-1. Total land area is 2.66 acres, with a current use as a water utility. There are two lots. Its general plan designation in 1965 was for utilities; in 1975. open space/water, in 1979, open space/water; and in 1984 open space. In 1925 the site was zoned industrial, and in 1943 it was zoned M-1. It has been zoned R-1 since 1956. The subject property is currently developed with water tanks and a support building and is largely vacant with abundant grass and trees which historically has served as neighborhood open space. The property is surrounded by R-1 zoned and single-family developed property to the north and west, the City boundary to the east, and R -2B zoned property to the north. Given the current and historic use of the property, staff felt that it can be assumed that the open space designation was more a recognition of the public facility/utility related use of the property rather than a prescription for future park or recreation use. It is therefore more like the open space designation given to the City Hall complex and the Community Center. Nonetheless, these types of areas are scarce in the City and should be protected. Also, given the historic character of this lot, it would not seem appropriate for the development of residences. The Water Company property was not included in the group of open space designated properties that were protected by the initiative vote in 1986 which prevents changes in the open space designation unless by vote of the people. Public Hearing opened at 7:58 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Terry Tambel, Director of the California Water Service Company, stated that they have no objection to the rezoning of this property to open space. He said that they have no intention of ever selling this property, since it is necessary for the storage and pumping facility. Richard Halliburton, 1567 Golden Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that his is the only property that fronts on the access road for 102 feet; (2) said he has a license to use his driveway over this property; (3) noted that he has talked to the Water Company regarding his possible purchase of his front lawn, and he asked for clarification from staff on the ramifications of the proposed rezoning, to which Mr. Schubach explained that the rezoning would have no impact, other than the area could be used only for open space. Mr. Schubach explained the procedure which would be followed were Mr. Halliburton to purchase the property from the Water Company. Public Hearing closed at 8:03 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-73, as written. — 20 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90 Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, explained that this property was not included in the open space initiative and therefore does not need a vote of the people to be changed. AYES: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None AREA II: WEST SIDE OF PROSPECT AVENUE BETWEEN 1225 AND 1255 PROSPECT AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 22, 1990, and recommended that the general plan be amended from low density residential to general commercial for 1235 Prospect and to rezone 1245-1255 Prospect from C-3 to R-1. Area II is currently general plan designated as low density residential and has a current zoning of C-3, with an R-3 potential. The total land area is 1.32 acres, and the current use is a residential and commercial mix. There are six lots ranging in size from 2125 to 2980 square feet. The area's general plan designation in 1965 was high density residential. In 1975, 1979, and 1984, the designation was low density. Area II was zoned R-1 in 1925; R-2 in 1943; commercial in 1956; C-3 in 1960; and C-3 with R-3 potential in 1978 and 1983. Area II consists of six lots fronting on Prospect Avenue. Two lots are currently used commercially and three lots are residentially developed. The final lot appears to contain a garage and storage building used for storage only. The area is surrounded by low density, R-1 zoned property to the north and west; general commercial, C-3 zoned property to the south; and general commercial, C-3 zoned property across Prospect. The northerly limits of this area are approximately equivalent to the northerly limits of the shopping center across the street. These parcels were zoned commercially at the time of the 1956 comprehensive rezoning probably because of their proximity to the Aviation corridor and to match the depth from Aviation across Prospect. Staff recommended that this area be rezoned and general plan amended to approximately reflect the existing land use pattern. The first lot (1235 Prospect) closest to Aviation is used commercially and staff therefore recommended a general plan amendment to general commercial. Of the next five lots going northward (1245 to 1255 Prospect) the first one is developed residentially with three units; the second contains a garage and rear storage building which appears to be used in conjunction with the three units, but which may be for commercial storage purposes only. The next two lots are joined together and contain four units, and the northerly -most lot is developed with a small office building. Staff recommended a zone change from C-3 to R-1 for these five lots, as the majority use is residential. This will result in the small office building becoming nonconforming, but since it is an isolated commercial use, zoning it R-1 is more appropriate than spot zoning it to a commercial designation. Staff also recommended the elimination 'of the R-3 potential designation. The residential lots are developed at a higher density than some of the surrounding areas, with seven units on four lots and may be considered inconsistent with a lot density/R-1 designation. P.C. Minutes 9/4/90 In staffs judgment, however, because adjacent properties are zoned R-1 and the lots are rather small, R-1 is more appropriate than any other alternative. Comm. Rue asked whether general commercial allows auto body shops, to which Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. Next to a residential use, it is not the best use; however, with the proper buffering it can be acceptable. Comm. Peirce, noting the size of the lots, stated that even if they were zoned R-2, no more than two units could be built. Public Hearing opened at 8:13 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Richard Zilky, owner of four units at 1251 Prospect, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that this has always been one lot, and since 1965 has always been zoned residential; (2) said that it is inconsistent to change from residential to low density; (3) said the building has a lot of free space, plenty of parking, and area in the back; (4) said he would be willing to give up his two lot designation if the zoning designation were made higherdensity residential; (5) said that the plan is inconsistent with the current use; (6) said that the City's plan should be changed to correspond with the uses; (7) in response to a request from Chmn. Ingell, gave his opinion on the other surrounding uses. Public Hearing closed at 8:17 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Peirce discussed the various lots depicted on the map and their sizes. He continued by discussing Mr. Zilky's property in particular and what could be done with it were the zoning changed. Mr. Schubach stated that it would be necessary to look at the other properties on this block, and he continued by discussing the other properties in relation to their zoning. He said that under R-3 zoning, Mr. Zilky would be allowed three units if the lots can be merged. With R-1 zoning, there can be one unit per lot. Comm. Moore discussed the various lots as depicted on the map and asked for clarification as to what the uses of the lots are. He noted that there appears to be a variety of uses. He questioned why the recommendation is to take the commercial back through Lot 40. He felt that it would be appropriate to clean up the lots by use, especially along Aviation. He favored residential zoning for all the lots on Prospect to Lot 44 and on Corona through Lot 45. Comm. Moore noted the importance of compatibility. Mr. Schubach stated that changes cannot be made at this time, other than those relating to the inconsistencies. He stated that it would be necessary to bring this back if the Commission desires to make other changes. Comm. Peirce suggested that this area be addressed more closely, to which Mr. Schubach replied that the Commission will soon be studying the land use element, at which time it can be discussed whether it is more appropriate to have commercial or residential in this area: Comm. Moore stated that he would hate to make one change tonight, only to have this area come back in the future for another revision. It felt it would be most appropriate to wait so that it can be thoroughly studied and changed properly. Comm. Peirce asked whether the Commission could delay making a decision on this area until such time that it has been more fully studied. Mr. Schubach stated that it has been a priority to eliminate inconsistent general plan areas; however, he said that this area could be continued. P.C. Minutes 9/4/90 -- 2 Z Comm. Peirce felt it would be appropriate to delay a revision could be made in the future. Mr. Schubach therefore suggested that this matter be staff be directed to include this area in consideration element. decision at this time, so that a proper continued to a date uncertain and that with the revised general plan land use Comm. Moore stated that this particular block is critical, in that it is one of the major entry points into the City. It is also a veritable hodgepodge in its uses. He stressed that this is a key block and he therefore favored attractive development and further study. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to continue this item to a date uncertain and to direct staff to include this area in conjunction with the revised general plan land use element. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Inge11 None None None AREA III: BETWEEN GENTRY STREET AND HOLLOWELL AVENUE (435-453 HOLLOWELL AVENUE AND 436-508 GENTRY STREET1 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 22, 1990, and recommended that the general plan for this area be amended from open space to low density. Area III is currently general plan designated as open space, with a current zoning of R-1. The total land area is 30,000 square feet. The current use is single-family residential, and there are 12 lots of 2500 square feet. In 1965 this area was general plan designated space/school; and in 1984, open space. Area III was zoned R-1 in 1925; R-2 in 1943, unclassified. as institutional/school; in 1975 and 1979, open 1945, and 1960; and in 1978 and 1983 it was The subject lots were developed with single-family homes in 1985 pursuant to the City's ordinance that unclassified property be treated as R-1. The surrounding area is zoned R-1 and developed with primarily single-family residential dwellings. The adjacent property to the south is the remaining portion of the Prospect Heights School property which is zoned open space. Staffs recommendation to general plan amend the lots to low density would recognize the existing development on the parcels and would be consistent with the surrounding zoning designation. Given that these properties were developed fairly recently and are each owned separately, the current open space general plan designation does not seem appropriate. Public Hearing opened and closed at 8:32 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this issue. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-70, as written. —23 — • P.C. Minutes 9/4/90 AYES: Comms. Ketz, Moore. Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None STAFF ITEMS a) Communication Regarding 160 Manhattan Avenue, Bavview Sanitarium (Continued From Meeting of August 21, 1990) No action taken. b) Appreciation of Commissioner Moore's Service Churn. Ingell thanked Comm. Moore for his service. noting that he contributed by presenting different viewpoints on important issues. Comm. Rue stated that Comm. Moore will be missed on the Commission. c) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for September 11, 1990, Meeting Mr. Schubach, noting that the Planning Commission's decision- to grant a CUP for gas pumps and a car wash at 931 P.C.H. i's, being appealed to the City Council, stated that staffs recommendation in regard to the number of pumps at the ,Mobil Station has now changed, in light of the fact that the applicant has not submitted the requested additional information. Staff is therefore now recommending only three pump' islands, as opposed to four, at the station. No one will attend as liaison. d) Planning Department Activity Report for July 1990 Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed various transportation issues as related to buses and bus ridership, funding, and subsidies. Comm. Peirce voiced concern over MAX problems. He\said that he wants to see more information related to point-to-point routes. He said that 'there must be development of a ridership plan, and the demands must be determined. Comm. Peirce favored action to get the ball rolling in regard to obtaining information on the buses and the ridership demand. Comm. Moore suggested that a survey be printed in the Easy Reader. Hey also noted that the Commuter Computer has an extensive database. Chmn. Ingell notedthat several studies have already been completed, and he asked that staff provide to the Commission information on what has already been done. e) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda No action taken. f) City Council Minutes of August 14, 1990 No action taken. 217 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90 I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the 27th day of September 1990 deposit into the United States post office, first class postage prepaid, a copy of the public notice attached as Exhibit "A" to each and every person attached as Exhibit "B". I warrant that the persons named on Exhibit "B" are all the persons required by applicable law to receive the public notice attached as Exhibit "A". I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to cause these public notices to be made in an accurate and timely fashion and agree to hold the City harmless against any liability whatsoever for any defect of said notice or notices. In the event an action is instituted in a court of com- petent jurisdiction which questions the legality of the public notices, then the City may in its exclusive descretion suspend all hearings or cause the cessation of any construction or of any use which was permitted as a result of a hearing which was held in accordance with the public notice. In the event that the court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be effective, then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke any permits granted and cuase any approvals given pursuant to those public notices to be declared null and void and I agree on behalf of myself and my heirs, assigns or successors -in -interest to hold the City harmless in connection therewith. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. I have executed this declaration on this the 27th day of September , 1990 at Hermosa Beach, California. NOTARY: Donna Rowland (name) �j (Signature) (Capacity) Q._(/(e4ef Zd4f7 OHI C:AL !AL CHERYL A.`'G'ARGO NOTARY PU3LIC • CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1" My Co .r.iission Expires Sept. 10, 1993 — 25-- September 26, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council October 9, 1990 PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN REVISIONS RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission and staff recommend that Council adopt the proposed revisions (attached) to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan so that it may be included as an amendment to the Open Space Element of the General Plan by adopting the attached Resolution. BACKGROUND At the meeting of June 5, 1990, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as an amendment to the Open Space Element of the General Plan. At the meeting of July 10, 1990, Council did not approve the recommendation. Instead they requested that staff review and revise the recommended organizational structure, lighting recommendations and relationship with the Public Works Department. At their September 4, 1990 meeting, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution (P.C. 90-74) recommending that Council amend the Open Space Element of the General Plan by adopting the changes in the Master Plan as listed in the analysis below. ANALYSIS Council direction with regards to the Community Resources organizational structure was to use the Department's current structure with only "minor tweekings" for the Plan. Concerns about lighting recommendations for parks centered around the need for neighborhood input prior to any consideration of added lighting. Concerns about the recommended inclusion of maintenance staff under the Community Resources Department are that due to staff limitations, current crews could not be dedicated solely to recreation facilities, making the transition difficult to coordinate with other City services. The Community Resources Commission had further concerns regarding. the suggestion for expanded parking at Valley Park. Attached are recommended changes in the Master Plan text that seek to address Council's and the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission's direction and requests. In response to Council's sentiment that the Plan maintain a realistic focus in order to provide a more usable 10 year plan, these changes attempt to keep mindful the fiscal resources available and projected to be available during those years. With Council approval, it is hoped that this Plan will serve as a guide for the orderly development of parks and recreation facilities and programs for the next decade. Recommended changes are attached with section and page references to the Master Plan text. ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended Changes 2. Proposed Resolution 3. City Council Minutes 7/10/90 4. Planning Commission Minutes 9/4/90 Respectfully submitted, Mary Dept Concur: Kevin B. Northp'raft City Manager 7 ;�' " <_ Michael Schubach Planning Director o ey, Director Community Resources ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE PAGES 5-25 THROUGH 5-29 Substitute text beginning with paragraph 5: The following is an outline description of the organization with recommendations as to areas of responsibility for the positions held within each of the core activities of the Department of Community Resources. Administrative Services . Director . Administrative Aide . Clerk Typist . Part-time clerical staff The Director has overall administrative responsibility for the Department including budgets, office management and Departmental administrative business activity. Support for the Director with parks development and grant writing services will be handled on an as needed basis with contractual services and personnel. The Public Works Director or his/her designee shall attend Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission meetings. Parks maintenance, CIPs and certain equipment purchases for recreation facilities will be coordinated through the City's Public Works Department. Parks and Building Maintenance staffs will provide the line staff to implement such duties. Should substantial funding become available that would enable Public Works crews to be solely dedicated to recreation facilities, it may be feasible to place these crews under the Community Resources Department. In order to do so, it would be necessary to hire a Chief of Maintenance to administer the activities of the crews. The Administrative Aide will provide support staff to the Director as well as will supervise all administrative and departmental clerical activity. The Clerk Typist and Part-time clerical staff will provide support services for the Director, Supervisors and Managers as well as for the Administrative Aide. Program Services Manager of Acquisition and Development *. Manager of Program Services . Supervisor of Program Services / Special Events . Supervisor of Facility Management / Sports Programs . Supervisor of Cultural Arts / Volunteer Services . Part-time and Contractual Staff *Pending substantial increase in funding levels. The staff chart that follows recommends the addition of Managers of Program Services and Acquisition and Development only with substantial increases in funding levels. If over the 10 year period, the City has a significantly expanded financial resources for parks and recreation facilities, it may be necessary to provide full time attention to the development of the same. The Manager of Acquisition and Development would be responsible to facilitate the Department's objectives in achieving long term property acquisition/development programs. This individual should have background in recreation facility design and development. As indicated previously, if the City has more modest development needs, services for park and recreation facility development would be best served contractually. Similarly, the Manager of Program Services would be necessary should there be substantial increases in actual recreation facilities. This manager would have overall administrative responsibility to develop, market and produce all program services and would be in charge of the Department Supervisors who would plan and implement such activities. The Community Resources Supervisors who will cover functional areas of responsibility as listed in the chart, will be responsible to plan, implement and evaluate recreation and leisure service activities for the Department. It is recommended that the Supervisors would be cross -trained and not hired for specific functional areas. All Supervisors will have responsibilities in each area and will have additional assignments as liaisons with community groups such as Senior Citizens, non-profit organizations and volunteer organizations. Part-time and contractual staff will be used on an as needed basis to implement specific programs such as recreation classes, facility operations, aquatic programs, park programs, sports leagues etc. These contractors and employees may be used on a seasonal and permanent basis depending on the activity/program. Following are two proposed organizational charts: The first is recommended should there be only modest changes in the funding base for recreation facilities/programs over the next 10 years and the second chart proposed is dependent upon substantial funding increases. Both charts are included in order to show different chains of command as appropriate. PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. Parks Maintenance, CIPs L_ IHERMOSA IZEACII DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY RESOURCES • PROPOSED ORGANIZATION CHART COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DIRECTOR NAG cup' TI MANAGER OGRAM SERVICES SUPERVISOR PROGRAM SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS PART-TIME/ CONTRACTUAL STAFF PENDING SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN FUNDING LEVELS SUPERVISOR FACILITY MANAGMENT SPORTS PROGRAMS PART-TIME/ CONTRACTUAL STAFF CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Grant Writing Acquisition / Dev. SUPERVISOR CULTURAL ARTS VOLUNTEER SERVICES PART-TIME/ • CONTRACTUAL STAFF ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE CLERK TYPIST PART-TIME CLERICAL STAFF LIGHTING REFERENCES Page 2-8: "Use of these courts could be extended with lighting." Eliminate sentence: "This buffer could help ameliorate the impact of lighting." Page 5-49: Add to end of paragraph 5: "In making decisions about lighting or parking in any neighborhood parks or recreation facilities, affected neighbors should be consulted for input." Page 5-5'4: Eliminate sentence: "Light hardcourt with neighbor's consent." PARKING Page 5-51 Delete: Expanded Parking 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 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY ADDING "THE COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN", AS REVISED, AS A GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, on October 9, 1990, the City Council held a public hearing as part of the third quarter General Plan amendments to consider Council requested revisions to the previously reviewed document and to consider officially amending the Open Space Element of the General Plan and made the following Findings: A. The amendment of the Open Space Element of the General Plan to include policies for recreation and the potential development of parks as provided in the "Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan" is consistent with the General Plan and does not cause any direct or indirect significant impacts on the environment; B. The subject amendment provides a policy statement for the development of parks and recreational opportunities for the citizens of Hermosa Beach; C. The document may be used to direct the development of future specific park and recreational projects; NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, does hereby amend the Open Space Element of the General Plan to add a general policy document for future parks and recreation and adopts an environmental negative declaration. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1990, by: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 1 ti:. i. 1V L '1' t1 L lJ r L : PLAN TO INCLUDE THE "COMPREHENSIVE 'PARRS AND RECREATION ?—ASTER PLAN". Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 3, 1990. The public hearing was opened. There being no one wishing to speak on this matter, the public hearing was closed. Proposed Action: To approve the staff recommendation. Motion Sheldon, second Essertier. The "Straw Vote" failed, with the objections of Midstokke, Wiemans, and Mayor Creighton." Action: To direct staff to review the proposed amend- ment concerning the following items: possible lighting for some parks, which had previously been rejected by citizen committees; the administrative structure in regard to staff positions conforming to the existing structure; and, that a study be made of moving main- tenance services from Public Works to the Community Resources Department. Motion Mayor.. Creighton, second Midstokke. The "Straw Vote" carried, with an objection from Sheldon. FINAL ADOPTION OF THE CIRCULATION, TRANS?OR TION AND PARKING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PT' Memorandu from Planning Director Michael Schubac dated July 3, 199 The public hear_ g was opened. There being no one ishing to speak o this matter, the public hearing was cl ed. Action: To apercve the tiff ecommendation to adopt the final Circulation, Tran • •rtation, and Parking Ele- ment as an amendment to the -c. era]. Plan. Motion Mayor Creighton, econd Essertier. The "Straw Vote" carried, with an ojection of Sheldon. The Meeting recessed at 10:' P.M. The Meeting reconvened a 0:26 P.M. C. AREA 1n, BETWEEN BARNEY COURT ":D MEYER CURT, FRO..! SCUT . CITY BOUNDARY TO THE REA_. OF THE L 'S FRONT - IN INe ON SECOND STREET. Memos ndum from Planni -c Director Michael Schubach ated Jul . 3, 1990. Supplemental letter from City Att- eV C. axles S. Vose, dated July 9, 1990, accompanied by t:+ Pace 9 Minute= 07-10-90 Chmn. Ingell noted, however, that the Commission had heard no great demand from the_public indicating that this text -amendment is necessary. ---� AYES: Comms. Ketz, Moore,Pi`rce,-Ru Chmn`Ingellf e.• NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: —None THIRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS SS 89-13 -- PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN AS PART OF THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CONTINUED FROM SECOND QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) Mary Rooney, Director of the Department of Community Resources presented the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of the proposed revisions to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan so that it may be included as an amendment to the Open Space Element of the General Plan. At the meeting of June 5. 1990, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as an amendment to the Open Space Element of the General Plan. At their meeting of July 10, 1990, the City Council did not approve the recommendation. Instead they requested that staff review and revise the recommended organizational structure, lighting recommendations, and relationship with the Public Works Department. Council direction with regard to the organizational structure was to use the Department's current structure with only minor changes for the plan. Concerns about lighting recommendations for parks centered around the need for neighborhood input prior to any consideration of added lighting. Concerns about the recommended inclusion of maintenance staff under the Community Resources Department are that due to staff limitations, current crews could not be dedicated solely to recreation facilities, making the transition difficult to coordinate with other City needs. The Community Resources Commission had further concerns regarding the suggestion for expanded parking at Valley Park. The Commissioners were provided with the recommended changes in the Master Plan text that seek to address Council's and the Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Commission's direction and requests. As this Plan will serve as a guide for the orderly development of Parks and Recreation facilities and programs for the next ten years, Council felt that it was important to maintain a realistic focus in the recommendations so that•objectives may be fulfilled with the fiscal resources available. Public Hearing opened and closed at 7:38 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this issue. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-74, as written. AYES: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 6 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 "12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 P.C. RESOLUTION 90-74 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY ADDING "THE COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN", AS REVISED, AS A GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, on June 5, 1990, the Planning Commission recommended amending the Open Space Element by adopting "The Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan", and; WHEREAS, on September 4, 1990, the Planning Commission held a public hearing as part of the third quarter General Plan amendments to consider City Council requested revisions to the previously reviewed document and made the following Findings: A. The revisions do not substantially alter the policies and general information contained in the document; B. The amendment of the Open Space Element of the General Plan to include policies for recreation and the potential development of parks as provided in the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan is consistent with the General Plan and does not cause any direct or indirect significant impacts on the environment; C. The subject document is a policy statement for parks and recreation; D. The document may be used to direct the development of future specific park and recreational projects; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, does hereby recommend amending the Open Space Element of the General to add a general policy document for future parks and recreation. 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 VOTE: AYES: Comms Ketz Moore , Pe irce , Rue ,Chrnn-Ingell NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-74 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of .„. the City of Hermosa Beach, Californa at their 7 regu*ar meeting of Septeniber 4, 1990. / -/"./ (.•:-_—.-----,-,,,," .,:.f3-.-.-.:-.- , '.., ,,r f i ../Y ii /1. % .". I V / ; \ 1'1 / • Scokt Ing411, Chairman MichaeL.Saubach, / t7 9_. -.)_. C7,7) ../ /// Date p/perspark ..• Secretary P October 2, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council October 9, 1990 TRAFFIC CONCERN AT 30TH STREET AND ARDMORE AVENUE Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Consider the alternatives. 2. Install a NO LEFT TURN sign Monday through Friday 7:00am to 9:00am and 4:00pm to 7:00pm and monitor for six months. 3. After six months evaluate the NO LEFT TURN effectiveness and if the above action is found not to be effective (i.e. violations; public complaints) conduct a public hearing to consider the closure of 30th Street at Ardmore Avenue. Background: The property line wall for a newly remodeled house was built in full compliance with City building codes related to corner cut off for sight distance on the southeast corner of 30th Street and Ardmore Avenue. A sight distance concern by a resident prompted a field investigation of traffic conditions. The side wall (on this property) on Ardmore Avenue, coupled with a slight curvature of Ardmore Avenue south of 30th Street, contributes to a restricted sight distance condition that makes it difficult for 30th Street vehicles to emerge onto Ardmore Avenue. There is a need to. mitigate this condition to ensure safer operation for all users. Analysis: This analysis will be divided as follows: 1. Ardmore Avenue and 30th Street 2. The Traffic Engineering Report 3. Other Alternatives 4. Summary 1. Ardmore Avenue and 30th Street Ardmore Avenue from Gould Avenue to the northerly city boundary was designated by City Council as a collector street in the circulation element of the general plan. In 1988, the average daily traffic (ADT) was 8,520 which is far above the upper limit of 2,500 ADT for a residential street. A collector street is intended to carry traffic between residential neighborhoods•and the arterial street network and should have as few stops as possible. Ardmore Avenue exhibits the characteristics of a collector street. Thirtieth Street is a residential street and has an approximate 730 ADT. 2. The Traffic Engineering Report The City Traffic Engineer reviewed the accident history and sight distance at this intersection. This report is attached. In brief, from January 1985 to July 30, 1990, there have been no accidents and the sight distance for vehicles emerging from 30th Street is much less than required for the speeds on Ardmore Avenue. Consistent with the designation of Ardmore Avenue as a collector street, the traffic engineer evaluated the sight distance standard and concluded that there is a margin of safety which would allow for right turns only but no left turns from 30th Street to Ardmore Avenue. 3. Other Alternatives Alternatives considered by staff are: a. Prohibit left turns from 30th Street onto Ardmore Avenue. This will make it more circuitous for motorists desiring to travel south, but will improve safety. Vehicles wishing to proceed south would turn right and thence left at the west leg of 30th Street to reach Valley Drive. ADVANTAGE: - Safety of intersection operation is improved. - Allows for a continuous flow of traffic on Ardmore Avenue. DISADVANTAGE: - Longer distance for residents to travel. b. Discuss with residents of the area the possibility of cul-de-sacing 30th Street at Ardmore. Police Department and Fire Department input would be needed as well. ADVANTAGE: - Eliminates sight distance concern. DISADVANTAGE: - Increased travel time to reach other streets. - Increased traffic on other streets. c. Placement of a STOP sign on Ardmore Avenue. A three way stop sign is another potential solution, however a stop sign is not warranted and is not consistent with the collector street designation of Ardmore Avenue which should have as few stops as possible ADVANTAGE: - Eliminates sight distance concern. DISADVANTAGE: - Potential for rear -end accidents on Ardmore Avenue. - Potential increase in cut through traffic from PCH. - Stops 8520 vehicles on Ardmore Avenue for i. the benefit of approximately 730 vehicles on 30th Street. 4. Summary The solution for this sight distance concern is not easy. During the last five years there have been no reported accidents at this intersection indicating there is no problem. However, the City has been placed on notice and should to do something. A long term solution to the sight distance concern is a closure of 30th Street at Ardmore Avenue. This will require input from the adjacent residents. An immediate solution is NO LEFT TURN during peak hours only for 30th Street to Ardmore Avenue. The traffic engineer has concluded that there is a margin to safely make a right turn only. A STOP sign is not warranted and has several potential disadvantages. Alternatives: Other alternatives available to Council and considered by staff. 1. Do nothing. 2. Closure of 30th Street. 3. STOP sign. Respectfully submitted, Art bny Antich Public Works Director Concur: evin Northc aft City Manager Steve Wis'iewski Public Safety Director Attached: 30th Street/Ardmore Avenue Report pworks/srcctraf CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM DATE: June 26, 1990 TO: Anthony Antich, Director of Public Works FROM: 3 Ruzak, City Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Traffic Safety Concerns; 30th Street/Ardmore Avenue INTRODUCTION A citizens group headed by Mr. Michael Pitton, 729 30th Street have raised a concern relative to the traffic safety at the corner of Ardmore Avenue and 30th Street. The primary concern is the lack of sight distance for vehicles turning left and right from 30th Street at Ardmore. STUDY EFFORT The City Traffic Engineer has completed a study of the subject intersection. The study focused on the available stopping sight distance(l) and intersection "corner" sight distance".(2) If these criteria are provided then the vehicular traffic should have little problem in traversing this intersection. Travel speed on Ardmore, traffic volume levels at the intersection and reported accident history were used to determine the operational characteristics of this location. Mitigation measures to improve operations and safety to the user are also provided for consideration. EXISTING CONDITIONS Ardmore and 30th Street form a "T" intersection with the stem of the "T" located to the east of Ardmore Avenue. Ardmore Avenue is a two way, two lane roadway, approximately 25 feet wide. South of 30th Street, Ardmore curves to the east. Thirtieth Street is 33 feet wide and intersects Ardmore at a right angle. It is controlled by a STOP sign. The speed limit on Ardmore in this area is 35 mph while the 85th percentile speed is 39 mph. This latter speed is that speed at which 85% of the vehicles are traveling at or below. The majority of vehicles travel between 30 and 40 mph in the section between Gould Avenue and 21st Street. 1. The distance available to see for vehicles on Ardmore such that they can react , then brake and stop prior to striking a vehicle that could be emerging from 30th Street. 2. The sight distance available for vehicles stopped on 30th Street at Ardmore that will allow them to normally accelerate into Ardmore without being struck by an Ardmore through vehicle. These are residences in both the northeast and southeast corners of the intersection. DISCUSSION Vehicles emerging from 30th Street have a sight limitation due to the horizontal curvature of Ardmore Avenue. In addition, a recent development on the southeast corner of the intersection has contributed to the sight limitation. The placement of a building on this property with its boundaries extending to the back of the existing sidewalk (approximately 4 1/2 feet east of Ardmore Avenue) has limited the available sight for vehicles leaving 30th Street. Field measurements indicated that an average vehicle placed with its front bumper on 30th Street at the east edge of Ardmore Avenue will allow the driver to see approximately 165 feet to the south. Guidelines for intersection sight distance and stopping sight distance are 450 feet and 215 feet respectively for a 35 mph speed limit. Thus, a serious sight deficiency is evident. ACCIDENT HISTORY Despite the limited sight distance at this location these have been no reported accidents for the period from January 1985 to date. An explanation for this good accident picture may be as follows. A car accelerating from a stop on 30th Street to enter Ardmore requires approximately 2.76 seconds(1). Vehicles traveling at 35 mph along Ardmore (51.3 feet/sec.) travel 142 feet in the time it takes to accelerate onto Ardmore. The available sight distance is 165 feet. Thus, vehicles are able to accelerate normally into Ardmore from 30th Street without incident. RECOMMENDED ACTION There is very little that can be done to improve the sight distance. Ardmore Avenue is so narrow that edge line striping to provide a shadow lane (similar to that provided on Valley Drive near 24th Street) is not feasible. Multi -way stop controls are not warranted due to the low volume of traffic that uses 30th Street. A warning sign for motorists on Ardmore of the up coming intersection at 30th Street would provide an additional alert to the fact that vehicles may be emerging from 30th Street. 1. s = 1/2 at2; s = 19.76 feet; a = 0.16 X 32.2 feet/sec.2; t = 2.76 sec. An alternative that would need greater study and public input would be to restrict 30th Street to right in/right out by coning a small island at the Ardmore intersection. A better traffic engineering solution would be to physically close 30th Street at Ardmore. Emergency vehicle access and some circuitous traffic maneuvers for residents on the westerly portion of 30th Street would be the most significant impacts that would be addressed. It is suggested that these latter two options be discussed with the residents in the area bounded by Ardmore/PCH/Longfellow and 30th Street. Longfellow residents would be included due to the changing traffic patterns caused by the 30th Street closure and also the anticipated intrusion of traffic that will be generated by a proposed Manhattan Beach, project, the Manhattan Grande Plaza Shopping Center. Honorable Mayor and Members October 4, 1990 City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of October 9, 1990 EXTENSION OF CITY YARD LEASE WITH MACPHERSON OIL COMPANY Recommendation: That the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached extension to the current lease with Macpherson Oil Company to extend the drilling term until six months after all necessary -approvals are obtained, or for two additional years, whichever comes first. Background: The lease with Macpherson Oil providing for use of unoccupied portions of the City Yard site for oil drilling purposes was ap- proved on October 14, 1986 and extended on December 16, 1986, and September 27, 1988. It currently expires on October 13, 1990, as drilling has not commenced. Analysis: The oil project has advanced during this year due to the cer- tification of the environmental impact report. Unfortunately, the City's negotiations with the oil company regarding drilling into the tidelands and expansion of the City Yard lease to in- clude the entire site have not been concluded, and the extensive approval process of many other regulatory agencies, including the State Lands Commission, is still underway. Accordingly, com- mencement of drilling is not expected to begin any time in the very near future. The proposed extension terms parallel those to which the City has tentatively agreed with Macpherson Oil Company regarding the expanded leases. It seems appropriate for the ex- isting lease to match these terms, which is the intent if and when the expanded leases are finally agreed to and signed. evin B. Nor'thcft City Manager cc: Macpherson Oil Company Planning Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City Clerk, City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA AMENDMENT TO OIL AND GAS LEASE NO. 3 This Oil and Gas Lease Amendment No. 3 is entered into this 9th day of October, 1990, amending Oil and Gas Lease No. 1, with Macpherson Oil Company entered into on October 14, 1986, and pre- viously amended on December 16, 1986, and September 27, 1988. Section 1 of Exhibit "B" is amended to read as follows: 1. DRILLING TERM The "drill term" is that period of time in which developer shall commence drilling operations. The drill term shall be for a period of six (6) years from the date of this lease, by October 13, 1992, or six (6) months from the date that Developer has received all necessary Federal, State, County or Local government permits to allow drilling operations, whichever is earlier; pro- vided, however, that in the event commercial production is found, the maximum term of this lease is thirty-five_(35) years. LESSEE: LESSOR: Macpherson Oil City of Hermosa Beach, CA By: (Signature) (Signature) (Name of Officer) (Name of Officer) (Title) (Title) (Date) APPROVED AS TO FORM:�/ATTEST: CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK (Date) • October 1, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council October 9, 1990 RECOMMENDATION REGARDING INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC PAYPHONES AND DETERMINATION OF PAYPHONES ON CITY PROPERTY Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council approve, and authorize the Director of General Services to sign, the attached agreement to install public pay phones by GTE -C at Clark Stadium/Base3, Community Resources Gymnasium, and Valley Park, as requested by the Community Resources Commission. Staff also recommends that the City Council authorize staff to pursue noticing to owners of commercial property, where public payphones have been installed on the public right-of-way, for which these business owners may be receiving the payphone commissions. Background: The Director of Public Safety and the Community Resources Commission, requested that a public payphone be installed in Valley Park and at Clark Stadium, for use by citizens and visitors in the event of an emergency which may necessitate the response of Public Safety personnel to these locations. Analysis: Installation of a payphone at a particular location, provides a vital means of access to emergency services as well as provides a public service to the persons utilizing the area. To address the two requests for the public payphones, the telecommunications staff liaison contacted GTE. We currently receive commission from GTE for eight other public payphones, located on City property. The new phones will be restricted to out going calls only, no ring back, to curb use for illegal purposes. Staff has been able to determine that there are approximately twenty (20) to twenty-five (25) payphones located on the public right-of-way, for which the City is not receiving commission. Since this represents a loss of potential revenue to the City, Staff is requesting approval to pursue securing contracts for receipt of commissions generated by these payphones. The Youth Basketball group requested that the Community Resources Department install a telephone in the gymnasium area, and also - 1 - recommended they contact a representative from Telebrain. In May, per request by the Community Resources Department, Telebrain installed a public payphone in the hallway outside the gym. Should the Council approve the agreement with GTE, Telebrain's public payphone will be removed, since the contracts for both companies contain exclusivity clauses prohibiting placement of competitor instruments at contract locations. GTE has agreed to place a public payphone in that location, for a monthly fee of approximately forty ($40) dollars, due to anticipated low usage. Should this instrument generate higher revenues, the monthly fee will be waived. GTE's proposal offers to install, maintain, and provide repair services free. They handle all customer complaints, refunds, and the responsibility for fraud on local and toll calls, at no charge to the City or deduction from the revenues. GTE pays 15% commission on gross coin -in -box revenues. Minimum contract is one year, which has been our standard. Telebrain's proposal offers to install, maintain, collect revenues, repair/replace equipment, etc., without charge to the City. Expenses would be deducted from the gross revenues, and a 25% commission would be paid on the adjusted gross income (net) from the phones. Adjusted gross revenue is equal to the total revenue generated from the phone, less telephone line costs, telephone usage costs, telephone access costs, credit card billing and transfer fees, directory assistance and other telephone company charges, and all personal property and sales tax assessable against the equipment or the use thereof. Refunds, fraudulent local and toll call charges would also be deducted. The City would be responsible for notifying Telebrain of any customer complaints, and any need for repair, defect and/or maintenance. The current contract term calls for a minimum 120 months, but upon conversation with Mr. Flaherty (Telebrain), a less constrictive contract of 5 years is acceptable. Staff has concerns with both proposals. With regard to Telebrain's proposal, five (5) years seems too long a period to obligate the City to this vendor, considering the shorter term offered by GTE. Based on the formula for calculating commission to be received by the City from Telebrain, it may well be a non-profit (no revenue paid to the City) venture, even though the percentage (25%) offered by them is higher than the 15% of the gross offered by GTE. The proposed site at Valley Park, would require some trenching from the utility pole located adjacent to the Parking Booth. That trenching (approximately fifty (50') feet) could be done by GTE, at fifty ($50) per linear foot. Public Works personnel will 2 perform the trenching at (twenty-five ($25) dollars per linear foot), but this does not represent an out-of-pocket expense. It would be in the City's best interest to utilize a vendor agreement which returns as much revenue to the City as possible. GTE has a proven track record of reliability and over 100 years of telecommunications experience. There is no long term commitment, with GTE, it is just a minimum one-year contract. The proposed locations are represented on the attached maps. Both locations have been mutually agreed upon by staff and GTE, after extensive investigation. Staff took into consideration visibility, use, proximity, and access to current wiring. Alternatives: 1. Authorize approval of a contract with Telebrain. 2. Issue an RFP for payphone services. 3. Purchase payphones. 4. Refer back to staff for further review and recommendation. CONCUR: Cynthia Wilson, General Services Director Mary Reso .Pdey, Community rc-' Director evin B. No thcr City Manager 3 Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Wilson, General Services Director byLO. Michele D. Tercero, Telecommunications Liaison NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: 444: Viki Copland, Finance Director c 0 U' 0 J V ai 0 0.0 a X • gn1VQ t -' `iVA c- .: ".s;.: , C�c7 cr•• �:,�• ca uda nru �` tiCH L L ► : r'•ry k) Y• ^• Oil • • , swoo'J S?, :.1 ! .. LT3� ) i . \... k.\\ J }' 39 [\r/ ,.' fit) III a g 4P7, !2 0 Fror; IS • 76 i 0 —1 f'••••\70'vj —I hvsies -.: 1v /• 0 7 1'19913'Ast/0 ti�?) V r-1MV1 y 9 5rr,nr�J 58 -b -S 71• 4 awls �t�ee QNVS s • toc ffi 4A O I1 itt A > o , CC J a 4 ct ct 4 O k v 4 ra Iti 4 A _5CA LE - DRAWN fly. I RECOMMEND D ,Qy NOT. ro SCA L E D4T';.1 PATE C) —t 0p. 1 QI 143, [T1 1 �'` �+-1 i ,x_, .. • $.7.):•").".K.):: ... x x xxx x •Q, • '" .-...0...-.1a CP d d,:, N ... L.. 1 i wETT �,ta,rJ / ii„..:.,..,..,0,. ' ' L I,, ' j (c- fEt'�ct✓ Bt Eau+E�s � rt� ? E C LASK. (n n z (iLE' fL,1 RS (3f1 ET(4Lt DI�GoUTS l co�LCs;IsrJ r P..iKRkCAAF 'Tp.NA L A vi 1\/LA A A 1 FIELD ("1 A P I .y 11 BA►JK —'1 1>7 VJALL AI\ � us7Rvon%5 8ASte-E7lsAr_L Y —417 j ,(f In —1 c....,..• furs -- 5oVT}{ . P,r4Nr� N.nlooOEnl v, -, II ' I • IP LAuJ 1-IMb Pi OIIJ f3h�t< «o(..ics OF I' ,t5 S1-0 P 11s/ aIr F1ECij�It pr •/N*-_: t•FELE L.ITrU 1C.E aPtLAI CAr)6 p:tRtcS To ` L r ll 1 ; X ,:. ,i,„ ;`i _I) )3 0 t1 \1.17 to -�q VALV 8 iR fC /1 w1 V fa.D' C / ..(t.r:/<:(:\* .. _13 .6u1,..tiaci \.r.u..r� .L.,..).... v_. r LaT.\--\--- 8 e ... ._ • ` \ •'0 �► - _ . �( * . f,,,. 130,...n...1...16.. • 1 I 1 d --.__ =_3 ` -�' ► F ' (4..ecA1 i Ca6N ERRL �� (A< 1N _ LA1.1N G Ecn/ ... t TEN.) ` • le 1, LAWN! >SER'JtGE \, (;R.EA AP -E' i 1 __ y i a AIZ[q n 1:1)..._A...N • VALLA.`? DRIVE O. = Form 90002452 SO AREA PUB COMM AGREEMENT FOR OPERATION OF PUBLIC TELEPHONES THIS AGREEMENT IS MADE ON BETWEEN and DISTRIBUTION Whits. Orijtnal Yellow . Customer Ptnk • PCOC File Golelernd • Account Executive (subsequently referred to as GTE) (subsequently referred to as Agent) For provision of Public Telephone Service at: GTE will pay the Agent the following commission: (subsequently referred to as the Premises) 1, Basic Agreement The Agent grants GTE the exclusive right to install and operate public telephones at the Premises. and GTE agrees to provide such service. 2. Term This Agreement is for an initial term of years from the above date and shall thereafter automatically continue for successive terms of the same duration until terminated under the procedures set out in Paragraph 13, on the reverse side of this page. This Agreement includes the terms and conditions on the reverse side of this page, and the following attachments: This Agreement is hereby executed on behalf of GTE and the AGENT by the following duly authorized representatives: For GTE For AGENT Signature: Signature: Printed Name: Printed Name: Title: Title: Date; Business Name: Executed at: Bus, Address: Business Phone: Date: The terms and conditions contained on this page continue and arc part of the Agreement for Operation of Public Telephones. 3. Commission GTE will pay the Agent the commission set out on the first page of this Agreement on a monthly basis for all phones that qualify for a commission, w ith commission checks mailed no later that sixty (60, days after the end of the month. • • 4. lnsuilletion GTE will suppiy and install public telephones, along with such telephone enclosut es, protective bumper posts, identifying signs and related equipment as are necessary for efficient and safe use of the tele- phones. at locations on the Premises which are mutually acceptable to GTE and the Agent. Dates for installation and commencement of service will be as mutually agreed. installation work will be accomplished in accordance with upplicabie codes. ordinances and refutations. The type of ere:lost:rese signage and related equipment are subject to appros al h,s the Agent and to previsions of any applicable lease governing Agent's use of the Premises. All teiephones. enclosures and rel; ted equipment supplied and installed by GTE shall remain GTE's property . and GTE shill be responsible foray loss or damage to such items escept as are caused by Agents negligence cit willful misconduct. S. Telephone Services The telcphcares will provide a full range of sers ices and access. to include use of both cerins and telephone company calling cards. GTE will select neve features and options to be provided as they become available. 6. Operation ;utei Maintenance GTE will maintain the telephones and related equipment in good operating condition, respond to repair calls within 24 hours of notification by the Agent holidays and week -ends merited), answer customer inquiries, provide refunds to callers. and operate the set -vice in compliance w ith all applicable tariffs and regulations. The Agent will maintain the area around the telephones. pros ide unob- structed public access to the telephone; during normal Premises business ,hours. not allow connection of equipment or extension phones to the telephones or the telephone lines escept as authorized by GTE, and notify GTE of any service problem. 7. Moves and Cele= GTE may relocate or remove any telephone which t 1) does not produce minimum revenues to support continued operation in accordance w ith GTE s guidelines, (2) has. in GTE s judgment. been escessisely daniaged through vandalism or misuse, (3) an appropriate government agency requests be removed, or 1.4r the panics mutually acre: to relocate or remove, • Removal of'Ceienf onee Upon terntinatton of this Agreement. either in wltnlc or in pun with respect to indisic!ual telephones or Premises addresses, GTE will at its expense remove the items installed by GTE and return the Premises to a reasonably restored and safe condition. nonnal wear and tear excepted. • 9. Exclusyj The Agent grants to GTE the exclusive right to provide public telephones at the Premises tar the entire term, without interruption. terininaltnn or installation ofpelv!ic telephones front another -source. except es specifically pro' ided for in this Agreement This exclusivity also applies to new locations opened or acquired by the Agent during the term of this Agreement. 10. Flestrieal Conn ejle.l GTE mss connect electric lines for booth or sign lighting to an ephrt+priate connection point on the Premises as approved by the Anent. The Agen; news to supply the electrical power on a 24-hour basis for booth and sign lighting after the telephones are placed in service. lI. Pleatieeezetseees GTE may enter the Premises during normal business hours for the Premises and at other times upon reasonable notice, for purposes of fulfilling GTE's obligations under this Agreement. 12. 5tgnuee end Aviv enising Suhiect to local ordinances and any lease gaver ti g Agent's use of the Premises. GTE shall have the exclusive right to pleee telephone directoriee signage and advertising for products or set -vices that do not compete vs oh Agent'., business. within or on the telephone eneiosures. 13. Termination Either party may terminate this Agreement at the end of The initial or any subsequent term by g i ving written notice tothe other at least . sixty (60)days prior to the end of the term. Either party may terminate this Agreement by written notice if the other party becomes insolvent. makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors. is unable to pay debts as they mature. has a trustee or receiver appointed over all or any substantial part of its assets. or goes out of• business. 'If a party fails to perform any major obligation under this Agreement, the other party shall give written demand to cure, and if the non-performing party does not correct the deficiency within sixty (60, days of receipt of such demand. the notifying party may temtinate this Agreement upon second written notice. This Agreement may otherwise be terminated only upon mutual agreement. 14. ,Suhcontr•actors. Assignment and Successors Either party may per- form its obligations under this Agreement through duly authorized subcon- tractors or agents. This Agreerrient may not be assigned without the other party's prior written consent, which shall not unreasonably be s ithheld. However. either party may assign its rights and obligations hereunder, in whole or in part, to a subsidiary, successor or related -company upon prior written notice to the other party. This Agreement binds the parties and their successors and assigns, and is a contractual obligation for use of the Premises and provision of public telephone service which shall continue between GTE and a new owner for the term of this Agreement upon change in ownership of the Premises or of the Agent's business conducted there. 15. Causcg$eygpd Control of apajiy Neither party shall be liable for failure to perform obligations under this Agreement if' prevented from doing so by a cause or causes which could not with reasonable diligence be controlled or presented by the party. 16. Indemnifickiori GTE will hold the Agent harmless from claims or liabilities arising out of GTE's ownership. installation. operation, mainte- nance or removal of the telephones and related equipment as provided for in this Agreement. except for claims or liabilities arising from negligent acts or omissions or wrongful or willful misconduct of the Agent. its agents. servants, officers or employees. The Agent will hold GTE harmless from claims or liabilities arising out of the Agent's operation and maintenance of the Premises, except for claims or liabilities arising from negligent acts or Omissions or wrongful or willful misconduct of GTE, its agents. servants. officers or employees. 37. Limitation of Liability With the exception of inipropertenninarion in violation of Paragraph 13 or beach of.the exclusivity or authority provi- sions of Paragraphs 9 and 19, neither party shall be liable to the other for any special, consequential or incidental damages in connection with either party's performance, delayed performance. or nonperformance of this Agreement or any part of it. 18. Applicable Law This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the domestic laws of the State of where'this Agreement is executed by GTE. This Agreement shall at all times be subject to such changes or modifications as -the appropriate state or federal regulatory agencies may from time to time direct and approve in the exercise of their jurisdiction. In the event any provision of this Agreement is in conflict w inn any state or federal law or regulation, such provision shall be deemed modified to conform with such law or regulation and all other provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. !9. Authoruy The person signing represents end warrants to have the Agent's authority to execute this Agreement, that the Agent has not entered into any other agreement for concurrent public telephone service at the Premises, and that the Agent owns. leases or otherwise controls the Premises with full authority to agree to the provision -of public telephone service as set out in this Agreement. 20. Entire Agreement Except for written amendments. supplements or modifications made subsequently and signed by both panics, this Agree- ment represents the entire agreement between GTE and the Agent with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement and supersedes all prior negotiations. representations and agreements. either oral or written. October 3, 1990 City Council Meeting October 9, 1990 Mayor and Members of City Council REFERENDUM PETITION PROTESTING ORDINANCE NO. 90-1043 (RE BILTMORE SITE) A referendum petition protesting the August 28, 1990 adoption of Ordinance No. 90-1043, concerning the Biltmore Site, was submitted September 26, 1990 by Parker Herriott. After determining that the number of signatures (1,794), prima facie, exceeded the minimum number of signatures required (1,199), the petition was accepted for filing; thus, suspending the effective date of the subject ordinance. The petition has been hand -delivered to the Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder's office, with a request for signature verification within the permitted 30 -day time period, to be completed by October 25, 1990. If the petition is found to be sufficient, it will be presented to City Council at its next regular meeting following the 30 -day time period, which will be November 13, 1990. Attached is a copy of the referendum petition, and a letter to the Mayor and Council from June Williams, one of the petition circulators. Elaine Doerfling,lerk Noted: evin B. Nor her t, City Manager See attached City Manager Comment 11a CITY MANAGER COMMENT: It should be noted that the referendum ordinance does not apply to the adopted resolution that designates the Biltmore Site medi- um density residential in the General Plan. While an option is to suspend pursuit of Coastal Commission ap- proval for this designation, staff believes it appropriate to proceed to obtain the Commission's determination. Regardless of the outcome, it will give the voters increased information in the event the Biltmore site is again a ballot issue. Accordingly, a public hearing for a resolution confirming the change in the land use plan has been advertised for November 13, 1990, per the direction of the Coastal Commission staff. REFERENDUM AGAINST AN ORDINANCE PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL To the City Council of Hermosa Beach, California We the undersigned being duly qualified and registered voters In the the city of Hermosa Beach, California, hereby 90-1043, AN ORDINANCE OF THE protest against passageot:cityotHermoSaeeachURDINANCE NUMBER ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT FOR TIRE TY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING T A SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR THE BILTMORE SITE ON CHANGE THE PERMITTED USE NG MAP TO REZONE PARKING LOTMC" HOTEL TO RESIDENTIAL, AND AMENDING THE Z FROM SAID SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO C-2 - RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA We the undersigned, being duly qualified registered voters of the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, pursuant to et seq of the Election of the of California, hereby te erendum Chapter and request that the ordinance, se3 Municipal Elections, Article esent this t tfforth on the�frro t ofthis sheet, be repealed aby you ora be submitted to a vote of the people atf petition a regular election as prescribed by law. EACH OF THE UNDERSIGNED STATES FOR HIMSELF/HERSELF THAT HE OR SHE IS A REGISTERED AND OU•LIFIED ELECTOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY. CALIFORNIA r YOUR SIGNATURE AS REGISTERED TO VOTE PANT YOUR NAME This column for Official use Only RESJOENCE •OORESt Cite ZIP YOUR SIGNATURE •S REGISTERED TO VOTE PQN'T YOUR NAME RESIOENCE ADDRESS CITY YOUR SIGNATURE •5 REGISTERED TO VOTE NT YOUR N•ME RESIOENCE ADDRESS CIT YOUR S9ON•TuRE A5 REGISTERED TO VOTE OQNT YOUR NAME RE SIDENCE •OORESS Ct YOUR SIONATURE.AS REGISTERED TO VOTE POINT YOUR NAME OE SJOENCE •OGRESS CITY ZIP YOUR SIGNATURE •S REGISTERED TO VOTE PRI N T YOUR NAME RESIDENCE •OORESS CITY ZIP PRINT YOUR SIGNATURE AS REGISTERED TO VOTE YOUR NAME RESIDENCE ADDRESS CITY ZIP YOUR SION•TURE •S REGISTERED TO VOTE PRINT YOUR NAME RESIDENCE ADORESS CITY ZIP YOUR SIGNATURE AS REGISTERED TO VOTE ObeNT YOUR NAME RESIDENCE •OGRESS CIT ZIP YOUR SIGNATURE • S REGISTERED TO VOTE POINT YOUO NAME RE510ENCE •GORE SS Cr" ZIP DECLARATION OF PERSON CIRCULATING SECTION OF PETITION O.Uere: MT res•denCS oddness IT the time of I"Kution 01 this OedrreIIOn Ie In Lot Anger" Colnty. CaIRomte. Ind I ern a registered 0usuhed Ardor m City o1 N.nnO. poach. Los Angers COVnty: I P.reonanY urculusO the "Itched petition for miming" ' ••c0 0, Ifte .1000.0erd ergnetufos On the attached pennon Nemo signed. and 10 my beet Intorn,ItlOn DNS belief. each signature 11 th1 genulre MfrulTIre 0, the Corson name end McNeil.*. II porpons to o.: and The appended Ilgnatwre" O.rs Obtained between the dales or fetter• uncle, pore*/ of WWI, under lee tees of The Stet. of Cal/forms tem Me foregoing is eve and corre•Y. (Print nemel SIGNATURE OF PETITION CIRCULATOR Executed ori at Dau Return peteton to Palter R. Norma. Z2a 24t11 St.. Hermosa Beach. Cahlorma 7747196 Liry/Count/ when signed C4011 onus REFERENDUM AGAINST AN ORDINANCE PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL To the City Council of Hermosa Beach, California We the undersigned (signatures on the reverse side) being duly qualified and registered voters in the the city of Hermosa Beach, California, hereby protest against passage of: city of Hermosa Beach ORDINANCE NUMBER 90-1043, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR THE BILTMORE SITE TO CHANGE THE PERMITTED USE FROM A HOTEL TO RESIDENTIAL, AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE PARKING LOT "C" FROM SAID SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO C-2 - RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TEXT OF ORDINANCE PROTESTED AGAINST ORDINANCE 90-1043 'NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, hereby amends zoning map as shown on the attached map, and amends the zoning ordinance text, described as follows: SECTION 1. The following text shall be added to the zoning ordinance: Article 9.6. Chapter 1. Specific Plan Area No. 1 Section 9.61-1, Authority. This Specific Plan Area is an instrument for implementing the General plan pursuant to Artide 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 to approximately 350 feet west of Hermosa Avenue. Section 9.61-3 Purpose. The purpose of the Specific Plan Area is to set forth the development requirements, standards and permitted uses for the subject area. Section 9.61-4 Permitted Uses and Density. A. Any use Permitted in the R-1 (One -Family) Residential Zone to a maximum of 12 dwelling units. B. Condominium developments consistent with the provisions of the Condominium Ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach to a maximum of 14 dwelling units. Section 9.61-5 Development Standards A. A minimum of three (3) off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit. B. Lot coverage shall not exceed 50% of the entire Specific Plan Area. C. A minimum setback of 10 feet shall be provided from the Strand. D. The development of condominiums shall require the merging of the existing lots into one parcel. E. Development standards shall be set forth in ARTICLE 5. R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, except pertaining to lot coverage and setbacks as stated in Sections 9.61-5(B) and 5(C). F All other standards shall be as set forth in the City of Hermosa Beach Zoning Ordinance, except pertaining to required parking spaces as stated in Section 9-61-5A. SECTION 2. Rezone the property commonly known as parking lot 'C' from Specific Plan Area to C-2 Restricted Commercial, legally described as follows: - Lots 19 through 29, Inclusive, and lots 32 and 33, Hermosa Beach Tract SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and atter thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. SECTION 4. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the J:asv Reader a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the city of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of same is passed and adopted. 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 /3— Return penton to: Patter R. /Whom 224 24th St.. Hermosa Beach. Calitorn,a - lune ' 1i if lams 2065 �Man/iattan 4vt. c4{ctmoia Brack £ 4 90254 Sept. 30, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Council: RECUVLU OCT 0 i 1990 This is to request that you place on the next agenda a consideration of scheduling a hearing for the purpose of repealing Ord. 90-1043, the zoning of the Biltmore site for residential development. We have over 1800 signatures against that ordinance. There was not a large "crew" working on this referendum. It was mainly Parker and myself. Yet, we had no difficulty acquiring the signatures within the 30 day period required by law. In the previous election, residential zoning was turned down. The people of Hermosa Beach have once again expressed a NO vote with the referendum. Only two of the eleven member "blue ribbon" task force committee recommended residential use for the Biltmore site. Three Councilmembers opted to go with those two. There is no doubt that a peoples initiative, which also has over 1800 signatures obtained in 1/6 of allowed time, calling for parkland on the site, will qualify for an election. Surely, the council will consider the significance of these signatures. It was quite apparent to me in the gathering of signatures that people in Hermosa and neighboring cities are aware of our environmental problems due to congestion. It was stated in the program, The Year 2000„"We should preserve every spot of green possible". I believe a majority of caring Hermosans will agree. Sincerely, r ' September 12, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Bdach City Council October 9, 1990 STREET SWEEPING 4 HOUR PARKING RESTRICTION VS 2 HOUR PARKING RESTRICTION Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Authorize the parking restriction for street sweeping to be reduced from 4 hours to 2 hours. 2. Grant the Public Works Director authority to make adjustments as necessary to implement the change in hours. 3. Consider a budget adjustment at midyear review to cover the cost of sign overlays. Background: On February 27, 1990, City Council approved the City goals for 1990. This report complies with those goals and reducing the parking restriction is consistent with: 1. Council Goal No. 1 - Improve City financial picture. 2. Council Goal No. 4 - Search for "cost effective" improvements for City departments. 3. Council Goal No. 8 - Review need for 4 Hr. "No Parking" restriction for sweeper and increasing the parking. 4. Council Goal No. 10 - Improving Image of Hermosa Beach. Analysis: The analysis is divided as follows: 1. Present 4 -hr parking restriction. 2. Proposed 2 -hr parking restriction. 3. Implementation method. 4. Summary 1. Present 4 -hr parking restriction The present 4 -hr "No Parking" (in most areas of the City) during street sweeping has been in place for many years and was deemed appropriate at that time. It allowed for catchup work when mechanical failures occured. Some residents have complained that the 4 -hr restriction causes inconveniences because 4 hours is too long a time period. In the commercial area and other parking metered areas a 4 -hr restriction represents a potential loss of revenue to the City. 2. Proposed 2 -hr parking restriction Reducing the time restriction from 4 hours to 2 hours will open up the metered areas for two additional hours each week that could potentially increase revenue and relieve peak parking congestion. Total potential revenue: SUMMER (95% occupied) ($0.50 per hr.) (2 hr.) (15 weeks) (1685 meters) = $24,000 WINTER (20% occupied) ($0.50 per hr.) (2 hr.) (37 weeks) (1685 meters) = $12,500 3. Implementation Plan Sweeper Route $36,500 Staff has prepared a new sweeper route map showing where all new 2 hour "No Parking" restrictions are to be enforced. For the benefit of residents, the sweeper day and route will remain the same - only the hours will change. Example: Existing Sign Thursday 8 to Noon New Overlay Sign Thursday 8 - 10 or 9 - 11 or 10 - Noon Sign Overlay Cost Changing from 4 hours to 2 hours will require an overlay of the existing signs. Below is an estimate of cost. 48 curb miles X 2 sides = 96 curb miles swept weekly 96 curb miles X approx. 26 signs per curb mile = •approx. 2,500 signs 2,500 signs X $1.50 per overlay = $3,750 - 2 - Overlays can be installed by City staff. The cost to purchase the overlay can be paid with no additional appropriation, however, an adjustment may be necessary at midyear budget review. Noticing Any change in sweeper hours will require noticing the public. Staff will place a notice on cable T.V. and in the Easy Reader saying: "IMPORTANT PARKING INFORMATION FOR HERMOSA BEACH RESIDENTS - NO PARKING ON SWEEPER DAYS WILL BE REDUCED FROM 4 HOURS TO 2 HOURS." 4. Summary A change from 4 hours to 2 hours is viewed as a positive benefit to the public and is consistent with four council goals. There will be some minor operational problems that can be overcome. Reducing the NO PARKING to less than 2 hours will cause significant operational and scheduling problems. Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to Council: 1. Maintain the existing hours. Respectfully submitted, Ant ony Antich Public Works Director Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Director pworks/srstswp 3 Concur: Cynthia Wilson General Services Director evin B. Northcroft City Manager