The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/12/90.4 CITY 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 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 a THE'HERMOSA BEACH FORM OF GOVERNMENT Hermosa Beach has 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 later 'Council '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. "Success is doing what you like to do and making a living at it." -Unknown AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, June 12, 1990 - Council Chambers, City Hall Closed Session - 6:30 p.m. Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. MAYOR CITY CLERK Roger Creighton Elaine Doerfling MAYOR PRO TEM CITY TREASURER Chuck Sheldon Gary L. Brutsch COUNCILMEMBERS CITY MANAGER Robert Essertier Kevin B. Northcraft Kathleen Midstokke CITY ATTORNEY Albert Wiemans 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: 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.) (a) Recommendation to approve the following minutes: 1) Regular meeting of the City Council held on May 22, 1990; 2) Special meeting of the City Council held on May 24, 1990. 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 May, 1990 invest- ment report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated June 4, 1990. (e) (f) (g) (i) (1) Recommendation to approve renewal of General Services Agreement with the County of Los Angeles. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated June 4, 1990. Recommendation to approve increasing the cash account limit from $1,000 to $3,000 for handling the asset and forfeiture funds. Memorandum from Public Safety Direc- tor Steve Wisniewski dated May 21, 1990. Recommendation to approve lease agreement between Proj- ect Touch and the City of Hermosa Beach for space in the Community Center. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated June 1, 1990. Recommendation to approve lease agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and the L. A. County Bar Associa- tion, Dispute Resolution Services, Inc. for space in the Community Center. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated June 1, 1990. Recommendation to approve proposal for South Bay Hospi- tal District funding of traffic pre-emption devices on Pacific Coast Highway. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated June 4, 1990. Recommendation to approve new location for Chamber of Commerce Farmers' Market. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated June 1, 1990. Recommendation to receive and file report on contract instructors for recreation classes. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated June 1, 1990. Recommendation to approve appropriation of funds for payment of parking citation surcharge to the County of Los Angeles. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated June 5, 1990. 2 (m) Recommendation to receive and file notice of Police Commander Lavin's acceptance in the FBI Academy. Memo- randum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dat- ed June 7, 1990. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. (a) ORDINANCE NO. 90-1035 - AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 29- 13(c) TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING CURBS, GUTTERS AND SIDEWALKS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SUGGESTED ROUTE TO SCHOOL STREETS AT THE TIME OF PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT. For adoption. (b) ORDINANCE NO. 90-1031 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE THE AREA LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN 18TH STREET AND 20TH STREET FROM R-3 MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-2 TWO- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. For re -adoption, to meet require- ments of Government Code Section 36933. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS. (a) Letter from Jim Lissner, 2715 El Oeste dated June 6, 1990 regarding Manhattan Grande Plaza. (Requested by Councilmember Essertier.) PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON MOBIL STATION, CAR WASH AT 931 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, with resolution for adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated June 4, 1990. 6. CONSIDERATION OF RE-CREATION OF A SEPARATE VEHICLE PARK- ING DISTRICT BOARD AND FUND, with two ordinances for introduction. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated June 4, 1990. 7. RECOMMENDED CABLE TELEVISION CONSUMER PROTECTION STAN- DARDS, with resolution for adoption. Memorandum from Acting General Services Director Henry L. Staten dated June 4, 1990. 8. SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT TO USE AVERAGING METHOD TO MEASURE HEIGHT IN THE R-1 AND R -2B ZONES. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated June 4, 1990. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 9. REPORT FROM CABLE OPERATOR REGARDING PUBLIC ACCESS. Memorandum from Acting General Services Director Henry L. Staten dated May 15, 1990. 3 10. REPORT ON AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated May 30, 1990. 11. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER (a) Notification of impending retirement of City Prosecutor John Barry. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated June 7, 1990. 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL 13. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Request by Councilmember Midstokke for discussion on rotation of Mayor. Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to discuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Coun- cil action tonight. CITIZEN COMMENTS - 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 June 6, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council of June 12, 1990 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Responsible Agent June 26, 1990 Donation from Foundation due June, 1990 Presentation by Metropolitan Water District on water sources Approval for engineering analysis of two Yard sites Call for bids - basketball courts CIP 89-512 Ordinance for new Chapter 19 of HBMC entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic" Resolution approving Street Lighting District assessment report and setting a public hearing Resolution approving Crossing Guard District assessment report and setting a public hearing Proposed reorganization of Community Resources Department personnel allocation Comm. Resources Dir. City Manager Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Personnel Director New marquee proposal status report Community Resources Award construction contract for basketball courts Public Works Director Public Hearings Delinquent refuse bill assessments Building Director Public Hearing/Budget Adoption July 10, 1990 Report re. 3 -hr. vs. 2 -hr. parking meter limit in the downtown General Services Director - 1 - 1 C CIP 88-406 Call for Bids - Sewers Target Area 4 Comparison of consultant vs. in-house plan check Public Hearing Crossing Guard Assessment District Street Lighting Assessment District 2nd General Plan amendments: Area 10 General Plan and/or zone change Circulation element Biltmore site change of designation Park & Rec. Master Plan amendment to open space element July 24, 1990 Request to restripe Plaza Hermosa and rework 20 -minute parking area Accept sidewalk repairs as complete CIP 89-142 Amortization of non -ABC conditional use permits Agreement with County for overlay of Valley/Ardmore/Prospect. August 14, 1990 Hope Chapel Lease Agreement August 28, 1990 City Council reorganization Pavement Management Report and slurry sealing, call for bids CIP 89-170 September 11, 1990 Historical Society Lease Agreement Easter Seals Lease Agreement Public Works Director Building Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Planning Director Planning Planning Planning Director Director Director Planning Director General Services Director (as Parking Authority) Public Works Director Planning Director Public Works Director Comm. Resources Director Public Works Director Comm. Resources Director Comm. Resources Director ***************************************************************** Upcoming Items Not Yet Calendared Power Street drainage and grading Public Works Director 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 City Mgr. 5/3 Energy Conservation report Council 5/8 Consider water conservation methods for new construction Council 5/8 Discuss financial arrangements on oil project Council 5/8 Re. oil project CUP - define "temporary" as relates to height of project Building Dir. Building Dir. City Mgr. Planning Dir. Council 5/8 Curbside recycling alternatives public hearing (goal 17) Building Dir. Council 5/8 Revision of City job qualifi- cations by Civil Svc. Board Personnel Dir. Goal 2 5/16 Options to director dial to City Hall Gen. Svcs. Dir. Goal 4 5/16 Options to computerize per- sonnel as part of payroll function Finance, Dir. Goal 4 5/16 Further review of 4/10 sched. Personnel Dir. Goal 7 5/16 Ideas for pier utilization Comm. Res. Dir. Goal 8 5/16 Options to increasing service level of street sweeping Public Works Dir. Goal 8 5/16 Review of 4 -hr. no parking restriction for sweeper 3 Public Works Dir. Pog@en Fu r ry-AWCr afti CET Wgzh Insuay CompuEo0e w th Other S ©ot EllemeM s o Exterior building design and materials echo all other structures on the property. ❑ Set back from street for a subdued appearance and positioning. o Provides an additional customer con- venience and is compatible with other automotive products and services offered on the premises. ReNcloDeq SeDV-CConkA ue Opelrafio o Fully -automated unit. o Equipment is reliable, easy to use and safe to operate. ❑ Completely self-contained operation recirculates wash water. &gnaw and Gr 1phocs o Only one point of sale display sign is used on the car wash building. o Car Wash Legend clearly identifies the facility. MoN Nan Convenence Products ProA6de "One Stop" Shoppfing for Today's . . .Consumer Mos a y Cho Other Stall mpaffulble wut on [ em s o White roof band repeats the canopy fascia and subtly ties the two together. ❑ Windows kept clear and clutter free allowing maximum two-way visibility and security for both customers and station cashiers while providing a sense of visual orderliness. ❑ Lighting provides a safe, well illumi- nated interior with no glare or exterior spillage. Concept CCareffuHy DevoMoped and Refined o Merchandising guidelines insure that displays are neat and attractive with floor space kept clear of clutter. ❑ Merchandise mix concentrates on se- lect group of name brand, fast turnover impulse items. ❑ High quality display cases, shelving and modules used throughout. ❑ Electronic cash registers help expedite customer transactions. ❑ Designed to appeal to the gasoline customer who also wants the opportu- nity to purchase a snack or beverage while completing the gasoline transaction. Pogcsus 7 Mboon veTh LJ, Fuang _20©ndo endMoblMkan Io:goo 21 MaToo wok An E flci o]o o� fob ones WhO1 espree-Through" Canopy ❑ Simple, clean and unobtrusive, it is architecturally neutral and respectful of adjoining properties. ❑ Slim, floating roof line and "wall -less" design do not obstruct visibility of sur- rounding environment. ❑ Uniquely Mobil in appearance, the canopy architecturally integrates the fuel dispensers into the overall design. ❑ Twin -column design houses all utili- ties and roof drainage, leaving an un- cluttered, attractive appearance. ❑ Concealed source lighting system is energy efficient and totally hidden from view. ❑ Guides customers quickly and safely to fueling positions and provides important weather protection and shade. Su jjoage and c Graphics ❑ Internally illuminated Mobil ID/price sign allows motorists to make a quick purchasing decision. ❑ Sturdy, easy -to -change snaplock equipment is used for all promotional and product signage. Keeps signs neat, clean and crisp. ❑ Canopy and Mobil Mart legends add visual definition and inform consum- ers from off-site of available products and services. E© Dy Acc©ssDbDe Dsilands w0th Becht:410c GFueD Dlspe sers Enhance O dely Traffic Row ❑ Positioned perpendicularly to road for easy access. ❑ "Dog bone" island shape protects both the dispenser and consumer from vehicle damage while allowing customers to easily reach nozzles. Altract0veDy M/Ierchands@d Mob00 Man o Provides the gasoline customer with select, limited number of pre- packaged impulse products neatly and attractively displayed. ❑ Electronic cash registers improve accuracy and speed of customer transactions. o Wrap-around windows kept clear and free of signage and clutter for maximum consumer visibility and cashier safety. Mobil Mart 1 1 1 I 1 1 P21 -GS \i... LJ LJ d oc ar/ LJ LJ g \) LJ LJ LJ LJ LI a v\� J P\i._. J ll O g 'Ma lJ a Iogoos o CMo1©h 5)o oomEouroV O O O Landscaphg ❑ Professional landscaping screens and softens the visual transition between the station property and its neighbors. o Unifies the property with the sur- rounding landscape and community. o Shrubs, lawn and trees are scaled to fit the dimensions and setting of the station, and add personality and character to the station environment. o Provides a more pleasant customer purchasing environment. Pag@sus MghM © Wang SocuAV Mffnma 0 (am 07 Spl ago 0 0 0 Subdued Ye? Effecitve LoghVng En oWrnon4 ❑ Energy-efficient light system is totally hidden from view. ❑ Soft, well distributed lighting without glare. O Promotes functionality and important night-time security for self -serve gasoline customers without annoying side spill or hot spots. ❑ Recognized and respected lighting specialists have designed a total light- ing environment that is an integral architectural element — not an "add on." Mumfncted Dc7enNficaVon ❑ Internally illuminated blue fascias and canopy column lighting help guide customers to available fuel dispen- sers. ❑ Illuminated legends on the canopy and Mobil Mart help direct customers to the desired products and services. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Thursday, May 24, 1990, at the hour of 6:05 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Planning Director Michael Schubach ROLL CALL: Present: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton Absent: None 1. CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY 1990-1992 BUDGET City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft presented an overview of the budget, and noted that the public hearing was scheduled for the meeting of June 26, 1990. He said this was a two-year budget which, for the first time, included the City goals. Finance Director Viki Copeland reviewed the revenues and the revenue projections for the two-year budget. It was the consensus of the Council to review the requests of the Social Service Agencies next since there were a number of representatives in the audience. Addressing the Council and responding to Council questions were: Dorothy Lank and Neil Weiner, Dispute Resolution Services Shalee Cunningham, principal/administrator of Hermosa Valley School, re South Bay Juvenile Diversion Mary Lou Weiss, Hermosa Beach City School District, re Hermosa Beach Coordinating Council J.R. Reviczky, Hermosa Beach Youth Basketball League and Little League Council requested that Mr. Reviczky provide Council with information concerning the financial viability of the snack stand. A representative of Beach Cities Symphony responded to Council questions. The Mayor suggested advertising the free concerts and performances in the City newsletter. A recess was called at 7:30 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 7:41 P.M. The City Treasurer was requested to set up new guidelines for all non-profit organizations requesting funding from the City, to be incorporated as requirements in the contracts, and to prepare a reporting form for the organizations to use. Council also requested the budgets of all organizations requesting money and an estimate of how many Hermosa Beach residents are being served. The Council then reviewed the individual department budgets. Staff responded to Council questions, and requests for more - 1 - Minutes 5-24-90 a w information and reports were made, to be coordinated by the City Manager. Favorable straw votes were taken on the following items: 1) to provide a full-time rather than a part-time Deputy City Treasurer; and 2) to increase the City Treasurer's salary to 50 percent of that of the Deputy City Treasurer. It was noted that South Bay Juvenile Diversion was double budgeted, showing up in both the Police and Community Resources budgets, and should be removed from one or the other. There was consensus among the Council for consolidation of some of the Public Works accounts, if possible, and for a recap on all Public Works budget items. The Mayor directed staff to go out to bid for an American- made vehicle for the Building and Safety Department. 2. CONSIDERATION OF FY 90-91 - FY 94-95 FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PRELIMINARY BUDGET. This item was continued to June 7, 1990, along with supplemental memorandums submitted by the City Treasurer. CITIZEN COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT The Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Thursday, May 24, 1990, at the hour of 10:00 P.M., to a Special Meeting to be held on Thursday, June 7, 1990, at the hour of 6:00 P.M. -,� City Clerk - 2 - Minutes 5-24-90 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, May 22, 1990, at the hour of 7:39 P.M. CLOSED SESSION - held at 6:37 P.M. pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding Real Property Negotiations on surplus property at South School and Prospect Heights; adjourned at 7:34 P.M. to scheduled public meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mary Rooney, Community Resources Director ROLL CALL: Present: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton Absent: None PROCLAMATIONS: National Public Works Week, May 20-26, 1990 City Manager Northcraft read the proclamation, and Mayor Creighton presented the proclamation to Anthony Antich, Director of Public Works. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF COMMENDATION TO JOHN JACKSON, HERMOSA BEACH CITY SCHOOLS Shalee Cunningham, principal/administrator of Hermosa Beach City School District, and City Treasurer Gary Brutsch came forward, and Ms. Cunningham read the commendation. With his students from Hermosa Valley School standing behind him, John Jackson, teacher for 31 years with Hermosa Beach City schools, accepted the cer- tificate of commendation presented by the Mayor. INTRODUCTION OF EMPLOYEES OF THE QUARTER: Ken Lindsey, Sr. Equipment Mechanic, Public Works Dept. Personnel Director Blackwood introduced Ken Lindsey, and the Mayor presented Mr. Lindsey with a plaque of recognition. Dianne Loughin, Court Liaison Officer, Police Dept. Personnel Director Blackwood explained that Ms. Loughin was un- able to attend tonight's meeting and would receive her plaque of recognition at a later date. ANNOUNCEMENTS: The City Manager announced that there would be a Special Meeting on Thursday, May 24, 1990, at 6:00 P.M. to begin study of the two-year Pre- liminary Budget for Fiscal Years 1990-91 and 1991-92, as well as the Capital Improvement Program. He said the Budget Study Session is intended to allow for a more detailed review of the Budget prior to the public hearing in June, and that it would be televised. The City Manager also announced that tonight's Council meeting would be replayed on Cable TV tomorrow at noon, and hoped the schedule would 1 Minutes 5-22-90 a (i) be maintained from now on, with the meetings replayed on the Wednesday following the meeting. CITIZEN COMMENTS Betty Ryan, 588 Twentieth Street, presented Council with invitations to the Hermosa Garden Club's annual plant sale and luncheon on June 2, 1990. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve the Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (n) with the exception of the following items which were pulled for discussion but are listed in order for clarity: (c) and (k) Essertier. A no vote for item (h) was registered by Midstokke, and a no vote for item (n) was registered by Midstokke and Wiemans. Motion Sheldon, second Essertier. So ordered. (a) (b) Recommendation to approve the following minutes: 1) Special meeting of the City Council held on May 3, 1990; 2) Regular meeting of the City Council held on May 8, 1990. Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos. 33306, and 33436 through 33592 inclusive, noting voided warrants 33439, 33440, 33462, and 33507 through 33509 inclusive. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) (e) Action: To receive and file the items. Motion Essertier, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered. Recommendation to receive and file the April, 1990 financial reports: 1) Revenue and expenditure report; 2) City Treasurer's report. Recommendation to adopt resolution creating a curbside parking space for the exclusive use of disabled persons to be located at 325 Manhattan Avenue. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated May 3, 1990. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5366, entitled, "A RESOLUTION CREATING A CURBSIDE PARKING SPACE FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF DISABLED PERSONS, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 22511.7 OF THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE, TO BE LOCATED AT 325 MANHATTAN AVENUE." (f) Recommendation to receive and file status report on Cal- ifornia Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939). - 2 - Minutes 5-22-90 (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (1) Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated May 10, 1990. Recommendation to authorize the expenditure of an amount not to exceed $3,150 for providing instruction and materials necessary to enable Fire personnel to prepare for the State Commercial Drivers License written test, air brake test, tank endorsement, pre -trip inspection, and skills test; and to approve the training agreement with Billy Wayne Hodges, an independent contractor, to provide the necessary classes and training. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated May 14, 1990. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris urban open space and recreation program grant to fund outdoor basketball complex at Clark Stadium. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated May 14, 1990. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5367, entitled, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE ROBERTI-Z'BERG-HARRIS URBAN OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM," with Midstokke dissenting. Recommendation to approve appropriation of funds from the Utility Users Tax Railroad Right-of-way Fund, in the amount of $1,600, for payment of trustee fees on the certificate of participation issue through Independent Cities Lease Finance Authority used to purchase the Greenbelt. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated May 16, 1990. Recommendation to approve Chamber of Commerce request to close one block of Tenth Street for annual installation dinner on Saturday, June 30. Memorandum from City Man- ager Kevin B. Northcraft dated May 15, 1990. Recommendation to receive and file comparison of sani- tary sewer design costs. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated May 15, 1990. Action: To receive and file the report. Motion Midstokke, second Sheldon. So ordered, noting the objections of Essertier and Mayor Creighton. Recommendation to award a three-year audit contract covering fiscal years 1989-90 through 1991-92, with an option to extend the agreement for two additional fiscal years, to the firm of Coopers & Lybrand. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated May 16, 1990. A supplemental memo relating to the agreement with Cop- pers & Lybrand, dated May 22, 1990. - 3 - Minutes 5-22-90 (m) (n) Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing the ap- plication for Proposition A discretionary funds. Memo- randum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated May 14, 1990. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5368, entitled, A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH FOR FY 1990-91 PROPOSITION "A", DISCRETIONARY FUNDS UNDER THE SUBREGIONAL PARATRANSIT INCENTIVE PROGRAM FOR THE "WAVE" DIAL -A -RIDE PROGRAM." Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing partici- pation in the Commuter Express Program. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated May 14, 1990. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5369, entitled, "A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES' COMMUTER EXPRESS PARTICIPATION PROGRAM FOR FY 1990-91," with Midstokke and Wiemans dissenting. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES (a) ORDINANCE NO. 90-1030 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO CREATE COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AREA ZONE NO. 8 IN THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AREA LOCATED EAST AND WEST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN 14TH STREET AND 24TH PLACE, EXCEPT FOR 18TH STREET TO 20TH STREET ON THE EAST SIDE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. For adoption. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 90-1030. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Wiemans. So ordered, noting the abstention of Essertier. (b) ORDINANCE NO. 90-1031 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE THE AREA LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN 18TH STREET AND 20TH STREET FROM R-3 MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-2 TWO- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. For adoption. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 90-1031. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Wiemans. So ordered. (c) ORDINANCE NO. 90-1032 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 9-1, 9-2, AND 9-3 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH ZONING CODE TO PERMIT OIL DRILLING AND PRODUCTION WHEN ALLOWED BY A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. For adoption. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 90-1032. Motion Wiemans, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered. (d) ORDINANCE NO. 90-1033 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THE AREAS DESCRIBED AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP, AND AMENDING THE ZONING OR- DINANCE TEXT TO CREATE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NO. 9, AND - 4 - Minutes 5-22-90 (e) ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. For adoption. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 90-1033. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Wiemans. So ordered. ORDINANCE NO. 90-1034 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO HAND- BILLS AND ADVERTISING. For adoption. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 90-1034. Motion Midstokke, second Wiemans. Proposed Substitute Motion: To amend and re -introduce Ordinance No. 90-1034 to exclude real estate trailer signs and garage sale signs as long as they are not up for more than three hours. The motion died for lack of a second. The above motion, to adopt Ordinance No. 90-1034, was so ordered, with no objections. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Items (c) and (k) were discussed at this time, but are listed in order for clarity. Action was taken on Item (c) at this time. Item (k) was moved to follow item 5 by motion of Mayor Creighton, second by Essertier, and so ordered with no objections. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Proposed Action: To determine that a subsequent need arose after the posting of the agenda to discuss a peti- tion received regarding property at 245 Thirty-third Street, Hermosa Beach. Motion Midstokke, second Mayor Creighton. Motion failed with the objections of Sheldon and Mayor Creighton (two- thirds vote required). PUBLIC HEARINGS: None HEARINGS 5. SEWER FINANCING ANALYSIS. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated May 15, 1990. Director Antich presented a staff report and responded to Council questions. Richard Howell, of James M. Montgomery Engineers, responded to Council questions. The Hearing was opened. There being no one ward to speak, the Hearing was closed. 5 Consulting coming for - Minutes 5-22-90 Action: To approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1) Hold a hearing to allow public testimony on the re- cently completed sewer financing analysis report (held this evening); 2) Accept the report as complete; 3) Update the City's five-year-old sanitary sewer evalua- tion (as all identified deficiencies within the original evaluation have been repaired) and reflect this project in the capital improvement program; 4) Maintain a mini- mum balance in the Sewer Fund of $100,000 annually to cover unexpected sanitary sewer failures; and 5) Con- sider proceeding with certificates of participation only after the results of the sanitary sewer update evalua- tion are completed, provided that the intent is not to proceed with certificates of participation but rather to proceed with the preparation of a list of options and alternatives for consideration of some form of financing after all the facts are known. Motion Sheldon, second Midstokke. So ordered, noting the objection of Essertier. (At this point in the meeting, Item (1k) was acted on, but is listed in order under Consent Calendar for clarity.) The meeting recessed at 8:55 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:05 P.M. (At the request of Mayor Creighton, Item 7. was considered next, since several members of the audience wished to be heard on that item. The item, however, is listed in order for clarity.) MUNICIPAL MATTERS 6. RECOMMENDATION RE. RE-CREATION OF A SEPARATE VEHICLE PARKING DISTRICT BOARD AND FUND, with two ordinances for introduction. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated May 16, 1990. City Manager Northcraft presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce Manager Wesley Bush responded to questions from the Council. Action: To continue this item to the meeting of June 12, 1990 and conduct a public hearing at that time. Motion Sheldon, second Midstokke. So ordered. Councilmember Midstokke requested a staff report be pre- pared for the public hearing on revenue derived by the General Fund since 1984, when the V.P.D. was assumed by the City. 7. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF REQUEST TO ALLOW A SIGN IN THE OPEN SPACE ZONE. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated May 14, 1990. 6 Minutes 5-22-90 Director Schubach presented the staff report, responded to Council questions, and explained why an appeal fee was not required for this item, noting that he would follow up with a written memorandum on that subject. Mayor Creighton opened the meeting to comments from the public. Speaking in favor of the appeal were: Ed Engel, member of the Hermosa Beach Kiwanis Club Calvin Marvin Lumley, member of the Kiwanis Club Frank Hallstein, president of the Kiwanis Club Action: To uphold the decision of the Planning Commis- sion and deny the appeal, thereby denying the sign. Motion Essertier, second Midstokke. So ordered. 8. REPORT FROM CABLE OPERATOR REGARDING PUBLIC ACCESS. Memorandum from Acting General Services Director Henry L. Staten. This item was withdrawn prior to the meeting. 9. PRIORITIZING SCHEDULED AND UNSCHEDULED PLANNING -RELATED STUDIES. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated May 15, 1990. No action was taken. The Council agreed to respond by May 29, 1990 with their prioritized lists so that the item can be acted on at the meeting of June 12, 1990. 10. STATUS REPORT ON LOS ANGELES COUNTY BEACHES, WILDLIFE AND PARK LAND CONSERVATION ACT. Memorandum from Com- munity Resources Director Mary Rooney dated May 14, 1990. Director Rooney presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5370, entitled, "A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BEACHES, WILDLIFE AND PARK LAND CONSERVATION ACT OF 1990," with the added provisions that 1) information given with the act to date is limited, and 2) there be no conditions in the final act that would adversely affect the City of Hermosa Beach. Also, to establish a subcommittee, com- posed of Councilmembers Essertier and Sheldon, to work with the County to protect the interests of the City of Hermosa Beach. Motion Sheldon, second Essertier. So ordered, noting the objections of Midstokke and Mayor Creighton. 11. CRITERIA FOR SIDEWALK INSTALLATION ALONG SUGGESTED ROUTE TO SCHOOL STREETS, with ordinance for introduction. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated April 16, 1990. A staff report was presented by Director Antich. - 7 - Minutes 5-22-90 12. 13. Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 90-1035. Motion Sheldon, second Essertier. So ordered. Final Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 90-1035, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 29-13(C) TO SECTION 29-13 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING CURBS, GUTTERS AND SIDEWALKS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SUGGESTED ROUTE TO SCHOOL STREETS AT THE TIME OF PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT." Motion Mayor Creighton, second Wiemans. AYES: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton NOES: None PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR NEW CHAPTER 19 OF HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC", for waiver of full reading and introduction. Memorandum from Anthony Antich dated May 7, 1990. Director Antich presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Proposed Action: To introduce the ordinance. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Sheldon. Following dis- cussion, motion was withdrawn. Action: To refer the Ordinance back to staff for clarification of the duties and responsibilities that would be shifted between staff and Council, and for cost factors on correctly reformatting the Ordinance by the company that codifies the City's ordinances. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered. CITY POLICY REGARDING DRIVEWAY APPROACHES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, SPECIFICALLY 760 MONTEREY BOULEVARD AND 341 MONTEREY BOULEVARD. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated May 17, 1990. A staff report was presented by Director Antich. Addressing the project at 341 Monterey Boulevard was: Jeff Green, 922 - Tenth Street, Manhattan Beach Action: To receive and file the item. Motion Midstokke, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered. 14. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER The City Manager reminded Council of the Fiesta de las Artes over the Memorial Day weekend, and noted the shut- tle service available. He also congratulated Council on its victory in the horseshoe toss. 8 Minutes 5-22-90 15. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL Councilmember Sheldon referred to an article on the issue of the sales of single cans and expressed concern about the legality of prohibiting such sales, as was recently done under a conditional use permit. The City Manager noted that the City Attorney was in the process of preparing a written opinion. Mayor Creighton directed staff to report back to Council on the status of the issue. He urged vigorous enforce- ment throughout the City of the open container law and other alcohol/drug laws. He also requested that staff inquire into the revocation of business permits. 16. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Request by Mayor Creighton for consideration of a ballot measure for density/height reductions. (b) In response to Mayor Creighton's request for a straw vote to determine Council support for the preparation of a worksheet ordinance for the November ballot, only Councilmember Midstokke expressed support. Councilmember Wiemans referred to a letter from Jim Lissner concerning the June 5 Manhattan Beach City Coun- cil meeting regarding the Manhattan Grand development. The City Manager said Public Works has been representing the City concerning its policy to not remove parking on the west side of Pacific Coast Highway in Hermosa Beach. CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS - None ADJOURNMENT: The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Tuesday, May 22, 1990, at the hour of 11:05 P.M., to a closed session. CLOSED SESSION: Reconvened at 11:09 P.M. pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(A), regarding a matter of litigation: Stuart Construction Company vs The City of Hermosa Beach; Government Code Section 54956.9(B), regarding a matter of potential litiga- tion; and Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding Real Property Negotiations with Macpherson Oil. Adjourned at 11:53 P.M. to a Special Meeting to be held on Thursday, May 24, 1990, at the hour of 6:00 P.M. City Clerk - 9 - Minutes 5-22-90 I T--OF-HERMO6A- 12 FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0001 TIME 14:31:03 FOR 06/12/90 DATE 06/07/90 3 ,I. PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # 6 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROD # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 7 6 ° a 10 H ASCE 03434 001-400-4202-4316 00148 $110.00 11190 33601 11 SEM REG/ANTICH/1—TERRY 11 12 06/05490 RUB -WKS -ADMIN—! -TRAINING $0 00 06/06490 12 19 14 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $110.00 15 m 13 15 -. 17 16 i7 le H BETA GROUP 00437 001-400-1206-4317 00065 • 535.00 TR296 00296 33598 10 REGISTRATSON/J4._STURGES_TR296 05/30/-90 '° DATA -PROCESSING -(CONFERENCE -EXPENSE $0 00-06/06/90 21 22 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $35.00 23 24 IC 23 26 H JERRY*CLAWSON 03447 001-400-2201-4316 00236 $100.00 TR298 00298 33606 27 PER TR298. 06/07190 FIRE Z2 a 24 -DIEM -ADVANCE /TRAINING $0.0006107-W-- — 02a 30 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************iter****at******* $100.00 31 32 =3 27 2° 33 34 H JAMES*CRAWFORD 02823 001-400-2201-4316 00233 $100.00 TR297 00297 33604 3� TR297 06/07/90 FIRE /-TRA-INING --PER -DIEM--ADVANCE $0. — 0006/071-90 37 39 33 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $100.00 420 n J3 e1 .s 6 4i 42 H EKISTIC 03433 001-400-1203-4316 00180 $395.00 10936 33603 4a 4` AGMD--TRAINING/BLACKWOOD 06/05/90 PERSONNEL -------/TRAINING $0,-00---06/06190- 46 46 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $395.00 47 .g 37 IC 4{, 11 411, 50 H EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL 03433 001-400-1206-4317 00064 $172.22 TR296 00296 33597 31 HOTEL-ADVANCE/M—STURGE6 TR296 05/30/90 DATA-PROCESSING-/CONFERENCE-EXPENSC $0.00-06/06/90 52 51 56 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $172.22 55 56 142 43 44 45 16 7 CO S1 2 +1 n 67 56 H HOME DEPOT 03432 001-400-3104-4309 00479 $150.52 11162 33593 eb TRAFFIC-SAFETY—/MAINTENANCE-MATER-I ALG $0:-00-06/06/90—e LADDER/TRAFFIC-SAFETY 05/17/90 62 H HOME DEPOT , 03432 001-400-4202-4309 00028 548.93 11162 33593 63 64 /MAI-NTENANCEMATER ALG $0-00-06-106490 LADDERS/PUB-86DG6 05/4-74-90 PUB -WKS -ADMIN 05 66 H HOME DEPOT 03432 103-400-2601-4309 00615 $118.34 11162 33593 77 06/06/90 68 L-ADDER-/ST—LITES 05/-17/90 STREET-L-IGHTING-/MAINTENANCE-MATER-IAL6 $0.00 e:, 70 7, 72 1,3 +6 73 74 75 16 7g -J J r JS J J 41 0 40 J 410 .J w.. FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:51:03 CITY-OF-HERMOSA--BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 06/12/90 PAGE 0002 DATE 06/07/90 3 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 7 e D 10 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******prat*****************************************************tar***** $317.79 11 12 13 14 H MANIACI INSURANCE SERVICES, INC 02673 001-400-1212-4188 01758 $42.20 00138 33599 15 INI-T-IAL-PREMIUM/ROONEY 05/30(90 EMP -BENEFITS JEMPLOYEE-BENER/TS 30.00-06/06/-90 16 13 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $42.20 10 20 21 :2 22 1a H DEAN*MENART SAFETY-SCHOOL./POL,-ICE 02629 001-400-2101-4312 01301 $323.00 06/091-90 00341 33602 23 1u POLICE /TRAVEL,-EXPENSE $0.00 06/06/-90--2A .. ` 2° -.1 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $323.00 27 28. " 20 23 30 24 H MT. SAN ANTONIO COLLEGE 03446 001-400-2201-4316 00234 $64.50 TUI-T-ION/-.I,—CRAWFORD TR297------06/07-1-90 TR297 00297 33605 31 J2 FIRE /TRAININC $0-00-06/-07/170 33 25 34 27 H MT. SAN ANTONIO COLLEGE TUITION/-J--CLAWSON--= R298 03446 001-400-2201-4316 00235 364.50 06/07-/90 TR298 00298 33605 3a :3 FIRE /TRAINING • $0.00----06 /-07-/AO—F,, ]B *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $129.00 30 7a 40 = 41 z{ H POSTMASTER SUMMER -PROGRAM 00398 001-400-4601-4305 00823 31,000.00 09/29/90 11312 33595 a ] 31 -POSTAGE COMM-RESOURCE6—/OFF-ICE-OPER-SUPPLIEC $0.00---06/06/-90---i4 46. -a *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,000.00 47 46 4C 00 J° H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00405 $87,673.35 33594 61 30 RETIREMENT/APRIL-90 05/22/90— RETIREMENT 4a /RE-T-IREMENT $0,00---06/06190---E 41 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00406 $16,237.83CR 33594 64 °] 42 RET-IREMENT-IAPR-IL-90- 09/22-1-90 RETIREMENT /RETIREME .IP ee °6/-06/-90 ; 43 56 14 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00407 371,750.79CR 33594 60 4$ RETIREMENT/APRIL-90 05/22/90 RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT $0-00-06(06190 45 62 a7 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 105-400-2601-4180 00126 3873.88 33594 63 ` RETIREMENT/APRIL-90 091221-90 STREE S6HTING-1RET-LREMEN- $0,--00--1361-1361-94—÷46 40 66 ° H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 110-400-3301-4180 00127 $36.08 33594 67 S1 RETIREMENT/APRIL-90 05/22/-90 VEH-PK6-DIST /RETIREMENT $Q.00-06106190— 52 7C 53 71 54 72 5] 73 74 ]6 `76 .J w.. CITV-OF-HERM08A-$EA ] 7 e 1] ,4 5. �e ] ,5 rirvnrvut-5rA34o PAGE 0003 DEMAND LIST TIME 14:51:03 FOR 06/12/90 DATE 06/07/90 2 3 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 5 5 7 e H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 110-400-3302-4180 00127 $5,045.80 33594 RETIREMENT -/APRIL --90 05/22/90 9 10 ,t PARKING-ENF/RETIREMENT 30.00 06/06/90-112 H PUD EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 149-400-3401-4180 00100 $152.89 33594 RETIREMENT4ARR-IL-9O u 14 ,55 05/22190 D -I -AL -A -RIDE /-RET4REMEN- •. ° et 06/061-90 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 145-400-3402-4180 00100 $5542 33594 RETIREMENT/APRIL-90 n ,° ,a 90 05/22/90 ESEA 'RETIREMENT X0-00 06/06/90 70 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 145-400-3403-4180 00045 $16.14 33594 RE-T-1REMENT.APRIL-90 22 23 G 2C •2; 23 24 7.3 C 29 a . 05/22/90 BUS-PASS-ARETIREMENT 30.00-06/06/-90 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 155-400-2102-4180 00098 $96.48 33594 RETIREMENT/APRIL-90 24 25 20 27 05/22/90 CROSSING -GUARD- ARE1-IREMENT 30-00-06/06/90 2e H PUD EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 160-400-3102-4180 00125 $1,002.67 33594 RETIREMENT1APRIL-90 05/22190 2a ]d 31 ' OEWERAGT-DRAW--/RET-IREMENT 30,00— 06/06190 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 705-400-1209-4180 00049 $135.51 33594 RETIREMENT/APRIL-90 J 3J 6.4 35 05/22190 LIABILI-1 --INS---,/-RETIREMENT 30-00-06/-06/90 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 705-400-1217-4180 00049 $198.94 33594 RETIREMENT/ARA-IL-AO 3' 3] 3 3a 31 J2*** ' 33 054221-90 WORKERS -COMP- LRS 4REMENT 30. 00 06/-06,90---° VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $7,298.54 at 4i as 35 35 H MARGUERITE*STURGES 00620 • 001-400-1206-4317 00063 $80.00 TR296 00296 33596 PER TR296 ea AO 47 48: J7 33 r. -DIEM -ADVANCE 05420490 DATA-PROCESSING /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $0. 00 06/06/90 eo *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $80.00 5, 52 al 2 53 56 *** PAY CODE TOTAL****************************************************************** $10,102.75 55 50 43 y 4] V a] 40 5] 5e R A & E TROPHIES 02744 001-400-1101-4319 00085 $34.96 8869 00571 33610 59 MISC,-CHARGES/-MAY-90 8869 05/31/90 CITY COUNCIL /SPEGIA6-EVENTO 30-00 06/06190—e, 52 *** VENDOR TOTAL**************************.****************************************** $34.96 e3 64 a-, 5e 55 O5 R ADAMSON UNIFORM EQUIP. CORP. 00138 105-400-2601-4309 00618 $34.70 7744 11128 33611 67 EMERGENCY 05418/90 STREE-1-6IGHTING-/MAINTENANCE-MAFER-IAL6 -DIGHT -BATTERY -7-749 $34.70-06!06190—a; ]0 n ]2 lot 53 » 5° 73 74 ]5 7q .40 V./ w J v r r 1 CFINANCE-SFA34O a 1 r—ur—ritr+r�Ubra—utFwr4 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0004 TIME 14:51:03 FOR 06/12/90 DATE 06/07/90 3 4 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # e DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 7 e f 10 *** VENDOR TOTAL ********tri -***************tar***************************************** $34. 70 11 Iz 13 14 R ADVANCE ELEVATOR 00003 001-400-4204-4201 00378 $80.00 23621 00003 33612 13 ELEVATOR-MAINT-/JUNE-90-23621 06/01-A90 BLDG-MALNT /CONT-RAC--SERV-ICE/PRIVAT $0-00-06/06/90 li: I4 1e *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $80.00 10 20 17 21 J 22 l5 R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 00935 001-400-2101-4307 00219 $361.09 3821/3713/4896 RADIO-DAMAGE-REPA-IR /4896 06/04.490 POLICE /RAD --MAINTENANCE 00331 33613 $0-00-06/-061-90—»24 2.7 -ID 26 a. R ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 00935 705-400-1210-4324 00014 $580.72 10897 10000 33613 27 ., PORTABLE-RADIO/GEN,-SERV-10897 05/16/90 AUTO/PROP-/-BONDS-I-CLAIMS/SE- $580:-72-06/06/-90--N TTLEMENTS 30 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $941.81 24 31 33;73 34 R COMMANDER ANTHONY*ALTFELD 00774 001-400-2101-4316 00550 $384.49 00328 33614 36 .27 REIMB-TUITION/SUMMER-90 05/23/90 POLICE /TRAINING $0.00 46/06/90- 3� J :7 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $384.49 3d 35 40 lI 41 42 R AMERICAN STYLE FOODS 00857 001-400-2101-4306 00803 $232.50 00053 33615 43 MISC:--CHARGES/MAV-90 03/31/90 POLICE /PRISONER -MAINTENANCE $0-00-06/06/90-- 46 ' *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $232.50 IJe 47 48 : 40 JU R BABCOX PUBLICATIONS 03333 001-400-4203-4316 00024 $279.75 1103690 10687 33616 50 51 Ja 04/27-/-90— EQUIP-SERV-ICE—/TRAINING $29B-20--06/06/90 33 TRAINING-FILMS/MECHANICS-03690 `3 54 41 $279.75 °� *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 42 5e 4.1 07 5e 44 R BANC ONE LEASING CORPORATION 03422 001-400-2201-6900 00113 $39,770.24 042690-001 A3 FIRE /LCASE-RAYMENTS 00077 33617 $0--00-06/074110—;'- 39 FIRST--PMTIFIRE-ENGINE0-001 05/29/90 .15 02 47 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $39,770.24 45 64 47 e5 ee R BLAZE*BARTOLI 03448 001-210-0000-2110 03721 $1,575.00 95504 10589 33618 °7 ee 31 /DEPOSITS/WORK-GUARANTEE $0-000-06/07/RO WORK -GUARANTEE -REFUND ----95504------05/30490 2 e9 70 33 71 54 72 33 73 74 35 75 76 i!, 1,1 ITV OF-HERMOSA-BEACH r• FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0005 TIME 14:31:03 FOR 06/12/90 DATE 06/07/90 = 3 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # 5 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP ] 5 a ,0 *** VENDOR TOTAL *********************** r******************************************** 41,575.00 14 R .BATTERIES SPECIALTIES 01216 001-400-2101-4309 00301 $857.00 180251 10783 33619 5 •CCESSORIES/PORE,-RADIOS-8023.1 05/07-1.90 POL-ICE /MAINTENANCE -MATERIALS 4857,-93-06/O6.9O -° *** VENDOR TOTAL******************r************************************************** $857.00 19 20 2, 22 R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC. 02664 001-400-1101-4305 00313 $1,364.27 9143 00127 33620 2. PRINT -PRELIM -BUDGETS 94-43------05446A90 CIT-K-COUNGIL /OFF4C— OPER-SUPPLIES 44,--332-24---06-/-06/-90----N 2e *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,364.27 17 xq 24 xi R BISHOP MONTGOMERY HIGH SCHOOL 01988 001-210-0000-2110 03717 $500.00 97133 10592 33621 DAMAGE -DEPOSIT -REFUND -----97133 05/30--90 /DEPQSI-T-S4WORK-6UARANTEC 40,-00---064064-90 33 3e *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $500.00 3 38 R BLICKMAN, INC. 03092 001-400-4601-4201 00599 $203.00 11309 33622 3q THEATRE 051 COMM /CONTRAGT-SERVICE/PRIVAT a0 -T -15W0 -RESOURCES 40.00 061-06/90 R BLICKMAN, INC. 03092 001-400-4601-4201 00600 $140.00 11310 33622 THEATRE---TECH/MAY-14-16 05/17-/-90 -COMM-RESOURCES--,/CONTRAC-T-SERV-ICE-/PR-IVAT $0.00 06/06/-90 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $343.00 �] 48 44 so R BLUE SKY GLASS TINTING 01749 001-400-8606-4201 00084 $300.00 501 10784 33623 5, TINT-WINDOWS/POL-ICE-DEP-T-501 05/16/90 CIP 87-606---CONTRACT-SERVICE--PRIVATE $300,00-06/06/90—ii 54 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $300.00 55 LI 5] 55 R THOMAS*BOHLIN 00894 001-400-2101-4312 01303 $236.23 11444 33624 5D MEALS/HOTEL/PROF-TRNG 05/31-/90 POLICE /TRAVE6-EXPENSETPOST 40.00-06/06/90 5O 51 52 R THOMAS*BOHLIN .00894 001-400-2101-4312 01306 $68.12 11434 33624 MIL_-SAGE-/TRAIN-ING-GI_-ASS 05/45/-90 POLICE /TRAVEL--E-XPENSE--POST $O 0^ 06/06-90 53 se 65 e5 65 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $304.37 57 55 69 ]0 R MARK*BRIGGS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 02478 140-400-4703-4201 00019 $447.75 403-10 10835 33625 EAPR T 40.00---06/06/90 CDBA-ADMIN/-MAV-90 03-40 05/31-/90 CDBG-ADM-IN /GoNTRAG--6ER-V-i6/1 72 n 74 ]5 ]q 111 J J J J .1 :J J j FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:51:03 CITY OF- NERMOSA-BEACH is 2 3 4 DEMAND LIST FOR 06/12/90 PAGE 0006 DATE 06/07/90 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION VND # DATE INVC ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PO # AMOUNT UNENC CHK # DATE EXP e e 7 e *** VENDOR TOTAL ************************************ ******************************* $447.75 •10 11 12 12e R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB-PETT-Y-CASHAMAY-90 02016 06/01-!-90 001-400-1121-4316 00034 $41.75 10595 33627 13 14 1 a 15 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB-PET-T-Y-CASH/MAV 90 02016 06/01./9O CITY -CLERK /TRAINING 001-400-1202-4309 00319 $11.40 FINANCE-ADMIN-1OFF-ICE-0PER-SUPPLIES 110 00-06/06490-4 10595 33627 1e D e R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB-PETTY-CASH/MAy.470 02016 06/01-1-90 001-400-1203-4305 00266 $0.10 PERSONNEL $0.00 10595 06/06/90--N 33627 22 23 z R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB--P ETT-Y--LASH/MAY-90 02016 06/01/90 001-400-1208-4305 00760 GEN-APPROP /OFF4C6-0PER-SURPL-IES $0.03 60.00 €6/06/90--n 10595 33627 26. 27 2g z2 J n R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB-PETT-Y-CASH/MAV--90 02016 061-01-/90 001-400-2101-4305 01260 POLICE /OFFICE-OPER-SUPPLIES $4.49 $0.00-06/06!90 10595 33627 2D 30 31 _9 2] R GARY*BRUTSCH. CITY TREASURER REIMS PETTY-CASH/MAY-90 02016 06/01/90 001-400-2101-4309 00300 /0FF-I-CE-OPER-SUPP4-I-ES $2.09 60.00 10595 06/06/90 33627 n 34 35 'i 39 32 s°1 •1 d `� a 46 47 4 111 .^.a 30 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB-PETTY-CASH.MAY-90 02016 -POLICE 001-400-2101-4311 00884 /-MAINTENANCE-MATERIALC $26.00 $0.04 10595 06/06/90 33627 06/06-/90 33627 J , 33 Jn JS JB R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB-PET-TY-CASH/MAV-90 06/01-/90 POLI -CE 02016 001-400-2101-4316 00547 06/01-/90— POLICE /AAUT0-MA4NTENANGE $83.46 $0. 00 10595 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB PETT-CASH.MAV-9O 02016 001-400-2201-4316 00231 06/01-1-90 /TRAINING $20.00 $0.00-06/06/90 10595 33627 '/ Ja Ja R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB-PETTY-CASH/MAY 90 FIRE 02016 001-400-4101-4305 00432 06/01-190— /TRA -i -NTN- $6.68 -, of 10595 06!06./90 33627 tD n1 4.1 s 1 .12 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER RE-IMB-PET-TYY-GASHIMA-Y--90 PLANNING 02016 001-400-4101-4316 00179 /OFFICE-OPER-SUPPLIES $15.00 $0.00 10595 06/06/-90-03 3362755 eA 3e SJ 14 43 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB-PETTY--GASH/MAV--90 06/01-/90 PLANNING 02016 001-400-4201-4310 00068 06/01/90— BUILDING /TRAININo $17.00 -t to *6f06/9A 10595 33627 e: e6 312 s; 62 63 6, 9 1 7 Jn R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER REIMB-PETTY-CASHIMAY--90 .02016 001-400-4201-4316 00210 06!01-/90 BUILDING /MOT -0R -FUELS -AND -LUBES $8.00 $0-00-06/06/90 10595 33627 50 51 12 53 ]n R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 06/01/90 /TRAIN -IN 001-400-4601-4308 00301 $29.67 COMM-RESOURCES—/PROGRAM-MATERIALC 0. 00 10595 60-00 06/0bf90 33627 06/06/90 6� ee 07 69 -REIMB-PETT-Y-CASH/MAV--90 ev 70 71 72 ]6 In 73 7• 7765 J C -I TY-OP--HERMOSA-BEACH 1 2 FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST TIME 14:51:03 FOR 06/12/90 -- PAGE 0007 DATE 06/07/90 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP ' 6 e 7 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-8146-4201 00012 $27.50 REIMB-PETTY-CASH/MAV- 10595 33627 e 1 i 1 :2, 14 ,e 1°n 90- 06/01-490 CIP 89 146 /CONTRAC-T-SERVICE/PRI-VAT R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 110-400-3302-4305 00682 $0.20 REIMB--PET-TYCASHdMA-1_90 $0-00---06/06/90 10595 33627 06/-01-490 PARKING-ENF /OFFICE-OPER-SUP-PLIES R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 130-400-8512-4201 00002 $12.00 REIMB-PETTY-CASH/MAY-90 06/01/90 CIP-89-512 /CONTRACT-SERVICE/PRIVAT SO.00-06/06/-90 10595 33627 ,6 ,v 20 *** VENDOR TOTAL************tr**********ir***************************tris*****at********* $305.39 $0.00---06/06490 2, 22 23 R BUSINESS SYSTEMS SUPPLY 00034 001-400-1141-3401 00003 $264.74 164437 CHAIR/DEP--C-I-T-Y-TREAS.— :4437 05/25/-90 C4TY TREASURER/E0l1IR-LESS-THAN-$500 10562 33628 24 23 26 27 R BUSINESS SYSTEMS SUPPLY 00034 001-400-1206-4303 00444 $946.02 163419 GREEN -BAR -COMPUTER -RAPER -6344-9---___044.19/19.0 DATA-PROCESSING-1OFFICE-0PER-SUPPLIES $264:-44-06/06/90 09528 33628 m 3a 31 3z 33 x 33 '' R BUSINESS SYSTEMS SUPPLY 00034 001-400-2101-4305 01265 $305.84 164645 COMPUTER TAPES/POLIO--64645------05 /29-490 POLICE /OFF-ICE-OPER-SUPPLIEC $944,--71 06/06/90 00304 33628 R BUSINESS SYSTEMS SUPPLY 00034 001-400-4601-5401 00046 5924.95 164495 CHA-IRS/COMM,—RESOURCE6 64495 05/25.90 COMM ro-, $305:-83--06/06/90 11306 33628 37 343 36 u 41 -RESOURCES /EGU,�,—L-ESSTHAN-*500 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $2,441.55 4924,-95---0640M/VG---12 R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-3101-4303 00093 5495.97 WATER-BIL-L-FNGS/MA-Y-AO 05/31-/90 MEDIANS -UTILITIEC 00059 33629 q°� 47' 4: 50 31 'zi R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-4204-4303 00387 $407.50 WATER-BILLINGS/MAY 90 05/31/90 BLDG-MAINT- $0:-00--_-06/07-/90 00059 33629 T-U-F-I-L-ITIEC R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-6101-4304 00228 $2.223.08 WATER B-ILi.-I-NGS/MA-Y-90 05/31-/90 $0.00 06/07-1-90 00059 33629 56 °° 5:; eq so 60 PARKS /TC6EPHON *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $3,126.55 9 , e e e -/-07/q0 R CAREERTRACK, INC. .00148 001-400-1203-4316 00066 $48.00 3046939 M,— SEMINAR-REG/TERCERG46939- 05/-16/90 CABLE TV 00208 33630 0, 02 67 65 66 67 66 — /TRAIN-FNC *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $48.00 $40-00-06,06/70 R CERTIFIED OFFICE EQUIPMENT 00389 001-400-2101-4303 01263 $38.10 MI8G.--6HARGES/MA-:L90 05431490 P01 /OrrIGC 00511 33631 09 70 71 2 FCC OPER-SUP- - . e I e _ _ I- _0 ]3 74 7e 7q y yC '4r J J J J J J J .7 14 :5 CITY -OF HERM06A-BEACH FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0008 TIME 14:51:03 FOR 06/12/90 DATE 06/07/90 2 3 4 PAY VENDOR NAME6 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 6 7 e R CERTIFIED OFFICE EQUIPMENT 00389 001-400-2101-5402 00057 $1,046.15 2537 00320 33631 • ' --T-YPEWRITERS/JAIL/RECORDS-2537 05/247-90 POLICE /EQIIIR-MORE THAN -3500 $1,046.15-06/06/90 R CERTIFIED OFFICE EQUIPMENT 00389 001-400-4202-4305 00484 $40.56 00511 33631 MISC,-CHARGES/MAV-90 12 15 05/31/-90 PUB-WKS-ADMIN-,AOFF4CE-OPER-SUPPLIES $0:-00 061-06/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,124.81 e 17 6 19 20 i 6 R COAST GLASS COMPANY 00325 001-400-4204-4309 01652 $34.20 7584 00514 33632 1IISG—CHARGES/MAY-90 2, 22 23 „7 7584 051 -311-90 BLDG-MA-INT-------/MAINTENANCE—MATERIALS $0-00-06/06/99 *** VENDOR TOTAL atatat*atatatatawtatttatatatatatatat-natatitataratatatatitatttit#ttaEatatatatatitatatitatitatatatatatatatatatttttatatatatatatitatafa $34.20 22• 5 26 27 5 R COM SYSTEMS, INC 00017 001-400-2101-4304 00567 $8.66 252238 00515 33633 LONG-DIS-TANCE./374 1 31 4625---52238-----05/31.190 POLICE /TELEPHONE $O.000--06/06198— *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $8.66 3 as 36 R COPY SUPPORT 01729 001-400-1131-4201 00384 $84.47 1071 09343 33634 CODE PAINT INC 37 G0 314,1 32 ,3 , 3: 36 -SUPPLEMENT 1071 03/24-A90 01 -TY -ATTORNEY /CONTRACT GERV-I-CE/PRI-YAT $85-15 86/06/90 R COPY SUPPORT . 01729 001-400-1202-4305 00320 $52.52 1073 00134 33634 COPIES/BUDGE--SESSION 42 43 073 05/23/90 FINANCE—ADMIN----/OFFICE—OPER-SUPPLIES $52,-52---06/06,490--- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $136.99 •6 47 46 .37 31- 39 R CPRS PARK OPERATIONS 03426 001-400-4601-4316 00134 $15.00 11313 33635 SEMINAR-REG/G— BELSER -05/23/90 49 SO 71 47 4 1 42 — COMM-RESOURCES—/-TRAINING $0-00-06/06/90— *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $15.00 ea e4 55 e6 4] 44 4' .28 47 40 R D & H CARPETS 02435 001-400-4202-5602 00003 $1,592.00 7153 10683 33636 04,4-16490 PUB WKS-ADMIN--/IMPR-VMTB-OTHER-THN-BLDG $1-,-592.00 06/06/90 37 56. 59 e° -CARPET/TILE/PUBLIC-WORKS-7153 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,592.00 62 63 64 4b 'C 51 DATA SAFE 00156 001-400-1206-4201 00717 $119.00 49092 00047 33637 TAPE STORAGE/ 11 49092 05/23/-90 DATA-PROCESSING-/-CONTRAG—T SERVICE/ -VAT $0,-00-06/06/-90--; e5 ce e7 -TO -JUN -PR -I 70 71 72 52 5' 54 5i :5 73 74 75 7.9' 11 J FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:51:03 CI-TY-OF-HERMOSA-BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 06/12/90 PAGE 0009 DATE 06/07/90 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION VND # DATE INVC ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC CHK # DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL **********************arty*******eat********************************** $119.00 R DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HWY--MAINT.1.4AN-MAR-90 13210 00267 04/26190 001-400-3104-4251 00041 $887.89 113210 11181 33638 06/06190— 33638 R DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HWY-MAINT1JAN-MAR-90 13210 00267 04/26/-90 TRAFF-14-SAFE-Y—CONTRACT-SERV,IGE<GOVT 105-400-2601-4251 00108 $887.88 113210 STREET-1_IGHT-ING-/-CONTRACT-SERV-IGEJGOVT $0.00 11181 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,775.77 $0.00 06/06/90— R DIAMOND PACIFIC RETENTION/ -TANK --CLOSURE 02149 05/30/90 001-400-8601-4201 00057 $1,230.00 CIP 86 601 06763 33639 *** -CONTRAGT-SERVIGE/PRIVAT VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,230.00 $0.00 -06/06/90--- 6/06/-90--*** R DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION COMPUTER-MAINT/MAY-90--76690 00269 05/-11/90 001-400-2101-4201 00579 $832.20 250376690 POLICE AGONTRAC-T-SERV-ICE/PRT-VAT 00068 33640 R DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION COMPUTER -MA -INTIMA -Y--90 76690 00269 05/-1-1-190 001-400-2201-4201 00138 $554.80 250376690 FIRE $0.00-06/06/90— 00068 33640 *** /GONTRAC-SER 1 CE'P.R4VAT VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,387.00 $0.00 06/06490 -- 6/06490—*** R DYNAMED MISC,-GHARGESIMA-Y-90 58891 01498 05131/-90 001-400-2201-4309 00882 $142.17 558894 00521 33641 *** FIRE /MA-I-NTENANGE-P1ATERIALS VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $142.17 $0.00 06106190--H R EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY METER USE-/MAR./48M-60-----427O 02840 05/06/.90 001-400-1208-4201 00655 $209.27 006M62570 CEN-APPROP 00468 33642 R EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY MAINT--CHG/APR-/-IBM-60 2570 02840 05/06190 --, NTRACT GCRV4GE4RR44AT 001-400-1208-4201 00636 $255.00 006M62570 GEN APPROP/GONTRAGT $0.00 06404/90 00468 33642 *** GERVICE-/PR-i-VAT VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $464.27 $0-00-06106/90 R EASTMAN, INC. MISG—CHARGES/MAY-90 02514 05131490 001-400-1208-4305 00761 $700.41 GEN APPROP /OFF 00522 33643 -LCE -OPER -SUPPLIES $0.00 -06/06/ -90 -- Ci 4) .1 1 4) y -1 4) G/ 'vI 4) 4) y :d -vl :r1 « t Y UFS- 1E UE i—NEAGH FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST TIME 14:51:03 FOR 06/12/90 PAGE 0010 DATE 06/07/90 I, 2 3 ° 7 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC CHK # DATE EXP e 6 to *** VENDOR TOTAL**********************-*********************-************************* 5700.41 11 12 •'l 13 14 2 R EFRAM MOBIL 01400 001-400-2101-4310 00253 544.60 N184916 00325 33644 15 MISC---CHARGES/-MA-Y-90 849-1-6------05/21490 90 POLICE 16 MOTOR -FUELS -AND -LUBES 50-00-06/06/-90 17 14 16 15 R EFRAM MOBIL 01400 001-400-2101-4311 00885 559.58 N184916 MISC—CHARGES/MAK-90 84916 05/21/90 POLICE 00325 33644 '6 1e /AUTO -MAINTENANCE 30.00 06/06490-22° 7 22 15 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 5104.18 v 24 11, 25 2,1 26 R TRUDY*FALLON 03306 001-400-4601-4201 00598 536.00 11308 33645 27 21 SPRING -CLASS -INSTRUCTOR 05115190 COMM-RESOURCES-4-CONTRACT-SERV-ICE/PR-I-VAT 1: $0:-00 06/06/90 2 : 3 30 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 536.00 31 'J 32 33 5 34 z7 R BRAD*FUNK 03437 001-300-0000-3115 02668 5125.00 96821/97049 BUSINESS -LICENSE 05/31490 /BUSI-NESS-L=ICENSE 11011 33646 36 - -REFUND -97049 60-00-06/061-90--: 7:1 3e, *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 5125.00 30 30 40 JI 41 ]'t 42 3 � R GATES. MCDONALD & COMPANY 02538 705-400-1217-4201 00074 51,333.34 02-025521 WORK--COMP-ADMIN/MAY-90-25521 05/07-/90 WORKERS--COMP—ICONTRAC�SERVI CE/PR-I VAT 00044 33647 50-00-06/06/-90— 43 4� 46 35 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 51.333.34 47 36 46 Jl 4G 311S6 R GERBER AMBULANCE SERVICE 02897 001-400-2101-4201 00578 5220.64 105937 00322 33648 51 J1 PRISONER TRANSPORT 05937- -05/01/90— POLICE /-CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 50-00 06/06190----E- 4352 AI l *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 5220.64 e4 55 42 5e 43 57 5e as R GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFCRS ASSOC 00059 001-400-1202-4316 00302 520.00 00131 33649 39 45 PUBLICAT-IONS1-V—COPEL-AND 06/04490 F-INANCE-ADMIN /TRA-INING 60.00 06/06/-90----;. a6 62 47 001-400-4201-4303 00565 514.00 10387 33649 63 ae R GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFCRS ASSOC .00059 7fBUIL0fl 05/30190 BU-ILDING f8FFOPEP c--�UPP- TES 30. 00 0G/0G/90 6� av —PUB1 ATIONS{- C IC E6 50*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 534.00 67 51 OR c•z ec 70 67 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1101-4304 00291 50.39 372-6186 00569 33652 7' 54FAX-SILL-ING CIT-VCOUNCIL-- - R. s, •• r_ •_f�0 7� n 55 MAY -90 6186 051.31-90 .TEL 74 55 75 l i'.7 79' v 1 v 741 v Tel cv 4I FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0011 : TIME 14:51:03 FOR 06/12/90 DATE 06/07/90 3 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # 6 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 7 e r w R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELEPHONE-CHGS/MAY-90 00013 051314-90 001-400-1101-4304 00292 $9.33 00525 33652 t1 C-ITY-COUNCIL-/-TELEPHONE 40.00 06/07/90 -HI 1. R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00013 001-400-1121-4304 00292 $26.37 00525 33652 is TELEPHONE-CHGSAMAY-90 05/31490 01 6 13 -TY -CLERK ------/-TELEPHONE 40.00 06/071-90- 16 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELEPHONE-CHGS/MAS-90 00013 05/31-/90 001-400-1131-4304 00213 514.41 00525 33652 s' e CITY -ATTORNE-Y-/TELEPHONE $0. 00-06/07490-N az R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1141-4304 00313 52.63 372-6186 00569 33652 23 -AX-BILL-ILL-1NGJ-MAY-90 6186 05/31-/90 C I-1 Y 2' i -TREASURER -/-TELEPHONE 90,-00-06 /06/-90 -0 26 _ R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED ELEPHONE-CHCS/MAY 90 00015 05/31490 001-400-1141-4304 00314 $23.00 CITY 00525 33652 27 7 -TREASURER --ATELEPHONE $0.00-06/07/90-1. 30 2 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1201-4304 00333 30.33 372-6186 00569 33652 3' AX-SILLING119A-90 -4•186------03.431.490 CI /TELEPHONE 30 -TY -MANAGER 40.00 06/06/.90 33 34 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00013 001-400-1201-4304 00336 424.08 00525 33652 33 TELEPHONE-CHGS/MAY 90 05/31/90 C-ITY-MANAGER /TELEPHONE 90,0006/07/90----N q 30 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1202-4304 00338 $6.22 372-6186 00569 33652 ]G 30 JI AX-BILLING1MAY-90 6186 03/31490 FINANCE /TELEPHONE $0.-00-06-1061-90-V -ADMIN 72 .r R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00013 001-400-1202-4304 00339 584.73 00525 33652 43 TELEPHONE-CHGS/MAY-90 03/31190 FINANCE :a -ADMIN --/TELEPHONE 40.00 06/07/90 as } 46 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1203-4304 00343 36.03 372-6186 00569 33652 47 16 X FLING/MAY-90 61-86------05431490 PERSONNEL /TCLCPI ION -e e 6 6- #6490-÷: -B R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED TELEPHONE-CHGS/MAY--90 00015 05/31490 001-400-1203-4304 00346 452.27 PERSONNEL /-TELEPHONE 00525 33652 al .p $0.-00-06/07-/90-°i ai R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1206-4304 00229 51.21 372-6186 00569 33652 6. O5 X-B-IL-L�ING/MAY 90 6186 1- 05311/-90 DATA PROGESSINC /TCLCi'#LONE 30.00 06/06/90 66 °J 57 66 °4 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1206-4304 00230 $301.02 00525 33652 70 45 TELEPHONE-CHCS/MAY--90 05/31/.90 DATA-PROCESSING-ATELEPHONE $0r0006/07190- .10 62 7 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED .00013 001-400-1207-4304 00189 $0.82 372-6186 00569 33652 °J 46 • 90 6186-----05/314-90 BUS-1=I-6ENSE /TELEPHONE 4 0'4349G'64°649°-4-: 44 X-B-ILL-ING/MAY - CO 7.0 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1207-4304 00190 $29.52 00525 33652 87 ei BUS-L-iGENSE /TELEPHONE $0.-0006107190--- 576D ELEPHONE--CHCS/MAY-90 05/31-/-90 70 54 )2 37 73 74 'a ]6 2757 v 1 v 741 v Tel cv 4I F," s ° 0 0 C1 TY-OF-HERM06A-2EACN FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0012 TIME 14:51:03 FOR 06/12/90 DATE 06/07/90 3 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP d 7 d R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1208-4304 00059 $12.31 00525 33652 TELEPHONE-CHCS/MAY--90 05/31/-90 /TELEPHONE a 1G 11 1 Ti 1° t° 1114 ix R GEN APPROP $0 00--06/07-/90— GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00013 001-400-2101-4304 00566 $0.61 372-6186 00569 33652 FAX-BILLINGIMAY-90 6186 03/31-490 14 R POLICE /TELEPHONE SO -OO -06/06490 GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00013 001-400-2101-4304 00572 $1,490.73 00525 33652 TELEPHONE-CHCS/MAY-90 03/31/_90 POLICE Is ,a 2G ,e 17 e ' R /TELEPHONE $0 00-06/074-90 GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2201-4304 00256 $255.92 ' 00525 33652 TELEPHONE -9090 03/311-90 FIRE 21 22 2.1 224, 20 21 - 2.1 24 R /TELEPHONE $O.00-06/07-/90 GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00013 001-400-2401-4304 .00301 $36.36 00525 33652 TELEPHONE-CHCS/MAV-90— 05/31/90 ANIMAL—CONTROL--/TELEPHONE 2s 2d 27 2B R $0-00 06/07-1-90 GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00013 001-400-4101-4304 00340 $6.76 372-6186 00569 33652 -FA --BILL-ING/MAY-90 6186------05/31490 20D 3 -.5 27 R PLANNINC /TELEPHONE SG. 00 06106W0 GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4101-4304 00341 $80.78 00525 33652 TELEPHONE-CHG6/MAY-90 OS/31-/90 33 34 3b d 33T 22 3141 32 R PLANNING /TELEPHONE $0.00 06/-07F90 GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4201-4304 00324 $3.90 372-6186 00569 33652 FAX BILLING/ -MAY -90 6186- aaq R -05/31-/-90 BUILD-INO /TCLEMONC $0.-00-06406490- - GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4201-4304 00325 $116.32 00525 33652 TELEPHONE-CHGS/MAY-90 05/31-/90 42, 43 46 47 aoi SG 51 ; 3- 35 R BUILDINO /TELEPHONE $0.00-06/07-F90 4 GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00013 001-400-4202-4304 00343 $3.83 372-6186 00569 33652 FAX-BILL-ING/MAY--90 6186 30 3° R 05/31-/90 -PUB-WKS-ADMIN—/TCLCPIIONC $0.00-06-!-06/90 GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00013 001-400-4202-4304 00346 $305.19 00525 33652 TELEPHONE'-CHGS/MAY-90 :7 4 1 4z R 05/31490— PUB WKS -ADMIN ---/TELEPHONE $0.00-06/07/90 ,:i GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4204-4321 00512 $24.78 00525 33652 d4 °d 43 44 43 R TELEPHONE-CHGS/MAV-'90 05/31-/-90 BLDG -MAI -NT /0Ui4 DING-SAVETY/GEC-dR-FT $0=00-061-074-943—; GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4601-4304 00392 $2.41 372-6186 00569 33652 FAX b° '° 45 47 4A R BILLING/MAY-90 618603/31/90 COMM-RESOURCES--/-TEL-EPHONE $07-00---06/06/90r, GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED .00013 001-400-4601-4304 00394 $212.03 00525 33652 TELEPHONE-CHGSAMA-Y-90 COMM-RESOURCEC 07190 C2 03 °4 19 50 51 R 03/31/90 /TCLCPHON Q. ef3_-06 GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00013 001-400-6101-4304 00229 $12.31 00525 33652 TELEPHONE-CHGS/MRV-90 05/31/90 PARKS /TELEPHONE $0,-00-06/074-90:: 07 dd 67 3_ 53 54 70 71 72 - 3, 14 73 74 75 77 J J i e n 1J 47 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME C -I TY- OF HERMOSA.-BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0013 14:51:03 FOR 06/12/90 DATE 06/07/90 1 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # e DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 7 e • R GTE CALIFORNIA10 INCORPORATED TELEPHONE-CHCS'/MAY-90 00015 05/311-90 110-400-3301-4304 00137 310.00 VEH-PKC-DIST—/TELERHONE 00525 33652 2 40.00 06/07/9. 13 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 110-400-3302-4304 00339 30.43 372-6186 00569 33652 4 16 FAX-BILLING/MAY-90 -6186 05131-490 PARKING-ENF /TELEPHONE 16 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 110-400-3302-4304 00340 3244.88 40-00-06/0649. 00525 33652 TELEPHONE-CHCS/MAY--90 05/31./-90 PARKING-ENF /TELEPHONE $0.00--06/07/90 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED TELEPHONE-CHCS/MAX-90 00015 05/31-490 145-400-3401-4304 00060 54.16 DIAL-A-R-1DE 00525 33652 40-00 06/07490 /TELEPHONE *** VENDOR TOTAL*********************************************************-*********** 33, 406.13 R GTEL REMODEL -COST -1 -DISPATCH 01340 05/-30490 001-202-0000-2020 00987 44,544.80 00329 33653 /AGGOUNTS PAYABLE $0:-00---06107/9e R GTEL EQUIPMENT -RENT -/.JUNE -90 01340 06/01-/90 001-400-2101-4304 00568 3102.38 POLICE /TELEPHONE 00626 33653 - 30.00-06/06/?e R GTEL REMDDE6--COST-/D-I-6RATCH 01340 03/341490 001-400-2101-4304 00571 41,051.80CR 00329 33653 POLICE /TELEPHON .. e •&/.07,49e R GTEL 01340 001-400-2201-4304 00255 $101.77 00626 33653 EQUIPMEN-T-RENT-.JUNE-90 06/01-/90 FIRE /TELEPHONE 40-04-06/06/94 R GTEL 01340 001-400-4601-4304 00393 $109.59 00626 33653 EGUWMENT-RENT4 JUN&_9C COMM /TEL=EPHONE -06/01490 -RESOURCES 30. 0G--06/0619. *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 33,806.74 R DEVIN*GUZMAN IEAL610FGR-TRNC CLACC 02741 05/22-/90 001-400-2101-4312 01311 $40.00 P01 GE /TRAVEL EXPENSE-,--POST-------------44,00-----06'.- 11441 33654 - s, 5. *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 340.00 so 86 e, e2 R HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO. 00731 001-400-3103-4311 00564 31,152.44 1C14430 11170 33655 e3 STREET 05/23490 ST MA-I-NTENANCE '^" 41.15 • e_ e_ e °4 -SWEEPER -PARTS -----44430 .:-.2NTENANGE . *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,152.44 R STEVE*HARTT 00896 001-400-2101-4312 01302 $236.25 11443 33656 MEALS/HOTGL./PROF—TRNG 05431490 POLICE /TRAVE6-EXPENGE .t. 6 e 9. 661-9. .--P0 - 3 )4 76 •J v v$ 1 v ti G✓ n 9 1 z 2 3 3 3 33 37 .13 411 .3.12 a71r 44 15 aE' 4] 40 an 59 51 52 53 54 55 56 5 C ISY-OF-HERMOSA-DEACI I FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND'LIST TIME 14:51:03 FOR 06/12/90 PAGE 0014 DATE 06/07/90 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP R STEVE*HARTT 00896 001-400-2101-4312 01310 $10.92 MILES/ -TRAINING -CLASS 05/15/-90 POLICE /TRAVEL 11435 33656 -EXPENSE -,-POST *** VENDOR TOTAL + *********************** *********************arty*******tt************ $247. 17 $0,00-06/06190 R B. WAYNE*HODGES 03427 001-400-2201-4316 00232 $1,192.50 4151 FIRE -DMV -WORKSHOP 4151 05/22/90 F 08382 33657 -IRE /TRA-INING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,192.50 x0-00-06/06/90— R' HOZIES RADIATOR SERVICE 00277 001-400-3103-4311 00565 $143.32 88895 RECORE-RADIATOR/ST-MAINT-88895 05/30%90 ST 11148 33658 1 MAINTENANCE—/AUTO-MA-INTENANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************************.*************************************** $143.32 $143-32-06/06/90- R INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 02458 001-400-6101-4309 00866 $327.97 44030 CLARK FIELD-L--IGHT-LENS-44030 05/-16/90 11146 33659 PARKS AMA-INTENANCE-MATER4ALC RINGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 02458 001-400-6101-4309 00867 $598.91 44409 TENNIS-COURT-NETERC 14109 $327-,97---06/06/-90327:-99-06/-06/90—R 11147 33659 05/241-90 PARKS / 1A- NTENANCE-MArE R4AL6 R R INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 02458 105-400-2601-4309 00616 $1,767.78 27854 IIERMOSA-AVE-LAMP-BULBS 27854 $590. 91 061-06-/-9061-06-190— 11135 33659 05/09/90 STREET-LIGHTING-4MA-INTENANCE-MAT€R4ALC R R INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 02458 105-400-2601-4309 00617 $99.54 27537 PIER-L.IGHT4NG-FI-XTURC 2-7537------05A-14190 /9011125 33659 STREET LIGHT-ING-1MA-IN ENANCE 4'IATERIALC *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $2.794.20 $100. 26 06/06/9G! R OFCR LANCE*JAAKOLA 02137 001-400-2101-4312 01305 $60.06 MILEAGE/ -TRAINING 11431 33660 -CLASS 05/-1.5-/90 P064CC /TRAVEL EXPENSE—.-POCT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $60.06 $0.00 06-/061-90 R LAWRENCE*JACKSON ,03425 110-300-0000-3302 33987 $36.00 902771/902772 CITE 027-72 • 00216 33661 $0,-00-06-1061-90-4, -PAYMENT -REFUND —x.6/04/-90 /COURT FINES/FAFK-i-NG *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $36.00 R JET DELIVERY. INC. 00281 001-400-4202-4201 00272 $48.75 57033 DEL-P/ER-Y-SERV-/PiJB-37022— ^ 3703304/30 90 B-WKS-ADMIN-oSERViC6/PR-I-VAT f U 11169 33662 $0-00— 06/06/90 — ----/ J • 10 12 n 16 10 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 31 3 3 4 45 4 8 49 1 2 2 4 5 6 5a 0 61 2 3 65 6a a7 J 6B 70 n 72 3 J 9 11 .15 4C J47 40 51 53 154 56 CITY OF-HERMOSA-BEACH FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST TIME 14:51:03 FOR 06/12/90 PAGE 0015 DATE 06/07/90 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $48.75 R MARIA*JIMENEZ 03441 001-210-0000-2110 03715 $100.00 'AMAGE-DEPOSIT-REFUND 97408 05/30/90 /DEROSI1S/WORK-GUARANTEE 97108 10594 33663 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $100.00 $0 00 06406/90-- R DONALD*JONES 02627 001-400-2101-4316 00549 $33.55 AS-COSTS/WARRANT-CLASS 05/-17-/90 POL4CE /TRAINING 00316 33664 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $33.55 $0040 06/06/90— R KEN*KARPMAN 03444 001-210-0000-2110 03719 $50.00 ANIMAL -TRAP -REFUND 9884-5------05430/90 /DEPOSSSS/WORKGUARANTEE 98815 10590 33665 $0,-00---061-06-440--- 0.00 06/06/40--*** ***VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 R JOHN*KEARIN 01032 001-400-2101-4312 01304 $44.20 AS-COSTS/WARRANT-CLASS POLICE /TRAVEL-6XPENSE-.--POST 00317 33666 -05/17-/.90 R JOHN*KEARIN • 01032 001-400-2101-4312 01309 $37.70 MILES/TRAINING-CLASS 05/15/90 POLICE !TRAVEL G0.00 -06/06/90— 11437 33666 $0.00-06/06/-90— -EXPENSE -.-COST *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $81.90 R WILLIAM*KELLY 00362 001-400-2101-4312 01308 $8.58 MILES/TRAINING-CLASS 05/15/90 POLICE /-TRAVEL—EXPENSE-T-POCT 11433 33667 $0--00--06106/-90 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $8.58 R MARIA*KING 03431 110-300-0000-3302 33988 $48.00 CITE 65758-05/24/90 /COURT-F-INES/PARKINC 865758 00136 33668 $0.00 06-106-90 -PAYMENT -REFUND *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $48.00' R KLON RADIO 03442 001-210-0000-2110 03716 $500.00 REFUND 97134 05/30/90 /DEPOSI-TS/WORK-GUARANTEE 97134 10593 33669 $0-00-06/06490- DAMAGE-DEPOSIT 15 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 2 2 31 3 9 3 3 3 3 2 5 7 9 2 3 55 v aI 4.1 W e7 V/ 58 La 70 71 72 73 74 75 v A CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 3 1 7 :1 = :.1 11 ar M.3'1.v DEMAND—LIST z 3 ` PAGE 0016—N TIME 14:51:03 FOR 06/12/90 DATE 06/07/90 --------PAY---VENDOR NAME VND-# ACCOUNT-NUMBER—TRN--# AMOUNT DESCRIPTION INV/REF ------ --PO-#--------CNK # DATE INVC PROD # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 6 6 7 *** VENDOR TOTAL *********************** t*********attt*-it*ati*****atatatiHrat****a►atata►*ttat;t#a *** $500. 00 ° to 1 12 17 ,. 15 R MICHAEL*LADD 01978 001-400-1206-4201 00716 $1.682.56 29 09541 33670 COMPUTER SERV/MAY 90 29 05/15/90 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 06/06/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL*************************************************************** ***** $1,682.56 le le le le 13 ' ] io r R LAW ENFORCEMENT MGMT CENTER 03430 001-400-2101-4305 01268 $100.00 00314 33671 PUBLICATIONS/POLICE 05/16/90 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 06/06/90 20 21 az 23 2. za 27 26 2 10 1 3' 3 1 34 35 ii 3 3° 21 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $100.00 2.-11 2c 27 R KATHLEEN*LEACHMAN 01409 001-400-4601-4302 00083 $160.00 11302 33672 FLIERS/COMM CTR PROGRAMS 05/19/90 COMM RESOURCES /ADVERTISING $160.00 06/06/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $160. 00 _23a 30 R LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 00642 001-400-1202-4316 00303 $12.81 14800 00137 33673 PUBLICATIONS/V. COPELAND 14800 05/22/90 FINANCE ADMIN /TRAINING $0.00 06/06/90 11 ]] 33 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $12. 81 ., .2 63 J1 n 33 R LIGHTNING POWDER CO. 03381 001-400-2101-4305 01267 $113.03 49491 10795 33674 FINGERPRINT DEVELOPER 49491 05/11/90 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $110.00 06/06/90 4451 46 47 aa ,o 311 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $113.03 4° eo 01 e2 no .2 R LOCAL FLAIR INC. 03440 001-300-0000-3803 00202 $230.00 95670 10826 33675 REFUND STAFF REVIEW FEE 95670 05/16/90 /ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT $0.00 06/06/90 e, . 66 66 42 64 .s R LOCAL FLAIR INC. 03440 001-300-0000-3812 00223 $320.00 • 95670 10826 33675 REFUND VARIANCE FEE 95670 05/16/90 /CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW $0.00 06/06/90 67 ea 3° eo .n. .7 40 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $550.00 el 62 e3 64 .N 50 6 1 R LONG BEACH UNIFORM CO. 01320 001-400-2101-4187 00349 • $1,058.69 50365 10782 33676 MOTORCYCLE UNIFORM/JONES 50365 05/23/90 POLICE /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE $1058.69 06/06/90 66 66 07 66 ez 53 6 . 6° 70 71 72 e3 3 e 7] 7. 70 FINANCE-SFA340 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH e ] +"r""."-a-ao' PAGE 0017 TIME 14:31:03 FOR 06/12/90 DATE 06/07/90 PAY VENDOR ,\ -NAME VND-# ACCOUNT-NUMBERTRN # AMOUNT------INV/REF— --P0-#-----CHK # DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP DATE INVC PROD # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 0 J 13 R LONG BEACH UNIFORM CO. 01320 110-400-3302-4187 00234 $375.01 49087 00206 33676 UNIFORMS/SUMMER ENF. 49087 03/03/90 PARKING ENF /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE $375.01 06/06/90 e io 1+ *** VENDOR TOTAL +r*stir**** r*********tt**a**************************************tttr****+r* $1,433.70 13 14 15 A4 ,5 R COUNTY OF *LOS ANGELES 00287 001-400-4101-4305 00433 $3570 1556 10825 33677 . MAP REVISIONS/MAY 90 1556 05/04/90 PLANNING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 06/06/90 ,6 17 e ,Y ,c 17 , o *** VENDOR TOTAL********************************************************************$35.7031 zo 2z 23 24 u :. 2 .i .3 .4 LOUIS THE TAILOR, INC. 00079 001-400-2101-4187 00350 528.77 245034 00534 33678 MISC. CHARGES/MAY 90 45034 05/31/90 POLICE /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 50.00 06/06/90 25 26 27 2 R LOUIS THE TAILOR, INC. 00079 001-400-2101-4187 00351 $320.24 245058 00311 33678 SAFETY VEST/S. TANABE 45058 05/21/90 POLICE /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE $320.24 06/06/90 as 3+ 33 5 Z7 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $349.01 33 34 35 36 : 70 R PAUL*MARKLEY 03439 001-300-0000-3808 00082 $320.00 75376 10832 33679 REFUND VARIANCE FEE 75376 03/31/90 /ZONE VARIANCE REVIEW $000 06/06/90 . 37 ao 3G 40 31 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $320. 00 41 .z 43 44 R MASTER K-9 03120 001-400-2101-4316 00552 $1,200.00 TR295 00295 33680 TUITION/K-9 TRAINING TR295 05/31/90 210005 POLICE /TRAINING $0.00 06/06/90 46 46 47 48 37 34 . *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,200.00 50 5i 52� 42 R MERRIMAC PETROLEUM, INC. 03080 001-141-0000-1401 00084 $3,778.01 - 3298/3287 11174 33681 GASOLINE/DIESEL/CTY YARD /3287 05/21/90 /GASOLINE INVENTORY $0.00 06/06/90 5< 55 e6 43 44 4 _ *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $3,778.01 57 56 50 60 `'r. 4] 40 R MICHAELS 03167 001-400-4601-4308 00302 $594.52 005/006/007 11314 33682 SUMMER PROGRAM SUPPLIES 6/007 .05/30/90 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS $589.52 06/06/90 01 ez e] 64 4, 5e 51 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $594.52 1 es 56 e] 80 Z e3 74 R MOBIL OIL CORP. 03400 001-300-0000-3808 00083 $320.00 75406 10822 33683 VARIANCE FEE REFUND 75406 05/07/90 /ZONE VARIANCE REVIEW $0.00 06/06/90 817 70 7' 72 55 ]6 ]] 74 75 7g IJ 5.) v y ry v►' CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH A^3AA 2 3 utMANU-t_lbt TIME 14:51:03 FOR 06/12/90 PAY----VENDOR-NAME VND-* ACCOUNT—NUMBER—TRN-4$ AMOUNT PAGE DATE 0018 06/07/90 1� 5 5 INV/REF DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ 4$ ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION P0-#- —CHK ii AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP e e 7 0 0 *** VENDOR TOTAL +r*�r�ra ****-�r�rir-tt-er****tfirt*********************ar*********************-� *** $320. 00 0 11 12 :' 12 R MOBIL OIL CREDIT CORPORATION 00388 001-400-2101-4310 00252 $98.48 MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 90 04/30/90 POLICE /MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES 00463 $0.00 33684 06/06/90 13 14 15 1e 12 15 R MOBIL OIL CREDIT CORPORATION 00388 001-400-2201-4310 00118 $69.30 MISC. CHARGES/APRIL 90 04/30/90 FIRE /MOTOR FUELS AND LURES 00463 $0.00 33684 06/06/90 17 1e 10 20 13 n 10 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $167.78 u 23 24 1D 20 z1 R MONARCH BROOM 00084 001-400-3103-4309 01005 $1,202.59 MISC. CHARGES/MAY 90 05/31/90 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00538 $0.00 33685 06/07/90 25 26 27 26 22 2J 24 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,202.59 40 31 32 5 27 R MONTEREY GRAPHICS 03413 001-400-1208-4305 00762 $437.78 CITY ENVELOPES/STOCK 5126 06/04/90 GEN APPROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 5126 00132 $0.00 33686 06/06/90 ,b 26 3 za .D 30 *** VENDOR TOTAL*************************************.******************************* $437.78 , til 30 40 31 2 33 R KEVIN B.*NORTHCRAFT 02064 001-400-1201-4317 00217 $18.00 MONTHLY EXP/MAY 90 05/31/90 CITY MANAGER /CONFERENCE EXPENSE 09164 $0.00 33687 06/06/90 4 4 44 34 .15 90 *** VENDOR TOTAL********************************************************************. $18.00 46 47 4e J/ 30 39 R OKADA NURSERY 03184 001-400-8146-4201 00013 $234.85 GAZANIAS/HERONDO MEDIANS 9424 05/17/90 CIP 89-146 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 9424 11161 $234.85 33688 06/06/90 50 51 52 19 41 42 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $234.85 54 65 6e 43 44 45 R OLYMPIC AUTO CENTER 00093 705-400-1210-4324 00015 $1,067.72 REPAIR POLICE CAR 11928 05/16/90 AUTO/PROP/BONDS /CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS 11928 10791 $1,067.72 33689 06/06/90 67 5e 52 60 4a 47 40 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,067.72 61 e2 63 64 4" 50 51 R OMNI OFFICE PRODUCTS 00659 001-400-1203-5401 00015 $448.34 CHAIR/PERSONNEL DIRECTOR 51258 05/15/90 PERSONNEL/EQUIPMENT—LESS THAN $500 151258 10930 $446.24 33690 06/06/90 65 se e7 69 52 53 54 60 70 71 12 35 56 .7 73 74 7762.6 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND-1,IST }s Ic 7 0 -.. ____.-- FOR 06/12/90 DATE 06/07/90 4 --PAY----VENDOR-NAME VND-# ACCOUNT --NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF--- — PO-#----CHK # DATE INVC PROD # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTIONAMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 6 6 7 *** VENDOR TOTAL ****at*ir*irtr********* r************* ►itttat**tr*******ate►****#itatititittt****ar**et $448.34 8 e D 10 11 • 12 n R ORIGINAL E -Z UP SHADE 03357 001-400-4601-5402 00012 $1,033.24 9413 10476 33691 BEACH CANOPIES/COMM RES 9413 05/23/90 COMM RESOURCES /EQUIP -MORE THAN $500 $1,028.54 06/06/90 12 13 14 16 *** VENDOR TOTAL****************************************$tit**it*at*it*****at****atartt****at* $1,033.24 16 17 1s e ID 70 7 e R PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE' 00321 001-400-2101-4304 00569 $162.48 00036 33692 COMPUTER HOOKUP/MAY 90 05/31/90 POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 06/06/90 21 22 0 .0 1 21 22 3 "n *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $162.48 24 23 26 27 2� 2D as a1 R PACTEL CELLULAR - LA 03209 001-400-2101-4304 00570 $390.49 00576 33693 MOBILE PHONE CHGS/MAY 90 09/31/90 POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 06/06/90 :r. 27 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $390.4933 32 33 il 3 3 3� 40 Z. ` ,D R PAGENET 02487 001-400-1201-4201 00088 $11.50 14234-C 00059 33694 PAGING SERV/JUNE 90 234-C 06/01/90 CITY MANAGER /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 06/06/90 11 ', R PAGENET 02487 001-400-2101-4307 00218 5173.50 14234-C 00059 33694 PAGING SERV/JUNE 90 234-C 06/01/90 POLICE /RADIO MAINTENANCE 50.00 06/06/90 4 4 31 s R PAGENET 02487 001-400-2401-4201 00239 $11.50 14234-C 00059 33694 PAGING SERV/JUNE 90 234-C 06/01/90 ANIMAL CONTROL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 50.00 06/06/90 46 47 48 37 is 33 R PAGENET 02487 001-400-4202-4201 00271 511.50 14234-C 00059 33694 PAGING SERV/JUNE 90 234-C 06/01/90 PUB WKS ADMIN /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 06/06/90 4D so 31 52 s33 a 55 66 4^ 41 n 2 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $208.00 43 4 45 R PAK WEST 00519 001-400-4204-4309 01699 $97.94 00540 33695 MISC. CHARGES/MAY 90 05/31/90 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 06/06/90 S7 56 O0 eo 46 47 4r R PAK WEST 00519 001-400-6101-4309 00869 $132.58 00540 33695 MISC. CHARGES/MAY 90 05/31/90 PARKS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 06/06/90 61 e2 63 64 40 SO 71 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 5230. 92 6s 66 67 68 "' 53 : 4 R PARKHOUSE TIRE, INC. 03414 001-400-3103-4311 00566 $340.64 82265:A 11158 33696 TIRES/ELGIN SWEEPER 265:A 05/17/90 ST MAINTENANCE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $340.64 06/06/90 6D 70 71 72 SS 56 73 74 )6 79 lJ G 1J 5J lJ v 1J ai aJ y 4,4 p CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH - FO06�.i TIME 14:51:03 FORR 06/12/90 ----PAY----VENDOR-NAME VND-# ----ACCOUNT-NUMBER- TRN. # AMOUNT INV/REF------------.PO DATE #- AMOUNT UNENC 06/07/20 /90 3 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION ------ CHK-# DATE EXP 7 e *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 5340. 64 ° ,0 o ,1 ,2 r R PASSON'S SPORTS 03334 001-400-4601-4308 00303 $186.68 5862683 11303 33697 13 1. SUMMER PROGRAM SUPPLIES 62683 05/24/90 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS $186.68 06/06/90 is ,e ., *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 5186. 68 17 is 7 1° 20 21 R PAUL*PETROSKI 03424 110-300-0000-3302 33986 $368.00 00135 33698 22 REFUND CITE PAYMENT 06/04/90 /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 06/06/90 23 2. 22 - *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $368.00 26 2T .:22 23 R MINHHOA*PHAM 03436 001-210-0000-2110 03722 $250.00 88639 11012 33699 30 BANNER DEPOSIT REFUND 88639 05/31/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 06/07/90 31 24 3x 2.1 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $250.00 3. 35 27 3a 1:3 37 R PHOENIX GROUP 02530 110-400-3302-4201 00244 $1,318.72 4785-00 00077 33700 30 OUT-OF-STATE CITES/APR90 85-00 05/15/90 PARKING ENF /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 06/06/90 39 30 1.9 31 •1 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,318.72 .2 ] •3 33 444-1 34 4e 35 R PHYSICIANS' DESK REFERENCE 01054 001-400-2101-4305 01262 591.69 00332 33701 .a 3e PUBLICATIONS/POLICE 06/04/90 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 06/06/90 •7 37 •o *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $91.69 50 30 51 39 52 13 53 R POSTMASTER 00097 001-400-2101-4305 01261 $39.00 695 00339 33702 e. 41 42 P. 0. BOX RENTAL 695 06/04/90 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 06/06/90 " ee 43 e7 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $39.00 5e 44 50 45 d3 n e e, 47 R PROF COMMUNICATIONS INSTALLERS 02526 001-400-2201-5403 00013 $663.99 LIGHT BAR/NEW AMBULANCE 394 FIRE /VEHICLES 394 08393 $663.99 33703 06/06/90 e2 e7 413 .05/16/90 FA 49 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $663.99 63 eo 3C 07 3, eA e° R PURKISS-ROSE ASSOCIATES 02982 001-400-4601-4201 00597 $3,921.50 6074 11307 33704 7o 33 FINAL PMT/PARKS PLAN 6074 04/30/90 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 50.00 06/06/90 71 4 72 55 73 74 5e 7e 79. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH .rFINANCE—SFA340 DEMAND—LIST TI i3 ME l4 13 4 -1i :z • 1 4 :3 iC 17 10 14.31.03 FOR 06/12/90 DATE 06/07/90 PAY----VENDOR-NAME VND ' 6 6 7 --# ----ACCOUNT—NUMBER —TRN. # • AMOUNT INV/REF---------.-- p0. # ._... _. CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROD # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL******at**ttit**it**ittr****n*ittttr#arfttr*ir*it*****attt******attrit***tttrtt*•net*tftt**trig $3,921.50 e ° 10 11 R GWIK—CODE 02809 001-400-2101-4305 01266 $38668 6095 10715 33705 - 1990 VEHICLE CODES 6095 01/29/90 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $309.59 06/06/90 12 13 14 3 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $386. 68 16 7 e 1° 70 R RADIO SHACK 01429 001-400-1121-4305 00148 $45.80 00543 33706 MISC. CHARGES/MAY 90 05/31/90 CITY CLERK /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 06/06/90 21 22 23 24 1 0 21 R RADIO SHACK 01429 001-400-2101-4305 01264 $5.66 00543 33706 MISC. CHARGES/MAY 90 05/31/90 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 06/06/90 23 ze 27 20 :1 2J 24 R RADIO SHACK 01429 001-400-4204-4309 01656 $40.45 00543 33706 MISC. CHARGES/MAY 90 05/31/90 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 06/06/90 24 3,3, 31 3! 33 34 3s 36 _5 7 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $92.21 R READICARE—DANIEL FREEMAN 02390 001-400-1203-4320 00317 $698-00 94-36270 10932 33707 EMPLOYEE PHYSICALS/APR90 36270 04/30/90 PERSONNEL /PRE—EMPLOYMENT EXAMS $0.00 06/06/90 3r 3u 22,30 40 133 } 1 Ja *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $698.0041 42 43 4} R CITY OF*REDONDO BEACH 01763 143-300-0000-3854 00049 $1,985.13CR 10831 33708 2FAREBOX RECOVERY/JAN—MAR 05/5/90 /FARES, DIAL A RIDE $0.00 06/07/90 46 46 47 4e .2 412 ``41 42 R CITY OF*REDONDO BEACH 01763 143-400-3401-4201 00182 $96.08 10824 33708 WAVE USE/ST. PAT'S DAY 05/09/90 SHUTTLE/DIAL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 06/06/90 50 61 52 R CITY OF*REDONDO BEACH 01763 145-400-3401-4201 00183 $27,923.97 10831 33708 WAVE COSTS/JAN—MAR 90 05/25/90 SHUTTLE/DIAL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 06/07/90 653 4 66 30 .� •:3 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $26.034.92 5a 59 60 r•6 4c R REGISTRAR—RECORDER 00225 001-400-1122-4201 00206 $21,494.07 176—F 09342 33709 ELECTION COST/NOV 1989 176—F '05/08/90 ELECTIONS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 06/06/90 61 62 e3 64 e° 33 31 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $21,494.07 03 66 67 ee .2 63 64 R RODERICK CONSTRUCTION 03445 001-210-0000-2110 03720 $75.00 95510 10588 33710 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 95310 03/30/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 06/06/90 e° 70 7, 72 3- 3 6 7 %3 74 76 79 C. J J J c/ J •.J 4J 4J 1J 1I 4.1 I CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH i I2 :2 ] 10 """ "—SFA3 '"' DEMAND -.LIST TIME 14:51:03 FOR 06/12/90 —PAY----. VENDOR NAME VND--#-- ACCOUNT -.NUMBER # PAGE DATE #- UNENC 0022 06/07/90 --TRN- --AMOUNT INV/REF-------------PO DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ----- - CHK # DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL ******-n**** r******************* ********* r*#** -n************** r*****+r $75.00 R ROSS COOK, INC. 03415 001-400-4204-4321 00511 $318.86 07156 VACUUM TUBE CARRIERS 07156 05/22/90 BLDG MAINT /BUILDING SAFETY/SECURIT 11163 $318.86 33711 06/06/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $318.86 R S & S ARTS AND CRAFTS, INC. 00227 001-400-4601-4308 00304 $277.33 617058 AFTER—SCHOOL SUPPLIES 17058 04/24/90 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS 10479 $298.25 33712 06/06/90 21 22 2] 2i 21 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $277.3322 E1 �j R SUSAN*SAXE—CLIFFORD,PH D 00839 001-400-1203-4320 00316 $275.00 0-0516-1 PSYCH EVAL/POLICE 516-1 05/16/90 PERSONNEL /PRE—EMPLOYMENT EXAMS 10933 $0.00 33713 06/06/90 _] 9 ] *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $275.00 33714 06/06/90 11 2.2 _o R MICHAEL*SCHUBACH 00536 001-400-4101-4316 00180 $15.00 MONTHLY EXP/MAY 90 06/04/90 PLANNING /TRAINING 10834 $0.00 12 22 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $15.00 25 ]5 R SEDGWICK JAMES OF CALIFORNIA 03429 705-400-1210-4201 00053 • $223.00 180072 ADD NEW FIRE ENGINE 80072 05/23/90 AUTO/PROP/BONDS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 10934 $0.00 33715 06/06/90 11 z] 25 22 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $223.00 Jo a2 R PARVIZ*SHARIFPOOR 03438 001-300-0000-3115 02667 $125.00 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 05/31/90 /BUSINESS LICENSE 11010 $0.00 33716 06/06/90 5. " 55 as a5 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $125.00 -15 S] R SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 00151 001-400-2101-4316 00548 $310.00 72263 TRNG CLASS/S. TANABE 72263 06/04/90 POLICE /TRAINING 00335 $0.00 33717 06/06/90 JG 50 R SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT _ 00151 001-400-2101-4316 00551 $620.00 72050 TUITION/GAINES/HATANO 72050 05/04/90 POLICE /TRAINING 00324 $0.00 33717 06/06/90 53 55 57 5a, ]2 22 5a ec ]1 ]2 5] FINANCE-SFA34O CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND -LIS 17 TIME 14:51:03 FOR 06/12/90 DATE 06/07/90 : 3 !-PAYVENDOR -VENDOR-NAME VND -- -DESCRIPTION -# ------ACCOUNT-NUMBER. —TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF------------P0 -- -# ---CHK -# 4 5 �, DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP e I,, 7 e • In *** VENDOR TOTAL ititittritittttFsttt**atttattt�tat****atuatiter*attt�t•x*tt•utt�tatitst�titttttatsrtritittt�tttitttitetttttitetit•�tttuatatatu $930.00 1,2 11 12 17 R SINCLAIR PAINT CO. 01399 001-400-4204-4309 01654 $118.30 00546 33718 13 14 MISC. CHARGES/MAY 90 05/31/90 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 06/06/90 +3 1e R SINCLAIR PAINT CO. 01399 001-400-6101-4309 00868 $200.97 00546 33718 ,e MISC. CHARGES/MAY 90 05/31/90 PARKS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 06/06/90 19 20 21 *** VENDOR TOTAL ****tram***************arty******************************************** $319.27 22 1 :• n 23 24 IID 25 L R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-2101-4306 00804 $113.85 00547 33719 26 MISC. CHARGES/MAY 90 05/31/90 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE $0.00 06/06/90 27 21 29 2 R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-2201-4309 00883 $97.57 00547 33719 2D 74 30 MISC. CHARGES/MAY 90 05/31/90 FIRE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 06/06/90 31 24 72 33 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $211.42 34 35, 3e ,3 R SMITH PIPE & SUPPLY 03321 160-400-3102-4309 00487 32,157.21 5-12006 11164 33720 J0 PLASTIC SEWER PIPES 12006 05/14/90 SEWER/ST DRAIN /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $2,157.21 06/06/90 30 :C 40 31 41 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $2,157.21 az 43 33 44 :4 45 R SO CALIF RAPID TRANSIT DISTR. 00843 145-400-3403-4251 00073 $1,343.00 51372 00213 33721 46 BUS PASS SALES/MAY 90 51372 05/23/90 BUS PASS SUBSDY /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 06/06/90 47 46 49 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,343.00 5,31 70 51 12 52 R SOUTH BAY FIRE EXTINGUISHER 00113 001-400-2101-4309 00302 $22.95 00548 33722 ea 41 41 MISC. CHARGES/MAY 90 05/31/90 POLICE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 06/06/90 eS 42 56 43 57 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $22.95 5e, . 59 45 W .c e1 R SOUTH BAY HOSPITAL 00107 001-400-2101-4201 00580 $763.15 00321 33723 e2 47 PRISONER EMERG. SERVICE '01/29/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 06/06/90 eJ 4n e4 49 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $763.15 ee e7 5, 5N BD R SOUTH BAY JUVENILE DIVERSION 01731 140-400-4705-4201 00012 $360.98 10828 33724 70 53 CONTRACT PMT/MARCH 90 05/14/90 JUVENILE DIVSN /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 06/06/90 71 54 72 73 55 74 15e 75 7 79 G .w� ..J sJ ♦J 4i ♦J v v v v v ler 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 0-- TIME ----PAY--- ^""' 14:51:03 VENDOR–NAME VND--# — DEMAND --LIST FOR 06/12/90Il ACCOUNT NUMDER—TRN # PAGE DATE -- PO # AMOUNT UNENC 06/07/900 2 3 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC -- AMOUNT INV/REF------------ PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION --- - CHK # DATE EXP 6 7 e *** VENDOR TOTAL itatat*atit*atjtit*itat*at*tt*atttitatttit#attttt-itattatstitatitatitit*at-xatatatatetit*ititatitifitititit#it-ittfttttit*stat $360.98 to It - 12 R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00118 110-300-0000-3302 33985 $14,808.00 00129 33725 13 14 CITATION SURCHARGE/APR90 05/30/90 /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 06/06/90 15 1e *** VENDOR TOTAL *******u**********etas********-attar*************tit********************** $14, 808. 00 :e 15 to 20 d 21 R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00400 110-300-0000-3302 33984 $568.00 00215 33726 22 in CITATION COURT BAIL 05/31/90 /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 06/06/90 z, z.t *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $568.00 i5 26 2 1 27 2e 22 R SOUTH BAY WELDERS 00018 001-400-2201-4309 00881 $48. 58 00551 33727 29 w z4 MISC. CHARGES/MAY 90 05/31/90 FIRE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 06/06/90 ]1 32 75 33 R SOUTH BAY WELDERS 00018 001-400-3103-4309 01004 $13.50 00551 33727 ], • MISC. CHARGES/MAY 90 05/31/90 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 06/06/90 35 3; J 3 20 R SOUTH BAY WELDERS 00018 001-400-3104-4309 00480 $13.50 00551 33727 38 MISC. CHARGES/MAY 90 05/31/90 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 06/06/90 30 3^ J1 32 R SOUTH BAY WELDERS 00018 001-400-4205-4309 00469 367.05 00551 33727 4x MISC. CHARGES/MAY 90 05/31/90 EQUIP SERVICE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 06/06/90 ax 33 u J4 3, *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $142.63 ae ]5 47 46 49 in R SOUTHERN CAL. TREE & LANDSCAPE 03416 001-400-6101-4201 00182 $3,285.00 11154 33728 sa TREE TRIMMING/PARKS 05/01/90 PARKS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $3,285.00 06/06/90 51 Ja 52 El R SOUTHERN CAL. TREE & LANDSCAPE 03416 001-400-8146-4201 00014 $1,540.00 11154 33728 e4 TREE TRIMMING 05/01/90 CIP 89-146 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $1,540.00 06/06/90 e' a1 5e 4J 57 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $4,825.00 58 44 ]C 45 e0 4•S el R SOUTHWEST REG TRAINING CENTER 01909 001-400-2101-4312 01307 $223.00 11442 33729 e2 47 TUITION/D. GUZMAN POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 06/06/90 e] 48 ,05/22/90 64 49 e] *** VENDOR TOTAL********************.************************************************ 3223.00 ee 50 e7 5, re 1 e0 R SPARKLETTS DRINKING WATER CORP 00146 001-400-4601-4305 00824 $37.15 439584 00033 33730 70 " WATER COOLER RENT/APR 90 39584 04/30/90 COMM RESOURCES /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 06/06/90 71 34 72 53 73 74 50 7e 17 7q .1 W. FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:51:03 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND -LIST c ..J • 016 t1 rum vo/1d/Y0 DATE 06/07/90 ' : e s 14 ----PAY----VENDOR-NAME VND-#----ACCOUNT NUMBER—TRN # AMOUNT DESCRIPTION INV/REF------_._PO # - -CHK-#-4. DATE INVC PROD # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 70 *** VENDOR TOTAL******�rxx*t►###+r##�r##*tr�rtrtt+r#a*�r*tr*****##*+r+r#trtrtr#+t** 537. 15 a ' io R HENRY L. *STATEN 00500 110-400-3302-4316 00182 $28.60 00231 33731 MONTHLY EXP/FEB 90 05/17/90 PARKING ENF /TRAINING 50.00 06/06/90 12 13 1O 1e *** VENDOR TOTAL ar***tr*******t ********tt**it• **********utter*****ata•ir*it****trite*tt•irer*tr****** $28.60 1e 17 1e 1° 70 R SUPREME "I II Et SALES CO., INC. 00494 001-400-2101-4306 00805 $165.17 75595 00302 33732 MATTRESS COVERS/JAIL 75595 05/23/90 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE 5180.60 06/06/90 221 22 za 24 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** z7 $165.17 2' 2e zT R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY 00124 001-400-4204-4309 01653 $56.16 19959H 00557 33733 MISC. CHARGES/MAY 90 9959H 05/31/90 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 50. 00 06/06/90 29 3a ]1 M 35, R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY 00124 160-400-3102-4309 00486 $65.25 22343H 00557 33733 MISC. CHARGES/MAY 90 2343H 05/31/90 SEWER/ST DRAIN /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 06/06/90 30 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $121.41 ' 38 39 4a J • R HELEN*TRACY 03443 001-210-0000-2110 03718 $50.00 98720 10591 33734 ANIMAL TRAP REFUND 98720 05/30/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 06/06/90 31 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 44 43 •a 4T v R UC REGENTS 01056 001-400-8141-4201 00004 $175.00 44409 11180 33735 SEMINAR REG/A. ANTICH 44409 07/23/90 CIP 89-141 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 06/06/90 48 40 0 51 a2� �� es , 42 nJ *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 3175.00Oa 44 4; R J.S.*WARD & CO. AS AGENT FOR 02466 705-400-1209-4324 00134 $1"201.72 10935 33736 REIMB LIAR CLAIMS/APR 90 05/29/90 LIABILITY INS /CLAIMS/SETTLEMENTS $0.00 06/06/90 ea -37 e 6° el e1 62 63 . 46 43 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** S1 " 201. 72 4, t, -.•R 51 •:) WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY 00141 001-400-1131-4201 00583 $45.70 652-893-746 09344 33737 PUBLICATIONS/CITY CLERK 3-746 05/03/90 CITY ATTORNEY /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 06/06/90 64 eaae 67, 54 156:1 e° 70 71 . ]a 70 7te 72 7] 74 . c ..J • 016 t1 .771 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 4 e o DEMAND -LIST PAGE 0026 TIME 14:31:03 FOR 06/12/90 DATE 06/07/90IN ----— PAY VENDOR -NAME VND-#--ACCOUNT-NUMDERTRN-# 4 — AMOUNT INV/REF-----------P0 . #-CHK-#— ----- DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP e 6 7 6 *** VENDOR TOTAL **** tat♦t*** tit+titit�t*ttttttatarittritttaF�ttta�rttttu�tttttjttttttttt*stat** tart►at�ti►ta•it�►aFtwttrttattta►*** $45. 70 • 0 12 11 12 R WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS 00131 001-400-3104-4309 00481 $489.99 174767 11156 33738 STREET SIGN HARDWARE 74767 05/17/90 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $576.45 06/06/90 13 14 13 1e ,4 13 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $489.99 1e 19 20 3 17 I6 R SALLY A. *WHITE 00140 001-400-4102-4201 00259 $204.00 10830 33739 SEC. SERV/MAY 13,90 05/29/90 PLANNING COMM /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 06/06/90 21 u u 24 13 21 *** VENDOR TOTAL *******at**♦tat*****************************at************♦tat*****at*****at $204.00 25 25 27' ,2 :3 4 R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-1208-4201 00654 $50.63 024761836 00464 33740 METER USE/APRIL 90 61836 03/10/90 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 06/06/90 a 10 31 331 7:. 27 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $30. 63 33 3a, 3a 3� 3 >E 30 40 U 3 33 *** PAY CODE TOTAL****************************************************************** $180,394.41 31 32 33 *** TOTAL WARRANTS****************************************************************** $190.497.16 �1 as 43 44. J4 3] 36 L,itFRFRY fFRTIcE-DEMANA$-QIMS'C(N/ERED-BY 46 4C 47 aq 33 3e // THE WARRANTS LISTED ON PAGES_Lp7 NCLUS1YE OF THE WARRANT REGISTER FOR el/215'6 ARE ACCURATE 40 60 al as 40 41 42 AND -FUND -ARE`AVAIL-ABL'FTOR P.:YTALNI IHEREUF: BY 53 64 53 56 FINANCE ADMINIS RATOR 43 44 a] � �] y/ DATf____T-"'_ 0 ✓• 37 3e 3• ea -... _..�..-�. 43 47 40 e1 ea 63 64 43 S C 31 6a 66 67 CP 32 3:1 ]4 60 70 71 72 37. SO S) 73 74 70 79 41 .el :rJ .(J "1" .431 ".l W .aJ I Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council June 4, 1990 City Council Meeting of June 12, 1990 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT OF INACTIVE PUBLIC DEPOSITS FOR HERMOSA BEACH Attached is a report of all Inactive Public Deposits for the month of May 1990. Respectfully submitted, / &RJ Gary Bruts h City Trea urer NOTED: 1./ i,/ AlmarALIkar evin Northcraf City Manager IL' INSTITUTION LAIF TOTAL INVESTMENT REPORT - MAY 1990 DATE OF INVESTMENT DATE OF MATURITY INTEREST BALANCE 5/01/90 Investment Investment Withdrawal Withdrawal BALANCE 5/31/90 $3,310,000.00 200,000.00 600,000.00 <1,000,000.00> <300,000.00> $2,810,000.00 LACPIF Railroad Right -of -Way Account BALANCE 5/01/90 Investment BALANCE 5/31/90 General Account BALANCE 5/01/90 Withdrawal BALANCE 5/31/90 $ 325,593.08 117,565.90 443,158.98 $ 100,000.00 <100,000.00> CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT: Union Federal S&L Investment -0- $ 500,000.00 5/16/90 5/22/90 5/10/90 2/22/90 5/24/90 5/29/90 5/01/90 8.497% 8.25% 8.25% 2/21/91 8.10% City National Bank Investment City National Bank Investment CORPORATE NOTES: Ford Motor Credit Co. Investment $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 3/23/90 3/25/91 4/25/90 4/22/91 5/19/88 8.425% 8.50% 5/20/93 9.10% U.S. TREASURY BOND: Investment $ 500,937.94 2/22/89 1/31/91 9.20% Investment $ 499,326.42 1/03/90 12/31/91 7.71% Investment $1,025,032.92 1/29/90 2/15/91 8.22% 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% FHLMC: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. Investment $ 248,733.64 3/26/87 INVESTMENT TOTAL $11,048,849.65 3/1/17 8.0% SEATTLE 1ST NATL. BANK TRUST BALANCE 4/01/90 $ 515,502.05 Adjustment 1,399.68 4/1/90 BALANCE 4/30/90 TICOR BALANCE 2/01/90 BALANCE 2/28/90 TRUSTEE TOTAL GRAND TOTAL 516,901.73 8.3% $ 10,000.00 10,000.00 $ 526,901.73 $11,575,751.38 Respectfully Submitted, Gary Bruts City Trea rer June 4, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of June 12, 1990 APPROVAL OF GENERAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached General Services Agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and the County of Los Angeles for services as individually requested to run from July 1, 1990 through June 30, 1995. Background: The County of Los Angeles offers many services to public agencies within its jurisdiction. Many of the minor services provided are incorporated under an "umbrella" general services agreement. This agreement provides for ease of administration in requesting a particular service from the County, as it eliminates the need for individual agreements each time a service is requested. Analysis: The current five year agreement expires June 30, 1990, and has identical language to that proposed for the recommended agreement. Types of services covered under the agreement are City prosecution services, personnel testing services, and auditor -controller assessment services. Approval of tract maps by the County Engineer and animal pound services provided by the County are provided under separate documents. evin B. Northcr;s' City Manager KBN/ld RICHARD B. DIXON CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 713 HALL OF ADMINISTRATION / LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 974.1101 Mr. Kevin Northcraft City Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Northcraft: May 16, 1990 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD PETER F. SCHABARUM KENNETH HAHN EDMUND D. EDELMAN DEANE DANA MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH The General Services Agreement (GSA) between your City and the County of Los Angeles will expire on June 30, 1990. To ensure the continuation of services you may be receiving under this contract, we would like to work with you in renewing your existing agreement for the period commencing July 1, 1990 through June 30, 1995. We are enclosing three copies of the GSA for your City. Council's review and approval on or prior to June 15, 1990. This will allow us sufficient time to process these documents and obtain Board of Supervisors' approval prior to the current contract's expiration. Please sign all three copies and return the three originals to: City -County Liaison Chief Administrative Office 723 Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 We will return one original copy to you as soon as it has been approved and executed by the Board. If the June 15th deadline presents any problems or if you have any questions about the renewal process, please call Dave Estrada, City -County Liaison, at (213) 974-1418. We believe that the County's contract services program is of mutual benefit, and we value the relationship we have established with your city. We look forward to our continued association, and we thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, GER R7 KARIYA Assistant Administrative Officer Intergovernmental Relations GK: DE: tns : g.r Enclosures c: County Counsel GENERAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, dated for purposes of reference only, , 19 , is made by and between the County of Los Angeles, hereinafter referred to as the "County", and the City of Hermosa Beach, hereinafter referred to as the "City". RECITALS: (a) The City is desirous of contracting with the County for the performance by its appropriate officers and employees of City functions. (b) The County is agreeable to performing such services on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. (c) Such contracts are authorized and provided for by the provisions of Section 561/2 of the Charter of the County of Los Angeles and Section 51300, et seq., of the Government Code. THEREFORE, THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The County agrees, through its officers and employees, to perform those City functions which are hereinafter provided for. 2. The City shall pay for such services as are provided under this agreement at rates to be determined by the County Auditor -Controller in accordance with the policies and procedures established by the Board of Supervisors. These rates shall be readjusted by the County Auditor - Controller annually effective the first day of July of each year to reflect the cost of such service in accordance with the policies and procedures for the determination of such rate as adopted by the Board of Supervisors of County. 3. No County officer or department shall perform for said City any function not coming within the scope of the duties of such officer or department in performing services for the County. 4. No service shall be performed hereunder unless the City shall have available funds previously appropriated to cover the cost thereof. 5. No function or service shall be performed hereunder by any County officer or department unless such function or service shall have been requested in writing by the City on order of the City Council thereof or such officer as it may designate and approved by the Board of Supervisors of the County, or such officer as it may designate, and each such service or function shall be performed at the times and under circumstances which do not interfere with the performance of regular County operations. 6. Whenever the County and City mutually agree as to the necessity for any such County officer or department to maintain administrative headquarters in the City, City shall furnish at its own cost and expense all necessary office space, furniture, and furnishings, office supplies, janitorial service, telephone, light, water, and other utilities. In all instances where special supplies, stationery, notices, forms and the like must be issued in the name of the City, the same shall be supplied by the City at its expense. It is expressly understood that in the event a local administrative office is maintained in the City for any such County officer or department, such quarters may be used by the County officer or department in connection with the performance of its duties in territory outside the City and adjacent thereto provided, however, that the performance of such outside duties shall not be - 2 - at any additional cost to the City. 7. All persons employed in the performance of such services and functions for the City shall be County employees, and no City employee as such shall be taken over by the County, and no person employed hereunder shall have any City pension, civil service, or other status or right. For the purpose of performing such services and functions, and for the purpose of giving official status to the performance hereof, every County officer and employee engaged in performing any such service or function shall be deemed to be an officer or employee of said City while performing service for the City within the scope of this agreement. 8. City shall not be called upon to assume any liability for the direct payment of any salary, wages or other compensation to any County personnel performing services hereunder for the City, or any liability other than that provided for in this agreement. Except as herein otherwise specified, City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnity to any County employee for injury or sickness arising out of his employment. 9. The Assumption of Liability Agreement executed by the parties to this agreement, and approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 27, 1977 currently in effect is hereby made a part of and incorporated into this agreement as if set out in full herein unless said Assumption of Liability Agreement is expressly superseded by a subsequent agreement hereafter entered into between the parties hereto. 10. Each County officer or department performing any service for the City provided for herein shall keep reasonably itemized and in detail work or job records covering the cost of all services - 3 - performed, including salary, wages and other compensation for labor; supervision and planning, plus overhead, the reasonable rental value of all County -owned machinery and equipment, rental paid for all rented machinery or equipment, together with the cost of an operator thereof when furnished with said machinery or equipment, the cost of all machinery and supplies furnished by the County, reasonable handling charges, and all additional items of expense incidental to the performance of such function or service. 11. All work the provisions of done hereunder is subject to the limitations Section 23008 of the Government Code, and of in accordance therewith, before any work is done or services rendered pursuant hereto, an amount equal to the cost or an amount 10% in excess of the estimated cost must be reserved by the City from its funds to insure payment for work, services or materials provided hereunder. 12. The County shall render to City at the close of each calendar month an itemized invoice which covers all services performed during said month, and City shall pay County therefore within thirty (30) days after date of said invoice. If such payment is not delivered to the County office which is described on said invoice within thirty (30) days after the date of the invoice, the County is entitled to recover interest thereon. Said interest shall be at the rate of seven (7) percent per annum or any portion thereof calculated from the last day of the month in which the services were performed. 13. If such payment is not delivered to the County office which is described on said invoice within thirty (30) days after the date of the invoice, the County may satisfy such indebtedness, including interest thereon, from any funds of any such City on - 4 - deposit with the County without giving further notice to said City of County's intention to do so. 14. This contract shall become effective on the date herein- above first mentioned and shall run for a period ending June 30, 1995, and at the option of the City Council of the City, with the consent of the Board of Supervisors of County, shall be renewable thereafter for an additional period of not to exceed five (5) years. 15. In event the City desires to renew this agreement for said five-year period, the City Council shall not later than the tenth of May, 1995, notify the Board of Supervisors of County that it wishes to renew the same, whereupon the Board of Supervisors, not later than the last day of May, 1995, shall notify the City Council in writing of its willingness to accept such renewal. Otherwise such agreement shall finally terminate at the end of the aforedescribed period. Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph hereinabove set forth, the County may terminate this agreement at any time by giving thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the City. The City may terminate this agreement as of the first day of July of any year upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the County. 16. This agreement is designed to cover miscellaneous and sundry services which may be supplied by the County of Los Angeles and the various departments thereof. In event there now exists or there is hereafter adopted a specific contract between the City and the County with respect to specific services, such contract with respect to specific services shall be controlling as to the duties and obligations of the parties anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, unless such special contract adopts the provisions 5 hereof by reference. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers. Executed this day of THE CITY OF , 1990. By Mayor ATTEST: THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES City Clerk By Chairman, Board of Supervisors By Deputy ATTEST: LARRY J. MONTEILH Executive Officer/Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By Deputy APPROVED AS TO FORM: DEWITT W. CLIN ON (A, County Counsel L By � Dep ty County Coune APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1,yke By .�[�v Charles S. Vose, City Attorney City of Hermosa Beach, CA 6 May 21, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of June 12, 1990 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE CHANGES IN THE PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING THE ASSET AND FORFEITURE FUNDS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council approve the raising of the cash account limit from $1,000 to $3,000 in the procedure for handling the asset and for- feiture funds. BACKGROUND: At the regular City Council meeting of May 10, 1988 Council approved a policy and procedures for the control and management of funds in the asset seizure and forfeiture account. ANALYSIS: Over the last two years, there have been many changes in the narcotics investi- gation area. Some of the most apparent are that the cost of the drugs has risen and our officers have become increasingly effective in making good arrests of the dealers. In order to facilitate the arrest of drug dealers, officers must buy drugs from the dealer or one of the dealer's partners. The cost of these buys has steadily risen over the last two years. Sometimes, the officers must let the dealer take the money in order to get more drugs or more suspects. In those cases, the procedure is called "letting the money walk". In the cases where the dealer is immediately arrested, called a "buy - bust", the money is recovered. When we established the guidelines for use of the asset seizure fund, a cash account for buy money was established at a $1,000 limit. Because of the rise in drug prices and the officer's increased activity, this limit is not workable. 1 As an example; one purchase of a small street quantity (1 ounce) of cocaine is between $800 and $1,000. There have been many situations where the officers were hampered in their investigation by the limited funds. Just recently, the officers needed to make two purchases of drugs in order to obtain the evidence necessary for several arrests and search warrants. As usual most of this acti- vity takes place on the weekends and/or at night. Because they did not have the funds available to cover the expenses, the Chief of Police gave them personal funds to cover the purchases. This is not an acceptable alternative to having the funds available, they can't put the dealer on hold and we shouldn't have to use personal funds to do our job. The subsequent arrests and searchs netted the team over $6,000 cash, an automobile was seized, 6 people were arrested, and over 1 and a half kilos of cocaine were confiscated and taken off the street. We are requesting that the limit be raised to $3,000. We feel that this amount will allow us enough money to cover the busy weekends and will allow limited flash money capability. Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager Noted: Viki Copeland Director of Finance 2 Submitted, Steve Wisniewski Director of Public Safety HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT ASSET SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE FUND PURPOSE: The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the establishment of the Hermosa Beach Police Department Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Fund and the control and management of the funds in this account. POLICY: Assets seized by, or forfeited to, the City of Hermosa Beach Police Department are distributed according to Title 18 and 19 of the United States Code as well as Chapter 9 of the Health and Safety Code of California. These assets can only be used for law enforcement purposes and are intended to supplement, not replace or reduce, normal appropriations for the operation of the Department. A special fund, titled "Hermosa Beach Police Department Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Fund", shall be established to record the receipts and disbursements of the seized and forfeited assets. A separate account, titled "Special Investigations", shall be established to record all expenditures necessary for the operation of a narcotics/vice investi- gation program. A budget for expenditures necessary for this program will be formulated in accordance with the established budgetary processes currently utilized in the City. Expenditures made from the Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Fund and/or the Special Investigations account will be made in accordance with the City's established purchase procedures. The City Treasurer may invest money from the fund in short or long term interest earning accounts in order to increase the amount of the fund. All interest earned from investments of money from the fund shall be credited to the fund. Non-cash assets forfeited to, and used by the Hermosa Beach Police Department will be recorded as fixed assets according to the City's established procedure. The use or sale of seized vehicles will be subject to Council approval upon recommendation by the Director of Public Safety. Proceeds from the sale of seized vehicles or property will be deposited into the Hermosa Beach Police Department Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Fund. A monthly financial report, showing all interest, expenditures and receipts from or to the fund will be submitted to the City Council each month by the Finance Department. PROCEDURE: All money received by the Police Department through United States Code 18 and 19, and Chapter 9 of the California Health and Safety Code will be deposited into the Hermosa Beach Police Department Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Fund. 5-15-90 1 Non -money assets distributed to the Police Department will be appraised and will be recorded within the City's fixed asset system. the intent to retain or dispose of non -money assets will be submitted by the Director of Public Safety to the City Manager for approval within thirty days- of receipt of such assets. In order to have funds available to serve as a "flash" roll to 'show' a suspected criminal that we have the money to purchase illegal merchandise, the Treasurer will assure that there is a minimum of $20,000 available in the fund at all times. The amount of money necessary will be released to the Director of Public Safety, or other personnel authorized by the Director, by a check drawn on the fund. The Director of Public Safety is authorized to approve any amount, up to $20,000, for flash purposes, and will be responsible for the return of the money at the earliest possible time. Requests for amounts larger than $20,000 will be approved by the City Manager. The Finance Department and the Treasurer's office will expedite all such requests in order to facilitate criminal investigations. In order to have funds readily available for the purpose of purchasing evidence such as narcotics and stolen merchandise, the Police Department shall maintain a cash account of $3,000. When expenditures are made from this account, the Director of Public Safety will submit a memo to the Finance Department showing amounts expended and the associated case or file number of the expenditure for periodic reimbursement of the account through normal demand and warrants procedures with a check to the Director of Public Safety, drawn on the Forfeiture Fund. 5-24-90 2 June 1, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council June 12, 1990 PROJECT TOUCH LEASE AGREEMENT (ROOM 11) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by staff that Council approve the attached agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and Project Touch to lease Room 11 in the Community Center. BACKGROUND Project Touch presently leases Room C, Room 11 and 3 in the Community Center. They have been tenants in the Center since October, 1979. They have served Hermosa, Redondo and Manhattan Beach city's high risk youth and their families for 15 years. Project Touch is a juvenile diversion program whose services include social and educational enrichment, counseling, meals, wilderness challenge camping and stepteen/stepfamily groups. ANALYSIS The lease space for Room 11 is 400 sq. ft. with a monthly rental of $308. ($.77 sq. ft.) This attached lease confirms to the present square footage rental policy (approved by City Council on March 19, 1990) with all other conditions of the former lease remaining the same. Their residency in the Community Center has been of great value in addressing a vital social service function for Hermosa Beach. Concur: Mary . i Toney, Director Dep . of Community Resources evin B. Northcr-ft City Manager 1 Respectfully subm' ted, /.`7 / Marsha Ernst Administrative Aide Dept. of Community Resources Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Director Finance Department ig HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER LEASE AGREEMENT This Leasing Agreement is made and entered into on this, the 12th day of June 1990 , by and between the City of Hermosa Beach, a Municipal Corporation (City) and Project Touch (Lessee). A. RECITALS: 9 1. The City is the owner of a recreational/civic service facility generally referred to as the Hermosa Beach Com- munity Center (referred to herein as the "facility"). 2. The facility is subject to certain agreements and deed restrictions entered into on the 28th day of February 1978, between the City and the Hermosa Beach City School District and is further subject to certain provisions imposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment as set forth in a document entitled Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Property and dated the 28th day of February 1978. These documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City and are public documents and by reference are incorporated into this leasing agreement and are referred to herein as the HUD and SCHOOL DISTRICT AGREEMENTS. 3. The Lessee desires to use a portion of the facility on the terms and conditions set out herein. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. TERM. The term of this lease shall be for a period of one (1) year commencing on the 1st day of July ,1990 , and ending on the 30th day of June ,1991 2. DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES. The Lessee is leasing from the City that portion of the facility described as: Room 11 400 sq. ft. 3. RENT. Lessee agrees to pay to the City rent ac- cording to the following schedule: July 1, 1990, to June 30, 1991: $308/mo. $.77 sq. ft Payable on the first day of the month. If this lease commences on a day other than the first day of the month, then the Lessee shall pay upon the commencement of the lease the rental on a pro rata basis for the remainder of that month and commence a full rental pay- ment on the first day of the following month. 1 3A. OTHER CONDITIONS. The following additional condi- tions are agreed to by the Lessee: 1. Lessee shall not mark, drill or deface any walls, ceilings, floors, wood or iron work without Lessor's written consent. 2. No signs or awning shall be erected or maintained upon or attached to the outside of the premises except such signs showing the business of the Lessee. All such signs shall be in accordance with the policy established by the Lessor. 4. USE. The Lessee agrees to use the premises only for the following purpose or purposes: Counseling services And for no other purpose without the express written consent of the City. Lessee also agrees the premises shall not be used in violation of the Depratment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or School District Agreements as those agreements are interpreted by either the City or the Hermosa Beach City School District or the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 5. INSURANCE LIABILITY. Lessee shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this agreement Comprehensive General and Automobile Liability insurance protecting Lessee in amounts not less than $1,000,000 for personal injury to any one person, $1,000,000 for injuries arising out of any one occurrence, and $1,000,000 for property damage or a com- bined single limit of $1,000,000. Such insurance shall name City of Hermosa Beach and their officers, employees, elected officials and members of Boards or Commissions as additional insured parties. Coverage shall be in accordance with the sample certificates and endorsements attached hereto and must include the coverage and provisions indicated. Lessee shall file and maintain the required certificate(s) of insurance with the other party to this agreement at all times during the term of this agreement. The certificate(s) is to be filed prior to the commencement of the work or event and should state clearly: (1) The additional insured requested; (2) Thirty day prior notice of change or cancellation to the City of Hermosa Beach; (3) Insurance is primary to that of the Additional Insured; (4) Coverage included; (5) Cross -liability clause. WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE. Lessee shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this agreement Work- er's Compensation and Employers Liability insurance and fur- nish the City (or Agency) with a certificate showing proof of such coverage. Such insurance shall not be cancelled or materially changed without a thirty (30) day prior written notice to: City Manager, City of Hermosa Beach. INSURANCE COMPANIES. Insurance companies must be rated (B:XIII) or better in Best's Insurance Rating Guide. 6. CONDITION OF THE PREMISES UPON TERMINATION OF THE LEASE. Lessee agrees to keep and maintain the premises in good con- dition and repair and to return to the City the premises upon termination of this lease in the same condition as when Les- see took possession of the premises excepting any repairs or alterations which were approved by the City, reasonable wear and tear excepted, and does promise to pay the City upon de- mand the reasonable sums to repair the premises in the event of a violation of this provision. 7. CONSTRUCTION. Lessee is prohibited from making any al- terations or performing any construction whatsoever on the premises without the expressed written approval of the City. Any such approval shall include provisions to protect the City from potential liens of labor and material persons. 8. DESTRUCTION, PARTIAL DESTRUCTION OR NECESSITY TO REPAIR BECAUSE OF CONDITIONS CAUSED BY OTHER THAN LESSEE. The City has no duty or obligation to reconstruct the premises in the event of destruction or partial destruction of the premises. The City at its option may reconstruct or repair the prem- ises, whereupon this lease shall remain "in full force and effect except that no rent will be owing to the City during said period of reconstruction or repair if such reconstruc- tion or repair interferes with the tenancy created herein to the extent that the premises cannot be used for the purposes intended. In the event the City at its sole discretion determines not to reconstruct or repair the premises then either party at its option may cause this lease to be termi- nated and neither party shall have any liability each to each other. 9. HOLD HARMLESS. Lessee shall hold harmless and indemnify the City, its officers, agents and employees from every claim or demand which may be made by reason of any injury and/or death to persons and/or injury to property caused by any di- rect or indirect act or any omission of the Lessee, its of- ficers, agents and employees arising out of the lessee's use of said premises. The lessee, at its own cost, expense and risk shall defend any and all actions, suits or other pro- ceedings that may be brought or instituted against the City on any such claim or demand and pay or satisfy any judgment that may be rendered against the Lessor on any such action, suit, or legal proceedings as a result hereof. 3 10. RULES, REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES. The Lessee agrees to comply strictly with all applicable laws and any uniform Com- munity Center rules and regulations adopted by the City Council. 11. TAXES AND CHARGES. Lessee agrees to pay when due any and all taxes, assessments or charges levied by any governmental agency on or to the lease -hold premises. 12. DEFAULT. Should Lessee fail to pay any monies due pur- suant to this lease within three days after written notice from the City or to perform any other obligation required pursuant to the terms of this lease within thirty days after notice from the City, City may immediately cause this lease to be terminated and thereafter take any action and pursue all remedies available under the laws then existent in the State of California. 13. NOTICE. Any notice required to be made or given pur- suant to the provisions of this lease may be either personal- ly served upon the party or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, LESSOR: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY HALL 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 LESSEE: Project Touch 710 Pier Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attn: Julie Dorr Feys Any notices so given pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph will be deemed served twenty-four hours after the deposit thereof in the United States mail. 14. ATTORNEYS FEES. The parties agree that in the event any action is instituted concerning any of the provisions of this lease agreement, the prevailing party may in the discretion of the court be granted as an additional item of damages its attorneys fees. 15. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Lessee may not assign or sublease all or any portion of the premises without the writ- ten consent of the City, which consent may be granted or de- nied at the exclusive and total discretion of the City. 16. SUCCESSORS. Subject to prior provisions, this lease is binding upon the heirs, assigns and successors of interest of the parties. 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Hermosa Beach Community Center Lease Agreement at Hermosa Beach on the day first hereinabove set forth. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CKA,,L._ CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a Municipal Corporation, Lessor By CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY DATE: LESSEE: 5 June 1, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council June 12, 1990 TO APPROVE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES, INC. FOR SPACE IN THE COMMUNITY CENTER RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by staff that Council approve the attached lease agreement with the Los Angeles County Bar Association Dispute Resolution Services for the use of Room 6B in the Community Center. BACKGROUND Dispute Resolution Services has leased Room 6B in the Community Center since October, 1988. Their current lease which conforms to the present square footage lease for Community Center rooms will expire on June 30, 1990. Dispute Resolution Services received a 50% discount on lease rental from October 1, 1988 to May 1, 1990 as they had agreed to share the space with Job Partnership Training Act for that period. They are currently being charged the full lease rate. ANALYSIS The recommended lease is for a period of one year (through June 30, 1991). The rate for FY 1990-91 will be $.77 per square foot, making the lease payments $154 per month until July 1, 1991 when the rate will increase to $.80 per square foot. DRS has proven to be dependable and cooperative tenants and have made all lease payments as requested. The attached agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney and matches with all standard leases for the Center. DRS provides a service whose goal is to resolve local disputes in order to improve community and neighborhood relations and to circumvent potentially escalating conflicts. It is important to clarify that while DRS has requested $9,000 from the City's general fund for FY 1990-91, this agenda item is for lease renewal only and should be considered separately from the budget request. 1 ih Attachments: Lease Agreement Brochure Kevin B.' North raft City Manager 2 Respectfully Submitted, Mary ooney, Director Dep . of Community Resources Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Director Finance Department HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER LEASE AGREEMENT This Leasing Agreement is made and entered into on this, the 12th day of June 1990 , by and between the City of Hermosa Beach, a Municipal Corporation (City) and Los Angeles County Bar Assoc. Dispute Resolution Services, Inc. (DRS) (Lessee). A. RECITALS: 1. The City is the owner of a recreational/civic service facility generally referred to as the Hermosa Beach Com- munity Center (referred to herein as the "facility"). 2. The facility is subject to certain agreements and deed restrictions entered into on the 28th day of February 1978, between the City and the Hermosa Beach City School District and is further subject to certain provisions imposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment as set forth in a document entitled Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Property and dated the 28th day of February 1978. These documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City and are public documents and by reference are incorporated into this leasing agreement and are referred to herein as the HUD and SCHOOL DISTRICT AGREEMENTS. 3. The Lessee desires to use a portion of the facility on the terms and conditions set out herein. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. TERM. The term of this lease shall be for a period of 1 year commencing on the 1st day of July ,1990 , and ending on the 30th day of June ,1991 2. DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES. The Lessee is leasing from the City that portion of the facility described as: Room 6B, 200 Sq. Ft. 3. RENT. Lessee agrees to pay to the City rent ac- cording to the following schedule: $ 154/mo. Payable on the first day of the month. If this lease commences on a day other than the first day of the month, then the Lessee shall pay upon the commencement of the lease the rental on a pro rata basis for the remainder of that month and commence a full rental pay- ment on the first day of the following month. 1 3A. OTHER CONDITIONS. The following additional condi- tions are agreed to by the Lessee: 1. Lessee shall not mark, drill or deface any walls, ceilings, floors, wood or iron work without Lessor's written consent. 2. No signs or awning shall be erected or maintained upon or attached to the outside of the premises except such signs showing the business of the Lessee. All such signs shall be in accordance with the policy established by the Lessor. 3. Room 6B is to be occupied by lessee Monday/ Wednesday/Friday from 12:00 noon to 5:00 p.m. and Tuesday/Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. 4. USE. The Lessee agrees to use the premises only for the following purpose or purposes: Mediation Program And for no other purpose without the express written consent of the City. Lessee also agrees the premises shall not be used in violation of the Depratment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or School District Agreements as those agreements are interpreted by either the City or the Hermosa Beach City School District or the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 5. INSURANCE LIABILITY. Lessee shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this agreement Comprehensive General and Automobile Liability insurance protecting Lessee in amounts not less than $1,000,000 for personal injury to any one person, $1,000,000 for injuries arising out of any one occurrence, and $1,000,000 for property damage or a com- bined single limit of $1,000,000. Such insurance shall name City of Hermosa Beach and their officers, employees, elected officials and members of Boards or Commissions as additional insured parties. Coverage shall be in accordance with the sample certificates and endorsements attached hereto and must include the coverage and provisions indicated. Lessee shall file and maintain the required certificate(s) of insurance with the other party to this agreement at all times during the term of this agreement. The certificate(s) is to be filed prior to the commencement of the work or event and should state clearly: (1) The additional insured requested; (2) Thirty day prior notice of change or cancellation to the City of Hermosa Beach; (3) Insurance is primary to that of the Additional Insured; (4) Coverage included; (5) Cross -liability clause. 2 WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE. Lessee shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this agreement Work- er's Compensation and Employers Liability insurance and fur- nish the City (or Agency) with a certificate showing proof of such coverage. Such insurance shall not be cancelled or materially changed without a thirty (30) day prior written notice to: City Manager, City of Hermosa Beach. INSURANCE COMPANIES. Insurance companies must be rated (B:XIII) or better in Best's Insurance Rating Guide. 6. CONDITION OF THE PREMISES UPON TERMINATION OF THE LEASE. Lessee agrees to keep and maintain the premises in good con- dition and repair and to return to the City the premises upon termination of this lease in the same condition as when Les- see took possession of the premises excepting any repairs or alterations which were approved by the City, reasonable wear and tear excepted, and does promise to pay the City upon de- mand the reasonable sums to repair the premises in the event of a violation of this provision. 7. CONSTRUCTION. Lessee is prohibited from making any al- terations or performing any construction whatsoever on the premises without the expressed written approval of the City. Any such approval shall include provisions to protect the City from potential liens of labor and material persons. 8. DESTRUCTION, PARTIAL DESTRUCTION OR NECESSITY TO REPAIR BECAUSE OF CONDITIONS CAUSED BY OTHER THAN LESSEE. The City has no duty or obligation to reconstruct the premises in the event of destruction or partial destruction of the premises. The City at its option may reconstruct or repair the prem- ises, whereupon this lease shall remain in full force and effect except that no rent will be owing to the City during said period of reconstruction or repair if such reconstruc- tion or repair interferes with the tenancy created herein to the extent that the premises cannot be used for the purposes intended. In the event the City at its sole discretion determines not to reconstruct or repair the premises then either party at its option may cause this lease to be termi- nated and neither party shall have any liability each to each other. 9. HOLD HARMLESS. Lessee shall hold harmless and indemnify the City, its officers, agents and employees from every claim or demand which may be made by reason of any injury and/or death to persons and/or injury to property caused by any di- rect or indirect act or any omission of the lessee, its of- ficers, agents and employees arising out of the lessee's use of said premises. The lessee, at its own cost, expense and risk shall defend any and all actions, suits or other pro- ceedings that may be brought or instituted against the City on any such claim or demand, and pay or satisfy any judgment that may be rendered against the Lessor on any such action, suit, or legal proceedings as a result hereof. 10. RULES, REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES. The Lessee agrees to comply strictly with all applicable laws and any uniform Com- munity Center rules and regulations adopted by the City Council. 11. TAXES AND CHARGES. Lessee agrees to pay when due any and all taxes, assessments or charges levied by any governmental agency on or to the lease -hold premises. 12. DEFAULT. Should Lessee fail to pay any monies due pur- suant to this lease within three days after written notice from the City or to perform any other obligation required pursuant to the terms of this lease within thirty days after notice from the City, City may immediately cause this lease to be terminated and thereafter take any action and pursue all remedies available under the laws then existent in the State of California. 13. NOTICE. Any notice required to be made or given pur- suant to the provisions of this lease may be either personal- ly served upon the party or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, LESSOR: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY HALL 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 LESSEE: Los Angeles County Bar Assoc. Dispute REsolution Services 2830 Pico Blvd. Santa MOnica, CA 90405 Any notices so given pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph will be deemed served twenty-four hours after the deposit thereof in the United States mail. 14. ATTORNEYS FEES. The parties agree that in the event any action is instituted concerning any of the provisions of this lease agreement, the prevailing party may in the discretion of the court be granted as an additional item of damages its attorneys fees. 15. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Lessee may not assign or sublease all or any portion of the premises without the writ- ten consent of the City, which consent may be granted or de- nied at the exclusive and total discretion of the City. 16. SUCCESSORS. Subject to prior provisions, this lease is binding upon the heirs, assigns and successors of interest of the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Hermosa Beach Community Center Lease Agreement at Hermosa Beach on the day first hereinabove set forth. 4 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: (11,4,,L ,(rte CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a Municipal Corporation, Lessor By CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY DATE: LESSEE: 5 v June 4, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council June 12, 1990 REQUEST OF FUNDING FROM SOUTH BAY HOSPITAL DISTRICT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRE-EMPTION ON PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, CIP 86-176 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letter requesting funding from the South Bay Hospital District for Traffic Signal Pre-emption on Pacific Coast Highway. Background: This City project proposes to install traffic control pre-emption devices at all signalized intersections on Pacific Coast Highway. These devices will change the signals to green for the traffic on Pacific Coast Highway when an emergency vehicle is approaching the intersection, thus improving traffic flow and safety. Plans and specifications have been prepared. The City Council authorized the staff to advertise this project for bids on January 24, 1989. In a staff memorandum to the City Council on June 27, 1989, the Director of Public Works recommended that this project be delayed until after Caltrans completes their Pacific Coast Highway Traffic Signal Interconnect Project which is under construction at this time. The City's Traffic Signal Pre-emption project, CIP 86-176, is included in the present FY 89-90 Budget. However because the State project is not completed, the City funds will not be expended in this fiscal year. The City project is being rebudgeted for a year from now in the FY 91-92 Budget. Analysis: Since the pre-emption devices will improve the safety and reduce the response time of emergency vehicle operation, the South Bay Hospital District should have an interest in this project. Both Manhattan Beach to the north of our City and Redondo Beach to the south of our City have pre-emption devices already in operation on the Pacific Coast Highway. Installation of pre-emption devices on the Pacific Coast Highway within the City of Hermosa Beach would allow for consistent, safer and quicker traffic flow of emergency vehicles. Fiscal Impact: Funding Source: Amount Budgeted: State Gas Tax, 1991-92 Budget Year $70,468 Outside funding received from the Hospital District or any other source would reduce the State gas tax money required for this project. A copy of the proposed CIP budget sheet is attached for information. Alternatives: An alternative considered by staff and available to City Council is: 1. Do not request funding from the South Bay Hospital District. Respectfully Submitted, 7_;,e,r,.: ,4 Brian Gengler Assistant Engineer Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Director of Finance Attachment ty/hosp Concur: Lynn%A. Terry Deputy City Engineer A Antich Director of Public Works City Manager City o 1 ermosa T eackv • y� `• it June 12, 1990 Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 South Bay Hospital District 700 North Pacific Coast Highway Suite 206 Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Attention: Mr. Phillip Valera, District Administrator Dear Mr. Valera: The City of Hermosa Beach has prepared plans and specifications to install traffic control pre-emption devices at all signalized intersections on the Pacific Coast Highway. These devices are designed to receive an optical signal from an approaching emergency vehicle which turns the signal to green in the direction of the emergency vehicle and red for the cross -traffic. Installation of these devices will be consistent with existing operational sections along Pacific Coast Highway (Sepulveda Boulevard) in Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach. The City feels that this would benefit all South Bay residents as it would improve emergency vehicle traffic safety and reduce response time to medical emergencies. However, funding of this project is not available in the next fiscal year. Therefore, on behalf of the City of Hermosa Beach, I am requesting a contribution from the South Bay Hospital District to fund this project. The total need for the project is estimated at $70,468. Please indicate if any funding is available. Your efforts on behalf of the residents of the South Bay are greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Roger Creighton Mayor, City of Hermosa Beach ty/hosp1et CIP 86-176 TRAFFIC CONTROL PRE-EMPTION EXPENDITURES PROJECT ELEMENTS EXPENDED PRIOR TO FY89-90 BUDGET FY89-90 EXPENDED THRU 2/28/90 ESTIMATED EXPENDED 6/30/90 ESTIMATED BALANCE 6/30/90 BUDGET FY90-91 BUDGET FY91-9Z ESTIMATED FUTURE NEEDS ESTIMATED PROJECT TOTAL FY92-93 FY93-94 FY94-95 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING 0 0 PLANS, SPECS & ESTIMATES 8,264 0 8,264 CONSTRUCTION 63,813 0 63,813 63,813 63,813 INSPECTION 0 0 OTHER DIRECT COSTS 0 0 SUBTOTAL ' 8,264 63,813 0 0 63,813 0 63,813 0 0 0 72,077 CONTINGENCY 6,655 6,655 6,655 6,655 TOTAL EXPENDITURE (8,264 570,468 SO SO 570,468 SO 570,468 SO SO SO 578,732 June 1, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council June 12, 1990 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE NEW LOCATION FOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FARMERS' MARKET RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by staff that Council approve the change in location for the Chamber of Commerce Farmers' Market scheduled to open in July, 1990. BACKGROUND At the April 16 meeting, City Council approved the request from the Chamber of Commerce to run a Farmers' Market on Parking Lot C to begin in July, 1990 (see attached agenda item) for a 6 month trial period. Since that time, the Chamber has been attending to the details of organizing the Market including hiring a director and arranging for clean-up and insurance details. At a meeting that included the Chamber, City Staff and representatives from Allright Parking, it was determined that moving the Market to the first half of 13th Street west of Hermosa Avenue would be more desirable. ANALYSIS The recommended change would include placing barricades on 13th Street at Hermosa Avenue and diverting traffic to Parking Lots B and C through the alley (Beach Drive) as is done at the Fiesta de las Artes (see attached map). Barricades would also be placed midway on 13th Street to enclose the market area for pedestrians. Allright Parking has agreed to provide 1/2 hour of free parking for Market shoppers. A validation procedure will be agreed upon between the Chamber and Allright Parking. As Council has already approved the waiving of parking meter fees on 13th Street west of Hermosa Avenue, no additional parking spaces would be required with the change. In addition to providing a more aesthetically pleasing market, the new proposed location would leave the Lots completely available for market shoppers and potentially displaced (with the former location) downtown employees and/or residents. It is also suggested that pedestrians may have much more convenient access to the market than they would in Lot C in which pedestrian access would be in the same direction as vehicles. This could prove to be important from a safety standpoint. Barricading 13th Street as recommended has proven to be successful at the Fiesta where crowds greatly outnumber the anticipated market goers. 1 Y As directed by Council, the Farmers' Market in Hermosa Beach is on a 6 -month trial period. It is projected that during this time period, staff and the Chamber will be able to evaluate and address where necessary what changes would be appropriate to insure the success of the event. Moving the Market to 13th Street is one such suggestion. Other alternatives available to Council include: 1) Retain original approved location: East half of Lot C 2) Suggest an alternative location. Respectfully submitted, Concur: Steve Wisniewski Public Safety Director 2 Mar De Rooney, Director of Community Resources April 16, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council April 24+, 1990 FARMERS' MARKET RECOt1MENDATION It is recommended by staff that Council approve and direct the Chamber of Commerce in their efforts to initiate a Farmers Market in downtown Hermosa Beach. Staff further recommends the following as detailed in the analysis below: . Approve market as a "special event" per Section 22-5 of the Municipal code for six month trial period (waive fees) . Conditional Use Permit after six month trial (waive fees) . Business License (for Southland Farmers' Market Association) . $1 million general liability insurance . Indemnity clause . Market location: East half of parking lot C . Waive meter enforcement 13th Street meters west of Hermosa Avenue from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on market days . Hold Chamber responsible for clean-up and associated costs . Waive fees for banner permits BACKGROUND The Chamber of Commerce has requested permission to hold a weekly Farmers' Market in downtown Hermosa Beach beginning in July, 1990 (see attached). This proposed activity would take place on Mondays from 10:00 am - 2:00 pm on the east half of Parking Lot C (located on 13th Street west of Hermosa Avenue). The concept behind a Farmers' Market is that items are grown by the farmers and sold directly to the consumer. The Chamber will utilize the services of Southland Farmers' Market Association which is a non-profit, certified organization which means that County Agricultural Commissioners have certified each seller's produce as being farm direct (see attached). ANALYSIS City staff has investigated this request. Listed below are the areas that the Chamber should address in presenting this activity as well as a review of what the City of Torrance and Redondo Beach have done to facilitate their own markets. 12 (A) Planning Department: City staff suggests that the market be operated as a "special event" under section 22-5 of the municipal code for a six month trial period. During this time, it can be added as a permanent permitted use with a CUP (and an EIR required if staff review indicates need). It is recommended that all applicable permit fees for the above be waived. The City of Torrance (Farmers' Market is City -run) prepared an EIR _which they noted was particularly non -controversial. The City of Redondo Beach handles the market as a "street fair activity." They made no changes in city codes and did not require a Planning Commission review. As they interpreted that there was no construction and no project they did not notify the Coastal Commission about the market. (B) Business License: Staff suggests that a single business license be obtained by the Southland Farmers' Market Association as opposed to charging each participating vendor. The City of Torrance amended a City Code in order to exempt the farmers from paying license fees. The City collects 5% of gross proceeds from each stall. The City of Redondo Beach does not charge business license fees to the farmers. (C) Insurance: Staff would suggest that the market provide liability insurance as is standard with other special events ($1 million naming the City as additional insured) and an indemnity clause for use of the property. As other Farmers' Markets have received claims, it would be advisable to require the above. The City of Torrance requires $1 1/2 million general liability for the market. The City of Redondo Beach requires $1 million in general liability insurance from Southland Farmers' Market Association. (D) County Health Codes: The County has health codes related specifically to farmers' markets. Requirements are not stringent but do include providing restrooms within 200'; no animals; keeping food 6" from ground; and sterilized utensil requirements for sampling. Staff has requested this information from the County. 2 (E) Clean up: The Chamber's assigned market manager should be responsible to see that the premises are clean after each market day. It may be necessary to have a special cleaning with a street sweeper after each market day as is done in both Torrance and Redondo Beach. Currently, Allright Parking is responsible for lot clean-up. It is recommended that the Chamber make arrangements with them for sweeping. City crews will attend to 13th Street as regularly scheduled. (F) Parking: Parking lot requests will need to be addressed to Allright Parking. The east half of Parking Lot C seems to be an appropriate location for this kind of activity because the lot is rarely full during those weekday hours. The west half of the lot would remain available for parking. The Chamber may also request free parking for the 13th Street meters west of Hermosa Avenue, which could be done at Council discretion. (G) Security: The market should have a manager on duty at all times who can be contacted by City staff should security concerns arise. No notable security problems were reported by Torrance or Redondo Beach. (H) Publicity: Staff suggests the City assist in publicizing this event with the City newsletter and by waiving fees for banner permits as well as proclaiming the opening day as "Farmers' Market Day" at the appropriate Council meeting. The popularity of farmers' markets is growing rapidly. Both Torrance and Redondo Beach have been pleased with and successful at these markets (Torrance has been doing this for 5 years and Redondo Beach for 10). Average attendance at the Torrance market is 5,000 while Redondo Beach claims 1,000-2,000 depending on the season. The Chamber of Commerce is hoping that this market will attract visitors to the downtown area as well as provide a wholesome activity for residents. They have committed to funding the market which will likely take time to develop and the City would do well to support their efforts in bringing the project to fruition. Concur: evin B. Northc aft City Manage Respectfully submitted, Mary Dept oney, Director Community Resources Michael Schubach Planning Departm ii-tettA.A/Wa-e--4:44%, Bill Grove, Director ob Blackwood Risk Manager Building Department 3 'rector HERMOSA BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 323 PIER AVENUE/P.O. BOX 404 HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 (213) 376-0951 To: City Manager Kevin Northcraft From: Wesley D. Bush Subject: Farmer's Market April 11, 1990 The following matters need to be addressed as the next step toward the goal of opening our Farmer's Market in July: 1. Negotiate with parking lot operator to waive fees in Lot C on the day of the market from 8am to 4pm. 2. Negotiate to bag parking meters on 14th Street from 9am to 3pm the same day. Chamber will furnish bags. 3. Contact BFI relative to having dumpster available in the vicinity on market day. 4. Notify Coastal Commission of our plans. 5. Notify County Board of Health. 6. Notify Public Safety Department. 7. Arrange for Public Works Department to put up and remove Farmers Market banner. Chamber will furnish banner. 8. Proclamation for Farmer's Market Week. Any assistance in coordinating these efforts will be appreciated. Chamber is handling insurance through Bichlmeier Insurance. Arrangements for rest room facilities will be worked out with a neighboring restaurant. Clean up will be taken care of by the Chamber. Copy: Mary Rooney Mayor Roger Creighton ....�..M .,.. r..........� ,..�.�.......r... This brochure is provided in preparation for your visit to a Certified Farmers' Market. Markets are located on a variety of sites: Church parking lots, school premises, and even blocked -off streets. The markets are set up once a week usually for, four hours. For your convenience, a list of markets with their locations, hours of operation, and managers has been enclosed. WHAT IS A CERTIFIED FARMERS' MARKET? The concept behind the Certified Farmers' Market is that all items are grown by the farmer and brought directly to you, the consumer. In cooperation with the County Agricultural Commissioners around the state, each grower is certified as the actual producer thus as a consumer you can be assured of California -grown produce. We encourage you to inquire with the farmer about his/her operation. Each grower takes pride in discussing their work with you and in turn you can appreciate even more the products of their efforts. PRICES As a shopper at the Certified Farmers': Market you can expect to save 20- 30% in your purchases. Surveys have '. indicated this is possible due to Direct Marketing regulations applicable to Certified Farmers' Markets which exempt growers from labeling, and standard packaging. By direct marketing, farmer -to -consumer, growers do not have to incur certain costs and this, in turn, means savings to you. Remember that only California -grown products are sold at the markets saving transportation costs which contributes to lower prices for the consumer. QUALITY Quality at the markets is ensured in various ways. First, in cooperation with the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner, inspectors visit the markets and inspect both the grower's certification and their products. These are .'the same inspectors who maintain quality at all retail stores. This helps to maintain quality standards plus assure the continued participation of only farmers. In addition, Southland Farmers' Market Association market managers do meet for quality control workshops. This is an in- house training which helps managers have a continued awareness of quality and seasonal availability of crops. WHO OPERATES THE MARKET? Markets may be sponsored by a local community group or by the city in which the market is located. The sponsoring group is responsible for directing the market manager. In addition, each market has both a community and farmer representative who serve on the Southland Farmers' Market Asso- ciation Board of Directors. COMPLAINTS If you should have any complaints concerning your purchase, feel free to approach the grower about your situation. There are also market managers at each location that are available to answer any questions you may have. Lastly, the Southland Farmers' Market Association who is responsible for coordinating all member -markets may also be contacted. Your input will benefit all markets. • SOUTHLAND FARMERS' MARKET ASSOCIATION "Direct from the farm to the consumer." . (213) 749-9551 LOS ANGELES COUNTY ALHAMBRA— Sundays, 9:00 am - 1:00 pm Chico Street near Garfield and Maln - BELL— Sundays 10:00 am - 2:00 pm 6312 Atlantic Ave. between Gage and Randolph GARDENA— Saturdays, 6:30 am - 12 Noon 13000 Van Ness Avenue just south of El Segundo Blvd. LOS ANGELES— Wednesdays. 2:00 pm - 5:00 pm 1432 West Adams Blvd. at St. Agnes Church POMONA— Saturdays, 7:30 am - 11:30 am corner of Pearl and Garey Ave. FROM THE FARMER TO CONSUMER At a Southland Certified Farmers' Market you buy directly.froM the farmer. In fact, the person :handling your purchase isusually the person who grew it! ; _Any questions about selecting,=preparing.; or.: preserving: your: fresh ` food? Ask:, the person .who: knows the best:=The:_.Farmer!' Most.:ofour farms are family owned and»- operated..By'eliminating the middle man, these families are able to gain a foothold against today's hard times. while you can expect an average savings f 20-30%! REDONDO BEACH— Thursdays, 10:00 am - 2:00 pm End of Torrance Blvd. at the Redondo Beach pier *SAN FERNANDO VALLEY— Saturdays. 7:00 am - 10:00 am 14400 Van Nuys Blvd., west of the 5 freeway • *SANTA MONICA— Wednesdays, 10:00 am - 3:00 pm intersection of Arizona and 2nd SOUTHGATE— Mondays. 9:00 am - 1:00 pm Southgate Park, corner of Tweedy and Walnut VENICE— Fridays, 7:00 am - 10:30 am corner of Pacific Ave. and Venice Blvd. WEST HOLLYWOOD— Mondays, 10:00 am - 2:00 pm 7377 Santa Monica Blvd. at Plummer Park The Southland Farmers' Market Associ- ation is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization dedicated to bringing the farmer and consumer together for the benefits of direct marketing. SAN DIEGO COUNTY CORONADO— Thursdays. 3:00 pm - 7:00 pm 7th and Orange, next to Visitor's Center. ESCONDIDO— Tuesdays, 4:00 pm - 8:00 pm Grand Ave. between Broadway and Maple NORTH COUNTY— Wednesdays, 10:00 am - 1:00 pm 3660 Sunset Drive, 2 blocks east of 115 off Via Rancho Parkway ilei. For more information about a market near you call: (213) 749-9551 PACIFIC BEACH— Saturdays, 8:00 am - 12 Noon The Promenade -on Mission between Reed & Pacific Beach Blvd. *call for time and location after April 1st. FRESH FOOD Our farmers bring food fresh from their fields directly to you, and freshness means good nutrition. Vegetables, fruit, eggs, fish, nuts, honey and fresh cut flowers are all at the peak of their season. . Bring new life to your favorite recipes: use farm fresh produce from your Southland Certified Farmers' Market! THE MARKETS Rain or shine, our markets are open year 'round. You can expect a shopping day like no other: warm, friendly, relaxed and filled with an outdoor, festive atmosphere! Certified means that our farmers must meet the standards of the California Deparment of Food and. Agriculture includ- ing quality and assurances that the food is California grown, direct from the farmer. —We accept food stamps— 'A "rt •7 � June 1, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council June 12, 1990 RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE REPORT ON CONTRACT INSTRUCTORS FOR RECREATION CLASSES RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by staff that Council receive and file this report. BACKGROUND At the May 8th meeting, staff was directed to return to City Council with a report regarding contract recreation classes. There was concern by Councilmember Midstokke that there may be inequity in the compensation of instructors who teach the various courses for the City as their fees are based solely on enrollments and class fees. ANALYSIS To date, the City of Hermosa Beach Community Resources Department has provided the new and growing list of recreation classes by utilizing the contract method of securing class instructors. This method is used in many cities as a means to protect the municipality from subsidizing classes that should in fact be supported by user fees. That is, classes and instructors are scheduled and fees established based on the going rate for each type of class. Then the City collects the fees and pays the contract instructors a percentage and keeps a percentage to help defray the administrative costs of running the program. As the instructors are contractors and not employees, they have greater responsibility to insure the success of the classes as their compensation is tied directly to the popularity of the class and to the demand for the particular type of instruction. This market approach further enables the instructors to provide more innovative classes where possible. As an example, our volleyball instructor brings in (and pays) guest teachers and assistants to enable him to meet the demands of the high class 1k I enrollments. Essentially this means that the compensation provided to the volleyball instructor is being paid to more than one individual. In the interests of encouraging the growth of our relativity new program of recreation classes, the percentage breakdown to date has been 80/20 with the instructors receiving 80% of all fees collected for their particular class. As is evidenced in the warrants, this has resulted in payments ranging from $23/hr to $147/hr for an 8 week class. An examination of the contract class fees collected to date (fiscal year 1989-90) shows that the administrative overhead (estimated to be $5,000 for Fall and Spring, 1990) incurred by the City has been offset by administrative fees by 70% ($3,500 collected) to date. This puts program subsidy at 30% for the two sessions. This City subsidy has been an important factor in piloting our new program of classes. Now, however, with the success and growth of our Hermosa Beach classes, staff is investigating some new possibilities. The difficult balance in nurture the growth of new classes (i.e., percentage doing so is continue to if the City took more than 20% from a class with low enrollments, instructors would unlikely to stick with the program) while increasing the administrative percentages for highly successful ones. currently working on a tiered percentage program to be established beginning in the fall that would increase the administrative percentage to 30-40% for fees collected for classes with an excess of 15 students. be Staff is An examination of surrounding cities indicates that the administrative percentages range from 20-30% for contract classes. The City of Lakewood has 300 recreation classes and has been using the 80/20 formula but is currently investigating increasing administrative costs to 30%. The City of Manhattan Beach utilizes the contract method, however, they negotiate various hourly rates with instructors rather than using a set percentage ratio. Lawndale uses the 80/20 percentage approach. Redondo Beach and Torrance do not utilize the contract method of 2 payment; rather they hire instructors at an hourly rate as part time employees. It is notable that the size of their programs (Redondo Beach and Torrance) have resulted in some instructors working for extensive part time hours thereby making the classification of contractor a more difficult issue. It is also notable that hourly rates for instructors vary greatly depending on the nature and popularity of the class as they do with the contract method. Staff feels that utilizing the contract method of payment has enabled the City to obtain superior instructors who have a stake in the success of their classes. Furthermore, contracting for classes allows the City to make more flexible arrangements with the private sector for services and classes. A recent example would be the aquatic activities scheduled in the SportCenter for this summer which have been arranged contractually for a percentage lower than 80% in order to enable the City to pay for a lifeguard and to collect some administrative fees. In approaching recreation classes, the following alternatives are available for instructors: TYPE PAYMENT METHODS AVAILABLE Contract Payroll Percentage Hourly Flat Fee Hourly Respectfully Submitted, Mary C./'ooney, Director Dep . +f Community Resources Concur: Noted for Fiscal Impact: i / - i Kevin B. Northcraf City Manager 3 Viki Copeland, Director Finance Department June 5, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council June 12, 1990 APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS COUNTY AUDIT OF PARKING CITATION SURCHARGE Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Appropriate $103,239 from the General Fund Designation for Court Fines for payment of the citation surcharge to the County of Los Angeles. 2. Return the designated balance of $1,066 to the General Fund unappropriated fund balance. Background The County of Los Angeles Audit Division performed an audit of the $3 surcharge on parking citations in October 1989 for the period 1984 through 1989. The City Manager and Finance Director met with the auditors in March after receiving a letter requesting payment of $104,305. Detailed audit records were requested for verification. The amount of $104,305 was designated at Midyear Budget Review pending verification of audit work and review by the City Attorney. Analysis The Government Code requires a payment of $3 to the County of Los Angeles for each parking citation bail collected. Funds are used for courthouse and criminal justice facility construction. The City has not been paying the surcharge on citations paid at the DMV, therefore $3 for each citation is due to the County. The Finance Department has reviewed the audit workpapers and found that the correct amount owed is $103,239 rather than $104,305. The County confirmed this amount on May 24, 1990. The City Attorney has reviewed the Government Code, as indicated in the attached memorandum and indicates that the County can validly attempt to recover the unpaid surcharge. Written procedures have been developed regarding payment of the surcharge to the County which should alleviate any confusion about future calculations of the amount due. Viki Copeland, Finance Director. Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager 11 THOMAS W. STOEVER WILLIAM B. BARR CHARLES S. vOSE CONNIE COOKE SANDIFER ROGER W. SPRINGER EDWARD W. LEE HERIBERTO F. DIAZ JAMES DUFF MURPHY JANICE R. MIYAHIRA LAW OFFICES OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1000 SUNSET BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 (2131 250-3043 MEMORANDUM TELECOPIER (2131 482-5336 BY FAX To Viki Copeland, Finance Director City of Hermosa Beach From : 'Charles S. Vose, City Attorney Date April 10, 1990 Re Hermosa Beach Parking Revenue Owed to County Statute of Limitations Issue As I have previously indicated to you, we have been unsuccessful in finding any legal authority which would support a position that the County cannot recover its share of parking ticket revenues since 1983 on the basis of a statute of limitations argument. Government Code Section 76001 and 76004 govern the deposit of funds derived from parking revenues. The code also states that the deposit of the funds shall "continue for 20 years after the initial year of collection." Obligations imposed by statutes normally have a ten-year statute of limitation, however, it would appear that the specific language of this statute would allow recovery for up to 20 years. It would appear, assuming that the County's audit is correct, the County may validly attempt to recover its portion of the fees which should have been paid since 1983. Should you have further questions or require additional information concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. CSV:ilf cc: Kevin Northcraft, City Manager MARK M. OLOODGOoO AUOITOII•CONTNOLLLR DANIEL O. IKEMOTO AISISTANT AUOITOA•CONTROLL[A COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES / AUDITOR -CONTROLLER •AUDIT DIVISION 320 WEST TEMPLE STREET, SUITE 380 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90012 (213) 974-0311 April XX, 1990 Mr. Mark H. Bloodgood Auditor -Controller 525 Hall of Administration DRAFT _AP_R 0 51990 REce APR 0 91990 J. TYLER McCAULEY, CMIEr AUDIT OIVI/ION Dear Mr. Bloodgood: Review of Parking Citation Revenue We have completed our review of parking citation revenue processing by cities, districts and agencies that have elected to process their own parking citations. Our review included visits to 17 cities/districts and three agencies who process their own parking citations or contract with a vendor for these services. In addition, we reviewed the records of a contract agency that processes parking citations for the City and County of Los Angeles. The purpose of our review was to determine if these entities were complying with Government Code Sections 76191 and 76192 (formerly Government Code Sections 76001 and 76004) which require: - A two dollar and fifty cent distribution to the County for each parking citation filed with the courts. - A three dollar distribution to the County for each parking citation collected by each city, district or agency that elects to process their own parking citations. This revenue is to be deposited in the Robbins Courthouse Construction Fund and the Criminal Justice Facility Temporary Construction Fund. In addition, we conducted a review of Lockheed Information Management System's contracts with the City of Los Angeles and the County to ensure that parking citations are processed in accordance with the contract agreement and that revenues are received timely. DRAFT - 2 - Summary of Findings Our review disclosed that eleven cities underpaid the County a total of $169,931 (Exhibit A) and four cities overpaid the County $63,906 (Exhibit B) for parking citation revenues paid directly to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Under or overpayment letters were sent to each of these entities on January 18, 1990 and April 4, 1990. In addition to the above findings, we noted that Lockheed Information Management System does not input and disposition citations within a 48 hour period in accordance with provisions in the County contract. We have included recommendations in the Comments and Recommendations section of this report which, if implemented, would improve control and accountability over parking citation revenue collections. These recommendations are directed to the municipal courts that contract with Lockheed IMS and those entities listed in Exhibits A and B. Review of Report We discussed our findings with representatives from each city and Lockheed Information Management Systems. They... We also discussed our findings andrecommendations with the municipal courts that encompass each entity listed in Exhibits A and B. They... Very truly yours, Approved for Release: J. Tyler McCauley Chief, Audit Division JTM:WE:lr PW/PKLTRBG William Eng Chief Accountant -Auditor c: Mr. Edward Hayes, Lockheed Information Management System Mr. Tim R. Aguilar, Compton Municipal Court Ms. Carrolle P. Aldrich, Citrus Municipal Court Mr. Christopher Crawford, South Bay Municipal Court Ms. Linda DeRossett, Pomona Municipal Court Mr. John Gomez, Los Cerritos Municipal Court Mr. Edward M. Kritzman, Los Angeles Municipal Court Ms. Mary Robles, Santa Anita Municipal Court Mr. Joe Sharar, Southeast Municipal Court Ms. Jo Ann K. Ta'a, Rio Hondo Municipal Court DRAFT Comments and Recommendations Background Government Code Sections 76191 and 76192 (formerly sections 76001 and 76004) require: - A two dollar and fifty cent distribution to the County for each parking citation filed with the courts. - A three dollar distribution to the County for each parking citation collected by each city, district or agency that elects to process their own parking citations. This revenue is to be deposited in the Robbins Courthouse Construction Fund and the Criminal Justice Facility Temporary Construction Fund. These funds were established to provide a source of revenue to be used for the construction, improvement, operation, or maintenance of criminal justice and court facilities. When defendants do not pay their fine by the appearance date, the issuing agency or court can request a "hold" to be placed on the vehicle's registration renewal by the State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). When the DMV collects on the hold, it remits the net amount (less an administrative fee) to the court or issuing agency that requested the hold. When DMV remits the net amount collected to the court, the court retains three dollars for each citation paid for deposit into the construction funds. The remainder is distributed according to the county/city percentage identified in Penal Code Section 1463. If DMV remits the net amount collected to the issuing agency or contractor, the agency or contractor remits three dollars for each citation paid to the court for deposit into the construction funds. Unremitted Revenue We reviewed the parking collection records of sixteen cities, three colleges/universities and a contractor to determine if all parking collections are accounted for and construction fund revenues are properly calculated and submitted to the appropriate court in a timely manner. Our review identified 11 cities that underpaid the County a total of $169,931. These cities are listed in Exhibit A along with the amount owed to the County. DRAFT 2 _ These underpayments occurred because the cities did not properly calculate and allocate construction fund monies on parking citation revenues collected by them and/or the DMV. To ensure the proper and timely distribution of revenue to the construction funds, the Southeast, South Bay, Santa Anita, Rio Hondo, Pomona, Los Cerritos, Compton and Citrus municipal courts need to monitor agency collections. Specifically, these courts need to ensure that: 1. Construction fund payments are submitted monthly. 2. Payments are supported by adequate documentation. 3. Distributions from DMV collections include the proper allocations to the construction funds. Recommendations The Courts monitor agency collections to ensure that: 1. Construction fund payments are remitted monthly. 2. Payments are supported by adequate documentation. 3. Distributions from DMV collections include the proper assessments and allocations to the construction funds. Construction Fund Overpayments The Revenue Distribution Report is a statistical report provided to all agencies under contract with Lockheed Information Management Systems (IMS). This report lists the total number of citations issued, outstanding and paid (to the contractor, city or DMV) and is used by the agencies to calculate total collections and the amount due the courts for the construction funds. DMV payments are included even if the revenue is remitted to the court. DMV "holds" are placed on an individual's vehicle registration if a parking citation remains unpaid by the citation due. date. Once a DMV hold has been placed, the vehicle cannot be registered until the fine has been paid at DMV. Court codes are identification numbers DMV gives to courts, cities or agencies to identify holds issued and to accumulate revenue under the appropriate court, city or agency. Collections received at DMV for cities or agencies which do not have their own court code are recorded under the court code of the appropriate municipal court. These collections (less an administrative fee) are later forwarded to the court. Our review identified four cities (Carson, Covina, South Gate and Vernon) that overpaid the construction funds a total of DRAFT - 3 - $63,906 for parking citation revenue collected by the DMV. These cities do not have their own court code. The overpayments were the result of distributions to the construction funds by both the cities and the courts. To ensure the accuracy of revenue distributions to the construction funds, the courts need to instruct the cities and/or agencies in their jurisdiction, that do not have their own court codes, to discontinue submitting construction fund revenues on DMV collections. In addition, the courts should redistribute the $63,906 overpayment to the appropriate cities as shown in Attachment B. Recommendations The Courts: 4. Instruct those cities and/or agencies in their jurisdiction, who do not have their own court codes, to discontinue submitting construction fund revenues on DMV collections. 5. Redistribute the $63,906 overpayment to the appropriate cities as shown in Attachment B. Lockheed Information Management System (IMS) Contract Background Lockheed Information Management System (IMS) contracts with certain agencies (cities and County) to process and disposition citations and, for some entities, collect payments and process refunds. Basic contract agreements include entering data from citations, sending notices to registered owners, interfacing with the DMV, providing on-line access to the parking database and providing statistical reports (citations issued and paid; collections by the vendor, city, court and DMV) to the users. Citation Input and Dispositions We reviewed Lockheed's records of citations input and dispositioned for the City and County of Los Angeles to determine if they were processed in a timely manner. We tested 100 citations issued between June 1985 and November 1989. We determined that: - Approximately 15 days lapsed before Los Angeles County citations were input on the parking database and approximately four (4) days lapsed before dispositions were entered. - Approximately five (5) days lapsed before Los Angeles City citations were input on the parking database. - 4 - DRAFT The contract between Lockheed and the County of Los Angeles requires citations to be input and dispositions entered on the contractor's system within 48 hours. The contract between Lockheed IMS and the City of Los Angeles does not state specific time limits for entering original citations and dispositions on the system. Not inputting citations on the system in a timely manner delay the posting of payments by the receiving agency. The agency would have to enter the citation information into the system before they could record the payment. Dispositions which are not input on the system in a timely manner could result in an increase in the amount of bail due if the payment is not posted by specified time periods. To ensure that appropriate citation information is available to users in a timely manner, the courts should ensure that Lockheed IMS enters citations and dispositions on the Automated Parking Citation System within the required time limits specified in the contract agreement(s). In addition future contract agreements should specifically state required time limits for entering and dispositioning parking citations on the system. Recommendations The Courts ensure that: 6. Lockheed IMS enters citations and dispositions within the required time limits specified in the contract agreement(s). 7. Future contract agreements specifically state required time limits for entering and dispositioning parking citations on the contractors system. Refunds Lockheed IMS prepares and submits parking citation refund requests to the Los Angeles Municipal Court when it is determined that a refund is due the payer. The Court requires the refund request to be processed and issued within five working days. Our review of thirty refund requests prepared by Lockheed IMS for Los Angeles Municipal Court disclosed the following: - Eight requests had not been approved by the contractor before they were submitted to the Court for payment. - The average delay between the date the refund was requested and the date the request was approved by Lockheed was approximately 11 days. - 5 - DRAFT - The average delay between the date the refund was approved by Lockheed and the date it was received at the Court was approximately 40 days. In addition, we noted that Lockheed deposits City of Los Angeles overpayments in the City's bank account but makes no attempt to notify the citation payer of the overpayment. Pursuant to Senate Bill 766, interest is to be paid on deposits of bail not returned within 60 days after a dismissal, finding of not guilty, or identification that a duplicate deposit was made. To ensure the propriety of refunds, reduce the potential of increased County costs and ensure compliance with the contract, the Courts should ensure that all refund requests received from Lockheed have been properly approved. In addition, the Courts should ensure that approved reimbursement requests from Lockheed are submitted to the Courts within five days of their approval and that citation payers are notified, in writing, of overpayments. Recommendations The Courts ensure that: 8. Refund requests received from Lockheed IMS have been properly approved. 9. Approved reimbursement requests from Lockheed IMS are submitted to the Courts within five days of their approval. 10. Citation payers are notified, in writing, of overpayments. DRAFT Cities, Districts, and Agencies That Under -Reported Parking Citation Revenue Municipal Court and/or Contractor South Bay EXHIBIT A City, District, or Agency Amount Hermosa Beach $104,305 Lawndale 22,386 Gardena 4,867 Total $131,558 Los Cerritos Bellflower $ 24,993 Cerritos 1,698 Lakewood 888 Total $ 27,579 Compton Compton $ 4,026 Southeast Bell Gardens $ 3,558 Citrus Glendora $ 1,341 Rio Hondo El Monte $ 1,038 Pomona San Dimas $ 831 Grand Total $169,931 DRAFT Cities, Districts, and Agencies That Overpaid Parking Citation Revenue Municipal Court and/or Contractor Southeast EXHIBIT B City, District, or Agency Amount South Gate $ 28,647 Vernon 2,301 Total $ 30,948 Compton Carson $ 21,639 Citrus Covina $ 11,319 Grand Total $ 63,906 June 7, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of June 12, 1990 RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE NOTICE OF POLICE COMMANDER LAVIN'S ACCEPTANCE INTO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ACADEMY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council receive and file this report. BACKGROUND: The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been conducting training on a national basis for members of state, county, military and local law enforcement agencies since 1935. This program is called the National Academy and became international when it was opened to law enforcement personnel from friendly foreign countries in 1962. The training is conducted at the F.B.I. academy located in Quantico, Virginia and is an intensive eleven week program with emphasis placed on advanced law enforcement management and leadership. Each department benefits greatly from the knowledge and expertise that is gained by the employee at the academy. The National Academy is a very prestigious school and competition is keen for admittance into the program. Because of the limited number of positions available, the process takes in excess of four years from time of application before consideration is given. Expenses for the academy are paid in full by the F.B.I. The only cost borne by the City is the employee's salary. We are pleased to announce that Commander Mike Lavin has been selected to attend the next session of the academy beginning in September. Commander Lavin will become the second employee in the history of the Hermosa Beach Police Department to be selected to attend the academy. Noted: evin B. North aft, City Manager sec dull S fitted, Steve Wisniewski Director of Public Safety �m ef June 5, 1990 City Council Meeting June 12, 1990 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 90-1035- "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION 29-13(c) TO SECTION 29-13 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING CURBS, GUTTERS AND SIDEWALKS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SUGGESTED ROUTE TO SCHOOL STREETS AT THE TIME OF PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT." "Submitted for adoption is Ordinance No. 90-1034, relating to the above subject." At the meeting of May 22, 1990, this ordinance was introduced by the following vote: AYES: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Respectfully submitted, City Clerk Concur: hcr. t, City Manager 1/2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 90- 1035 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA ADDING SECTION 29-13(c) TO SECTION 29-13 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING CURBS, GUTTERS AND SIDEWALKS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SUGGESTED ROUTE TO SCHOOL STREETS AT THE TIME OF PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT. WHEREAS, there is a large number of lineal feet of street where curbs, gutters and sidewalks are missing on the suggested route to school streets; WHEREAS, children on their way walking to and from school have to walk on the street pavement in those areas where there is no sidewalk; WHEREAS, property development is occurring throughout the City; WHEREAS, property being developed at this time can delay the construction of the curbs, gutters and sidewalks until some future time if certain conditions exist. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby ordain as follows: That Section 29-13(c) which reads as follows shall be added to the Municipal Code: This section does not apply if the property is located on one of the suggested route to school streets. The curbs, gutters and sidewalks are required to be constructed by the property owner at the time of development or improvement and shall not be delayed. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance change shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said City, and shall make the minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and 1 adopted. 2 Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date 3 of its adoption, the CIty Clerk shall cause this ordinance change 4 to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general 5 circulation, published and circulated in the City of Hermosa 6 Beach, California. 7 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 8 9 PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of 10 Hermosa Beach, California 11 12 ATTEST: 13 14 , CITY CLERK 15 16 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 17 18 ((JL- , D vim{ CITY ATTORNEY 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 June 6, 1990 City Council Meeting June 12, 1990 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 90-1031 - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE THE AREA LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN 18TH STREET AND 20TH STREET FROM R-3 MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION." The above referenced ordinance was adopted with no objections at the meeting of May 22, 1990. Due to an error in the legally - required publication of said ordinance, and to ensure its validity, it is requested that Council re -adopt Ordinance No. 90-1031 so that it may be re -published to meet the requirements of Government Code Section No. 36933. At the meeting of May 8, 1990, this ordinance was introduced by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Concur: Kevin B Essertier, Midstokke, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton Sheldon None None Northcra ,'City Manager - 1 - Respectfully submitted, Zb ORDINANCE NO. 90-1031 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE THE AREA LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN 18TH STREET AND 20TH STREET FROM R-3 MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 24, 1990, to receive public testimony regarding Zone Change 90-1, Northern Portion of the Commercial Corridor, which included consideration of a zone change for the property located between 18th and 20th Street on the east side of Pacific Coast Highway, and made the following findings: A. Rezoning the subject property to commercial is not appropriate for the subject area because of the existing residential character and surrounding single-family residential character; B. Rezoning the subject property to R-2 will prevent the construction of commercial projects which would potentially impact adjacent residential neighborhoods; C. The character of residential development allowed under R-2 zoning would be compatible with surrounding residential development; NOW, THEREFORE,the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain that the zoning map be amended as shown on the attached maps and described as follows: SECTION 1. Rezone the area located on the east side of Pacific Coast Highway between 18th Street and 20th Street from R-3 Multi -Family Residential to R-2 Two -Family Residential, legally described as follows: 18th Street - 19th Street: Lots 1-3, inclusive, Parcel Map 38-45; Lots 26-28, inclusive, Block 1, Johnson and Newman's Camino Real Tract; Lots 1,3,4,5, Tract No. 6054 19th Street - 20th Street: Lots 62-64, inclusive, Tract 2548; Lots 1-3, inclusive, Tract 8456 SECTION 2. Amend Ordinance No. 89-1004 regarding the moratorium on the issuance of building permits for the "Multi -Use Corridor" to exclude the above described properties rezoned by this ordinance. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. 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 Easy 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 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. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY a/persnc 3 8 0 RDEA N NO. 8476 B. 99-13 NO. 2548 - _ B 25-28 • r \40 RHODES yet 1-11A/k, S. R-3 ia R• z 19TH ST 49 1 SHEET 2 34 SO O 48 47 46 O 45 0 44 • 15 0 43 15 / /50 • ti ,u 4 N 76.36 I „ 5 /50 . C1 6 /50 40 40 /a7 26 27 28 1514 )) )4 25 15 BL 24ti 25 `v `. Z3 22 21 20 19 ti18- --- -- -- c/rr \ 75 1 aT H ST. RHODES I Z 11: S'7 N,4 2 J iJ�— G o « do. ,r4 Z 111 owl A-, z1 • ZCt u . F Al O �IEz in z OC 2- I--1 o sr < rj v 4s CQUNTY • O, '.1 4)1 Jim Lissner 2715 El Oeste Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 376-4626 June 6, 1990 City Council City Hall Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Honorable Councilmembers: Last night the Manhattan City Council held their hearing about Manhattan Grande Plaza. They made some small changes to the project, and then approved it. The council replaced the parking on the south curb of Tennyson, although they put a 2 hour limit on it. So instead of a loss of 40 to 50 curbside spaces, it will be 30 to 40. Since I last wrote to you I've become aware that the developer of the Safeway site, DJM, now has a sports club tenant for half of th. 25,000 foot existing building and, yesterday, filed the plans to go ahead with the construction of the two additional 6000 foot buildings. I talked to Dan McFarland of DJM and he intends to be quite vigorous about towing -away "parking poachers" (my term) from his lot - so the Safeway lot will no longer be available for overflow from Hope Chapel, PJ Bretts, Vasek Polak, Cigna, Cassidys, and Manhattan Grande. DJM also intends to make formal arrangements with Coast Savings to use their lot, after 4 p.m., for overflow parking for his development. This will end Bretts informal arrangements for the use of that. lot and will put even more pressure on curbside parking. Regarding traffic, I am enclosing pages from the Manhattan Grande EIR which give counts before and after the project. The EIR discloses (pages 4 & 6) that there will be "significant impacts at the intersections of Sepulveda/Longfellow and Sepulveda/Artesia." Manhattan pushed aside our suggestions (reduce the footage of the development, install two lefts from Artesia to PCH) as to how these impacts could be mitigated without removing Hermosa's westside parking. (Two lefts would divert most Redondo drivers from westbound Gould, and these 32 cars (7% of the projected 455), would offset, or mitigate, the 25 cars that Manhattan Grande will be adding to westbound Gould.) I've enclosed a chart which shows the percentage increases on Gould, Longfellow, and Prospect. Manhattan also did not fully mitigate the traffic impacts on their own, the Manhattan Beach side of the street; when they made their Statement of Overriding Considerations they blamed our westside parking for their inability to do so (Resolution 90-8, page 1, enclosed). CEQA section 15093 (enclosed) requires that the resolution contain a discussion as to -how the benefits of the project outweigh the adverse effects, and Manhattan's resolution contains no statement of the benefits at all - in my opinion, because they could not think of any benefits that would outweigh the numerous bad effects. CEQA section 15094 states a 30 day limit for a court challenge to this projact. I've enclosed a recent clipping about Lawndale vs. Hawthorne, a similar situation where the little guy has done quite well. You'll note that the decision in that case offers us the possibility that Manhattan could be required to produce a single EIR that would consider the cumulative impacts of Manhattan Grande, the Safeway project (which, while approved last Fall, will not commmence construction for another few weeks), and even possibly the Hillview Plaza project. Please note also that Manhattan Grande alone is projected to have 5900 car trips per day, which is over twice what the Breeze article shows for the Mattel project in Hawthorne. Thank you for revviewing this material. Sincerely, Enclosures: Addendum to the Response to Comments Regarding the Draft EIR Concerning Manhattan Grande Plaza, pages 4-6 and Appendix, figs. 1 & 2. Chart, "MGP Traffic Impact on Hermosa." Manhattan Resolution 90-8, page 1. CEQA Sections 15093, 15094. Lawndale vs. Hawthorne clipping, Daily Breeze 5-31-90. II. Revised Traffic Mitigation Plan Full Barricade With Tennyson/Sepulveda Signal Based on the letter from Caltrans dated April 11, 1990, the traffic mitigation program for the proposed development can now include installation of a full traffic signal at the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Tennyson Street. The analysis presented below discusses the traffic conditions which would be expected after project completion rim under the proposed traffic mitigation plan, of which the p primary features would include: Sepulveda/Tennyson movements; - install two-phase signalization permitting all traffic • Sepulveda/Artesia - install southbound dual left turn lanes; Tennyson Street - complete closure (to through traffic) of Tennyson Street west of Chabela Drive. Effected project -related and total future traffic volumes with implementation of this traffic mitigation plan are shown in Figures 1 and 2 within Appendix A, respectively. In addition, Figure 3 within Appendix A verifies that the anticipated traffic volumes at the Tennyson/Sepulveda intersection meet the "peak hour volume" warrant for signalization. Intersection Levels of Service Anticipated levels of service (LOS) at the critical intersections resulting from this particular mitigation strategy are presented in Table 1. The traffic analysis of this mitigation strategy indicates that the intersections of Sepulveda/Longfellow and Sepulveda/Artesia would be expected to operate better than without mitigation cIn could remain at LOS E and F, respectively.og ,but the i Sepulveda/Tennyson would operate at the borderline bettweenn,LOS Ent and coon of Although the intersection of Prospect/Artesia would show somewhat poorer o rats F. the LOS at this intersection would remain within acceptable limits (LOS D). Ions, Specifically, the proposed project Sepulveda/Longfellow and Sepulveda/Artesia inter ecdtionsignificantly operations antly impact overall ing the peak hour Volume -to -Capacity (V/C) ratio by approximately 4% and 3%irespectively. State Clearinghouse No: 89-010012 4 Addendum to Res rise to Comments - April 27, 1990 1 II. Proposed Traffic Mitigate` Signalized Intersection Sepulveda Boulevard & Longfellow Drive Sepulveda Boulevard & Artesia Boulevard Artesia Boulevard & Prospect Avenue Unsignallzed Intersection Sepulveda Boulevard d Tennyson Street Notes: Table 1 CUMULATIVE BASE PLUS PROJECT WITH MITIGATION PM PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH PROP05ED WITH ADDITIONAL EXISTING CUMULATIVE BASE WITH PROJECT MITIGATION (3) MITIGATION Ratio 1.05 Ratio 1.0S Ratio IAS Ratio LOS Ratio IAS 0.80 C 0.87 D 0.95 E 0.91 E 0.64 B 1.02 F 1.13 F 1.17 F 1.16 F 0.90 D/E 0.68 8 0.75 C 0.79 C 0.84 D 0.84 D Reserve Reserve Reserve Movement Capacity LOS • Capacity LOS Capacity LOS V/C Ratio LOS V/C Ratio LOS WB Right 790 A 738 A 651 A 1.00 E/F 0.70 B/C SB Left 130 0 43 E -81 F 1. Signalized intersection V/C calculated using CMA method adjusted to 1600 veh/hr base capacity. 2. At step -controlled intersection, LOS values refer to conditions for movements that yield to other traffic. Major street traffic moves freely; WB Left prohibited. 3. Proposed Mitigation: Full Signal - Sepulveda/Longfellow; Street Closure - Tennyson w/o Chabela; Dual South Bound Left Turn Lanes - Sepulveda/Artesia. Also assumes existing cut -through traffic will be diverted from Tennyson to turn at Sepulveda/Artesia. 4. "Additional Mitigation" includes installation of,third southbound through lane on Sepulveda Boulevard from Longfellow Drive through Artesia Boulevard. Source: Kaku and Associates, April 1990 State Clearinghouse No.: 89-010012 5 Addendum to Response to Comments - April 27, 1990 II. Revised Traffic Mitigation Plan The conclusion of significant impacts at these intersections reflects the criteria established by the City's Public Works Department which states that project traffic impacts are considered significant if a project increases an intersection's V/C ratio by more than 2% when an intersection is operating at either an LOS E or worse before or after project implementation. In addition to significant impacts at the intersections of Sepulveda/Longfellow and Sepulveda/Artesia, installation of the traffic signal at the Sepulveda/Tennyson intersection would result in an additional significant impact since the intersection would be functioning at a LOS of E/F upon implementation of this mitigation measure. Although the project would significantly impact a total of three intersections along Sepulveda. installation of a third southbound through lane on Sepulveda would reduce project impacts upon all intersections to acceptable levels. However, the City of Hermosa Beach has indicated that they are not willing to cooperate with regard to the installation of a third southbound through lane on Sepulveda. Therefore, the project's significant impacts upon the intersections of Sepulveda/Longfellow, Sepulveda/Artesia, and Sepulveda/Tennyson cannot be successfully mitigated within the timeframe of this project's processing and therefore project approval requires adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Furthermore, the need for efficient operation of the proposed traffic signal at Sepulveda/Tennyson also dictates that the signal be synchronized with the existing signal at Sepulveda/Artesia. This will help ensure that neither signal will cause traffic backups through the other intersection. Residential Area East of the Site In addition to the traffic analysis presented above, supplemental traffic counts have also been taken in the vicinity of Keats Street and are presented in Appendix A. This count data verifies that, similar to Tennyson Street, there is a substantial volume of eastbound traffic on Keats Street during the afternoon peak. In addition, the data also verifies that the morning peak does not show a substantial volume in the reverse direction. As an alternative means of reducing "cut -through" traffic in the residential area east of the site, it has been suggested that southbound left turns should be prohibited from Sepulveda Boulevard at Keats Street during the PM peak. Such left turn prohibition would be undesirable for the following reasons: State Clearinghouse No: 89-010012 6 Addcndum to Response to Comments - April 27, 1993 Q w 1 U >. a� Q O a 5 Longfellow 10 Keats Tennyson Gould 0 L wt TO SCALE LEGEND XX=PM Peak Hour Volume '1 I Project Driveways 1 275 —1 Tennyson PROJECT SITE 10s .• 1Q Shelley 0 t— 110 .4— 80 60 —• "4- X.,) 30 —� -o CO 60 1 .4— 65 Krum ASSOCIATES Figure 1 PROPOSED PROJECT TRAFFIC — WITH MITIGATION ALT IV 0) Q 0) 0 0 0 up 0 N (V Ln 1-I t-30 - 15 i 25 ca U a) 0) Q - (Q p Longfellow Keats Tennyson i 10 -� t0 —. ' 45 i 0 0 • HOT TO SCALE 75 -7 350 45-4 LEGEND XX = PM Peak Hour Volume '1 it o 'ntip n tn n 0 -r ('J PROJECT SITE •, 200 190 Shelley r In 0 0 .' N A — 435 '— 455 , 265 0 Cr -o 0 o' O n- s �o Artesia o g ijL. • 100 1130 - 235 45 1080 180 N KnccuASSOCIATE s � Figure 2 CUMULATIVE BASE PLUS PROPOSED PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Manhattan Grande Plaza (MGP) Traffic Impact on Hermosa The figures in this chart are drawn from Appendix A, figs. 1 and 2 of City of Manhattan Beach "Addendum to the Response to Comments Regarding the Draft EIR Concerning Manhattan Grande Plaza," dated April 27, 1990. A B C D Cumul. MGP Cumul. MGP Base + Traffic Base % Incr. MGP (A -B) (B/C) Gould, west 1045 55 990 6% of PCH, both directions Prospect, south 1025 60 965 6% of Artesia, both directions Longfellow, west 160 30 130 23% of PCH, both directions Gould, right turns 60 25 35 70% from southbound PCH onto westbound Gould Jim Lissner, June 6, 1990 RESOLUTION NO. PC 90-8 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL BUILDING CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 56,000 SQUARE FEET INCLUDING A 2 -LEVEL SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE, ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 600 SOUTH SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH (H. E. Jenkins and Erlinger Development) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Manhattan Beach conducted a public hearing pursuant to applicable law to consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit for the property legally described as portions of Lots 6 and 7, Block 2, of the Seaside Park Tract, located at 600 South Sepulveda Boulevard in the City of Manhattan Beach; and, WHEREAS, the applicants for said Conditional Use Permit and Zone Variance are H. E. Jenkins and Erlinger Development, owners of the subject property; and, WHEREAS, public hearings regarding this matter were advertised pursuant to applicable law, and testimony was invited and received, initially on February 14, 1990, and continued to February 28, 1990, March 14, 1990, March 28, 1990, and May 2, 1990; and, WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act by Planning Consultants Research (PCR) under direction of the Department of Community Development of the City of Manhattan Beach; and, WHEREAS, the EIR, in its final form, includes the following: 1. Draft EIR dated December 1989, 2. Written comments and responses, including Addendum. 3. Minutes from Planning Commission public hearing, 4. Revised traffic mitigation plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has received and considered the information contained in the Final EIR; and, WHEREAS, the Final EIR concluded that the project will have a significant impact on the environment, given the fact that at the present time the City of Hermosa Beach will not permit the installation of a third southbound through lane on Sepulveda Boulevard as noted in Condition 26(a). Should this improvement be implemented, the resulting level of service of the intersections of Sepulveda Boulevard and Artesia Boulevard, Sepulveda Boulevard and Longfellow Drive, and Sepulveda Boulevard at Tennyson would be improved to levels which have been determined by the City's Public Works Department to the acceptable. The Planning Commission hereby adopts this finding as a Statement of Overriding Considerations because of the denial of this lane by the City of Hermosa Beach; and, WHEREAS, the development of the total site will be regulated by the conditions of approval set forth and contained within this resolution; and, housing project by reducing the number of housing units if the agency determines that there is another mitigation measure available that would provide a comparable level of mitigation. Even though this limitation is contained in the statute, it is included here in order to make this section complete and to identify the limitation at the relevant step of the process. If agencies are not made aware of this provision through the Guidelines, many agencies will be likely to overlook the limitation. The result could be increased litigation over permits and a reduction in the number of housing units that may be con- structed in the state. Statement of 15093. Overriding (a) CEQA requires the decision -maker to balance the ben - Considerations efits of a proposed project against its unavoidable envi- ronmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes a finding under Section 15091(a)(2) or (a)(3). (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding con- siderations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco, (1975) 48 Cal. App. 3d 584; City of Carmel -by -the -Sea v. Board of Supervisors, (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 84. Formerly Section 15089. Discussion: This section is necessary to codify the requirement from case law that when an agency approves a project which will have an adverse environmental effect, the agency must make a statement of its views on the ultimate balancing of the merits of approving the project despite the environmental damage. This requirement was originally traced to case law interpreting NEPA. The San Francisco Ecology Center case clearly established this balancing statement as a require- ment under CEQA. The City of Carmel -by -the -Sea decision showed that this balancing statement is required even though an agency makes findings as to the feasibility of mitigation measures under Section 21081 of the Statute. 116 C Notice of Determination Subsection (c) identifies the importance of preserving the statement in the record of project approval. Mentioning the statement in the Notice of Determination will help anyone concerned with the project to find the notice. The section also helps to show that the statement is not a part of the EIR. The statement is prepared, if at all, at the end of the process after the final EIR has been completed. 15094. (a) The Lead Agency shall file a Notice of Determination following each project approval for which an EIR was considered. The notice shall include: (1) An identification of the project including its common name where possible and its location. (2) A brief description of the project. (3) The date when the agency approved the project. (4) The determination of the agency whether the project in its approved form will have a significant effect on the environment. (5) A statement that an EIR was prepared and certified pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. (6) Whether mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project. (7) Whether findings were made pursuant to Section 15091. (8) Whether a statement of overriding considerations was adopted for the project. (9) The address where a copy of the final EIR and the record of project approval may be examined. (b) If a state agency is the Lead Agency, the Notice of Determination shall be filed with OPR. (c) If a local agency is the Lead Agency, the Notice of Determination shall be filed with the county clerk of the county or counties in which the project will be located. If the project requires discretionary approval from a state agency, the Notice of Determination shall also be filed with OPR. (d) The filing of the Notice of Determination and the posting on a list of such notice starts a 30 -day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA. 117 Lawndaie wins ruling on Hawthorne projects 3 90 By Dirk Broersma STAFF WRITER. The city of Lawndale scored a big legal victory today in its battle over huge development plans in neighboring Haw- thorne when a judge tentatively ruled the study of potential traffic problems was not adequate. The decision could jeopardize Haw- thorne's ambitious plans for two devel- opments on Rosecrans Avenue near the San Diego Freeway. It comes just two months after Haw- thorne officials scrapped a settlement agreement with Lawndale that called for $500,000 in street improvements. "It's good news if you're a Lawndale fan," said Robert Owen, assistant city attorney for Lawndale. Hawthorne wants to develop a 36 -acre hotel -office complex at the former Mat- tel toy company site and a large office complex just west of the freeway. But city officials in Lawndale fear the ver, because she problem to the after Fellows ime the compa- type of work - lawsuit in six s arrived, Gras - 'n had received Tit increase of in her depart- egged to be pro- t manager. - ,.ed working at 1984, and al- ely started mak- .nces toward Bi - ii said. She complained to three different AT&T officials about the situa- tion, but action wasn't taken, he said. In December 1984, Bihun took disability leave because of stress-related ailments. Fellows, meanwhile, resigned to work in real estate in Arizona. When Bihun returned to work in early 1985, she was demoted to a sales position and told that in a year her salary might be de- creased by $16,000, Grassini said. She went on disability leave again, then resigned. In Decem- ber 1985, she filed suit. LaWntIage--- large developments near the city horde: will further clog local streets with traffic Torrance Judge Pro -Tem Abrahan Gorenfeld said the cumulative effect o the two projects on local streets needs tc be examined. He called for additional oral argu ments in the case June 20. EIR could force changes If the ruling stands, Hawthorne would be required to complete an environmen- tal impact report that examines the tota; effect of the two developments. The city ultimately could have to provide exten- sive improvements to area streets or sig- nificantly reduce the size of the develop- ments. Hawthorne officials could not be reached for comment today. Owen said it is unlikely that Haw- thorne could change the judge's. mind during the last -chance oral arguments. LAWFIDALE/A4 FROM PAGE A3 acc gar acc -an( try. • pen acc: Ed wa: dar 15 Oct igni ferc Ree fact ..to 1 beii gens "It would take a lot to over- turn this tentative ruling," he said. ..• Following approval by Haw- thorne officials of the Mattel project last year, angry Lawn - dale council members decided to sue their neighbors to the north. . Some Lawndale officials have complained the developments will generate significant tax rev- enue for Hawthorne but leave Lawndale stuck with much of the traffic and congestion. Earlier this year, it appeared the cities had reached an agree- -IERS: Whether you're an NIE veteran or a new kid on the block... Our summer workshops have something new for you ment calling for improvements to intersections along Rosecrans Avenue, :Inglewood Avenue, Hawthorne Boulevard and Ma- rine Avenue. The improvements included road widening and better traffic signals. But Hawthorne officials called the settlement too gener- ous and killed the agreement in March. The Mattel project alone is expected to generate about 2,300 additional car- trips per day — about 25 percent through Lawndale. YHanci TH1 TI -1 June 4, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council June 12, 1990 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-5 LOCATION: 931 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY - MOBIL OIL CORPORATION APPELLANTS: COUNCILMEMBERS MIDSTOKKE AND WIEMANS PURPOSE: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL TO ALLOW THE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION/SNACK SHOP WITH NEW GASOLINE PUMPS, A SNACK SHOP, AND A SELF-SERVICE AUTOMATIC CAR WASH Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the decision of the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions as contained in the attached P.C. Resolution. Background At their meeting of May 1, 1990, the Planning Commission granted the subject Conditional Use Permit subject to several conditions as contained in the attached Resolution. This decision was made after conducting public hearings and discussion at four separate Planning Commission meetings. The Planning Commission modified staff recommended conditions by requiring an 8 -foot wall rather than 6 -feet along the rear property line, requiring a stacking lane for 5 cars rather than 8 cars, and to off -set the south entrance driveway 10 feet from the westerly property line rather than 16.5 feet. For further background please refer to the attached -Planning Commission staff reports and minutes. Analysis The applicant has submitted a revised site plan, included in your packet, which depicts the layout of the site in accordance with the conditions of the Planning Commission approval. Staff has reviewed the plan and determined that it is consistent with the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. The primary concern of staff, the Planning Commission, and nearby residents in regards to this request was related to the noise impact of the car wash. A service station/snack shop already exists on the site, and therefore, the replacement of these portions of this facility would likely improve the appearance of the site as the auto repair service would be eliminated, the existing two pole -signs would be eliminated and replaced with one 1 5 10 -foot high sign, and the artificial landscaping would be ;, replaced with real plants. In response to the concerns of the Planning Commission the applicant modified the original request and eliminated the use of the blow dryer. The blower used for drying purposes was largely responsible for the anticipated high levels of noise. As such, the proposed car wash would involve only a pure water rinse system. Since the modification was made staff is satisfied that the car wash can be operated well within the requirements of the noise ordinance and that the noise level will be at or below the existing ambient noise levels. DENIAL OF THE C.U.P. If valid reasons can be found based on supportable evidence, the C.U.P. can be denied according to the City Attorney. SERVICE STATION/CAR WASH DEFINITION Although staff and the Planning Commission reviewed this request as an automatic car wash, which requires a C.U.P., in conjuction with a retail snack shop and retail sales of gasoline, the project as a whole could also be construed as a "service station," which also requires a C.U.P. However, pursuant to section 10-4, Service station (gasoline sales), which identifies the standard conditions required for a service station, all the requirements are oriented towards general auto repair and maintenance, which does not apply to the subject business. Therefore, staff did not believe classifying this project as a service station was appropriate. The zoning ordinance does not contain an explicit definition of "service station." CONCUR: ////( M4chael 'Schubach Planning Director l / en Rob4r son Associate Planner Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Resolution P.C. 90-1 3. P.C. Minutes 5/1/90 4. P.C. Staff Report dated 4/17/90 5. Applicant letter, 4/10/90, noise study w/ pure water rinse - 2 ! 6. Staff Reports 2/20/90 and 1/3/90 7. P.C. Minutes 3/20/90, 2/20/90, 2/6/90, and 1/3/90 8. Correspondence from opposition 9. Site Map/Photos 10. Public notice affidavit a/pcsr931 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 HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONCURRING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW A SELF-SERVICE CAR WASH IN CONJUNCTION WITH GAS SALES AND A RETAIL SNACK SHOP AT 931 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 11 THROUGH 17, INCLUSIVE, TRACT 223. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on June 12, 1990, on appeal of the decision of the Conditional Use Permit to receive oral and written testimony and made the following findings; A. The Planning Commission conducted public hearings to review this request on January 3, and February 20, March 20, and May 1, 1990, and through this process has satisfactorily responded to and addressed the concerns of staff and the surrounding residents; B. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing service station and to replace it with new facilities to support a gasoline station including gas sales, a retail snack shop and a self-service car wash; C. The automatic car wash will be equipped with a pure water rinse system rather than a blow dryer system, which reduces the noise impact to insignificant levels in conformance with the City's noise ordinance; D. The proposed use, as conditioned, is compatible with surrounding commercial and residential uses and will not cause a significant impact on the environment; E. The parking and stacking areas on the subject lot are adequate to support the proposed uses; 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 F. The proposed use complies with the zoning ordinance and is consistent with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby concur with the Planning Commission decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit and Negative Declaration to allow a self-service car wash in conjunction with gasoline sales and a retail snack shop at 931 Pacific Coast Highway subject to the conditions of Planning Commission Resolution 90-1. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this , 1990. ATTEST: day of PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: trat! CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 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. 90-1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW A SELF-SERVICE CAR WASH IN CONJUNCTION WITH GAS SALES AND A RETAIL SNACK SHOP AT 931 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 11 THROUGH 17, INCLUSIVE, TRACT 223. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on January 3, and February 20, March 20, and May 1, 1990, to receive oral and written testimony regarding an application for a Conditional Use Permit and made the following findings: A. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing service station and to replace it with new facilities to support a gasoline station including gas sales, a retail snack shop and a self-service car wash; B. The automatic car wash will be equipped with a pure water rinse system rather than a blow dryer system, which reduces the noise impact to insignificant levels in conformance with the City's noise ordinance; C. The proposed use, as conditioned, is compatible with surrounding commercial and residential uses and will not cause a significant impact on the environment; D. E. The parking and stacking areas on adequate to support the proposed uses; The proposed use complies with the zoning consistent with the General Plan. the subject lot are ordinance and is NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit and Negative Declaration to allow a self-service car wash in conjunction with gasoline sales and a retail snack shop at 931 Pacific Coast Highway subject to the following conditions: b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. The location of structures and features on the property shall be in substantial conformance with submitted plans; any modification shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. 2. The establishment shall not adversely affect the welfare of residents, and/or commercial establishments nearby. 3. The exterior of the business shall be kept in a neat and clean manner at all times. Daily sweeping and cleanup is required. 4. The car wash shall be a coin-operated self-service facility for customers and shall be automatic. No employees shall be retained on the premises for the purpose of drying, vacuuming, or detailing washed vehicles. 5. Blow dryer systems shall be prohibited. 6. The operating hours for the car wash shall be limited to between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. on Mondays through Fridays and from 8:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on weekends and holidays. 7. No self-service vacuum cleaners shall be located on the site. 8. No automobile repair service shall be conducted on the site. 9. Retail merchandise, except for gasoline, shall be displayed. and sold from the interior of the building only. 10. An eight (8) foot high wall, shall be provided along the westerly property line adjacent to the residential property to the west. The wall shall be constructed of decorative split block and shall be designed to maximize sound attenuation subject to review and approval of the Planning Director. The wall shall not exceed 42 inches in height for a distance of 10 feet from the edge of the right-of-way for both 9th Street and 10th Street. 11. The existing 45 -foot pole sign, located at the southeast corner of the site shall be removed. Only one pole or ground sign is permitted on the site and said sign shall be limited to 10 feet in height and shall have a decorative base or pole cover reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. 12. A complete sign plan shall be submitted, including dimensions and copy, to the Building Department for approval prior to the installation of any signs on the site. 13. A back flow prevention device shall be installed to prevent spilling of wash water on the site. 14. A water reclamation system, approved by the County of Los Angeles, shall be utilized. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15. The use of non -biodegradable detergents or waxes shall be prohibited. 16. Waste material shall be disposed in accordance with local, state, and federal laws and shall not be allowed to drain into the City's storm drains. 17. Noise emanating from the property shall be within the limitations prescribed by the City's noise ordinance and shall not become a nuisance. (a) Complaints from residents shall constitute a nuisance 18. A sign shall be installed at the exit of the automatic car wash informing customers that no stopping is permitted for drying of cars and that cars shall proceed off the site or to a marked parking stall. Material and wording of sign shall be approved by the Planning Director. 19. Three (3) copies of a revised site plan and landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits, depicting the following: (a) Two additional parking spaces to meet the minimum requirement of six (6). (b) The air and water facilities shall be located a minimum. of 50 feet from the rear property line, and shall not violate the noise ordinance. (c) The trees to be provided along the westerly property line shall be planted at intervals of ten (10) linear feet on center. Low maintenance trees shall be planted, and there shall be no nuisance created by such trees. (d) Existing mature trees of six (6) inches in diameter or greater shall be identified on the landscape plan and shall be maintained on the site. (e) The southerly entrance driveway shall be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from the westerly property line, as measured along the southerly property line and shall be a width of 35 feet. (f) A stacking lane shall be clearly marked for cars waiting to use the car wash with a capacity of five (5) cars. Said stacking lane shall not interfere with the required turning radius for the parking stalls. (g) The trash dumpster and the storage building located in the rear of the lot shall be relocated away from the west property line to a location acceptable to the Planning Director. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20. Outdoor lighting shall be located and oriented to direct light and glare away from adjacent residential properties. 21. A manager or clerk who is aware of the conditions of this conditional use permit shall be on the premises during business hours. 22. Any violation of the conditions and/or violation of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code shall be grounds for an immediate revocation hearing and/or citation. 23. Any changes to the exterior or interior design shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. 24. Prior to the conditional use permit being in effect, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department, a signed and notarized "Acceptance of Conditions" form. 25. The Planning Commission may review the conditional use permit and may amend the subject conditions or impose any new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental effects on the neighborhood resulting from the subject use. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ketz.Moore.Peirce.Rue NOES: Chmn.Ingell ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-1 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of He,r mosa Be ch, California at their regular meeting of May x;%1990./ -) Michael Schubach, Secretary S“) Inge. 1,`' airman iJ Date a/pers931 June 4, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council June 12, 1990 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-5 LOCATION: 931 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY - MOBIL OIL CORPORATION APPELLANTS: COUNCILMEMBERS MIDSTOKKE AND WIEMANS PURPOSE: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL TO ALLOW THE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION/SNACK SHOP WITH NEW GASOLINE PUMPS, A SNACK SHOP, AND A SELF-SERVICE AUTOMATIC CAR WASH Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the decision of the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions as contained in the attached P.C. Resolution. Background At their meeting of May 1, 1990, the Planning Commission granted the subject Conditional Use Permit subject to several conditions as contained in the attached Resolution. This decision was made after conducting public hearings and discussion at four separate Planning Commission meetings. The Planning Commission modified staff recommended conditions by requiring an 8 -foot wall rather than 6 -feet along the rear property line, requiring a stacking lane for 5 ca s rather than 8 cars, and to off -set the south entrance drivewa 10,feet from the westerly property line rather tin 16.5 feet. For further background please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff reports and minutes. Analysis The applicant has submitted a revised site plan, included in your packet, which depicts the layout of the site in accordance with the conditions of the Planning Commission approval. Staff has reviewed the plan and determined that it is consistent with the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. The primary concern of staff, the Planning Commission, and nearby residents in regards to this request was related to the noise impact of the car wash. A service station/snack shop already exists on the site, and therefore, the replacement of these portions of this facility would likely improve the appearance of the site as the auto repair service would be eliminated, the existing two pole -signs would be eliminated and replaced with one 5 10 -foot high sign, and the artificial landscaping would be replaced with real plants. In response to the concerns of the Planning Commission the applicant modified the original request and eliminated the use of the blow dryer. The blower used for drying purposes was largely responsible for the anticipated high levels of noise. As such, the proposed car wash would involve only a pure water rinse system. Since the modification was made staff is satisfied that the car wash can be operated well within the requirements of the noise ordinance and that the noise level will be at or below the existing ambient noise levels. DENIAL OF THE C.U.P. If valid reasons can be found based on supportable evidence, the C.U.P. can be denied according to the City Attorney. SERVICE STATION/CAR WASH DEFINITION Although staff and the Planning Commission reviewed this request as an automatic car wash, which requires a C.U.P., in conjuction with a retail snack shop and retail sales of gasoline, the project as a whole could also be construed as a "service station," which also requires a C.U.P. However, pursuant to section 10-4, Service station (gasoline sales), which identifies the standard conditions required for a service station, all the requirements are oriented towards general auto repair and maintenance, which does not apply to the subject business. Therefore, staff did not believe classifying this project as a service station was appropriate. The zoning ordinance does not contain an explicit definition of "service station." CONCUR: //// chael `Schubach Planning Director evin B. Northcraft City Manager en Robson Associate Planner Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Resolution P.C. 90-1 3. P.C. Minutes 5/1/90 4. P.C. Staff Report dated 4/17/90 5. Applicant letter, 4/10/90, noise study w/ pure water rinse - 2 V 6. Staff Reports 2/20/90 and 1/3/90 7. P.C. Minutes 3/20/90, 2/20/90, 2/6/90, and 1/3/90 8. Correspondence from opposition 9. Site Map/Photos 10. Public notice affidavit a/pcsr931 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 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONCURRING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW A SELF-SERVICE CAR WASH IN CONJUNCTION WITH GAS SALES AND A RETAIL SNACK SHOP AT 931 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 11 THROUGH 17, INCLUSIVE, TRACT 223. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on June 12, 1990, on appeal of the decision of the Conditional Use Permit to receive oral and written testimony and made the following findings; A. The Planning Commission conducted public hearings to review this request on January 3, and February 20, March 20, and May 1, 1990, and through this process has satisfactorily responded to and addressed the concerns of staff and the surrounding residents; B. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing service station and to replace it with new facilities to support a gasoline station including gas sales, a retail snack shap and a self-service car wash; C. The automatic car wash will be equipped with a pure water rinse system rather than a blow dryer system, which reduces the noise impact to insignificant levels in conformance with the City's noise ordinance; D. The proposed use, as conditioned, is compatible with surrounding commercial and residential uses and will not cause a significant impact on the environment; E. The parking and stacking areas on the subject lot are adequate to support the proposed uses; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 F. The proposed use complies with the _zoning ordinance and is consistent with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby concur with the Planning Commission decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit and Negative Declaration to allow a self-service car wash in conjunction with gasoline sales and a retail snack shop at 931 Pacific Coast Highway subject to the conditions of Planning Commission Resolution 90-1. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1990. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:: (KetAL. CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C RESOLUTION P.C. 90-1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW A SELF-SERVICE CAR WASH IN CONJUNCTION WITH GAS SALES AND A RETAIL SNACK SHOP AT 931 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 11 THROUGH 17, INCLUSIVE, TRACT 223. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on January 3, and February 20, March 20, and May 1, 1990, to oral and written testimony regarding an application Conditional Use Permit and made the following findings: receive for a A. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing service station and to replace it with new facilities to support a gasoline station including gas sales, a retail snack shop and a self-service car wash; B. The automatic car wash will be equipped with a pure water rinse system rather than a blow dryer system, which reduces the noise impact to insignificant levels in conformance with the City's noise ordinance; C. The proposed use, as conditioned, is compatible with surrounding commercial and residential uses and will not cause a significant impact on the environment; The parking and stacking areas on the subject lot are adequate to support the proposed uses; E. The proposed use complies with the zoning ordinance and is consistent with the General Plan. D. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit and Negative Declaration to allow a self-service car wash in conjunction with gasoline sales and a retail snack shop at 931 Pacific Coast Highway subject to the following conditions: 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C 1. The location of structures and features on the property shall be in substantial conformance with submitted plans; any modification shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. 2. The establishment shall not adversely affect the welfare of residents, and/or commercial establishments nearby. 3. The exterior of the business shall be kept in a neat and clean manner at all times. Daily sweeping and cleanup is required. 4. The car wash shall be a coin-operated self-service facility for customers and shall be automatic. Nei employees shall be retained on the premises for the purpose of drying, vacuuming, or detailing washed vehicles. 5. Blow dryer systems shall be prohibitedi 6. The operating hours for the car wash shall be limited to between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. on Mondays through Fridays and from 8:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on weekends and holidays. 7. No Self-service vaum cleaners shall be located on the site. 8. Nc;,automobile repair service shall be conducted on the site. 9. Retail merchandise, except: for gasoline, shall be displayed. and sold from the interior of the building only. 10. An eight (8) foot high wall, shall be provided along the westerly property line adjacent to the residential property to the west. The wall shall be constructed of decorative split block and shall be designed to maximize sound attenuation subject to review and approval of the Planning Director. The wall shall not exceed 42 inches in height for a distance of 10 feet from the edge of the right-of-way for both 9th Street and 10th Street. 11. The existing 45 -foot pole sign, located at the southeast corner of the site shall be removed. Only one pole or ground sign is permitted on the site and said sign shall be limited to 10 feet in height and shall have a decorative base or pole cover reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. 12. A complete sign plan shall be submitted, including dimensions and copy, to the Building Department for approval prior to the installation of any signs on the site. 13. A back flow prevention device shall be installed to prevent spilling of wash water on the site. 14. A water reclamation system, approved by the County of Los Angeles, shall be utilized. 1 2 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C 15. The use of non -biodegradable detergents or waxes shall be prohibited. 16. Waste material shall be disposed in accordance with local, state, and federal laws and shall not be allowed to drain into the City's storm drains. 17. Noise emanating from the property shall be within the limitations prescribed by the City's noise ordinance and shall not become a nuisance. (a) Complaints from residents shall constitute a nuisance 18. A sign shall be installed at the exit of the automatic car wash informing customers that no stopping is permitted for drying of cars and that cars shall proceed off the site or to a marked parking stall. Material and wording of sign shall be approved by the Planning Director. 19. Three (3) copies of a revised site plan and landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits, depicting the following: (a) Two additional parking spaces to meet the minimum requirement of six (6). (b) The air and water facilities shall be located a minimum. of 50 feet from the rear property line, and shall not violate the noise ordinance. (c) The trees to be provided along the westerly property line shall be planted at intervals of ten (10) linear feet on center. Low maintenance trees shall be planted, and there shall be no nuisance created by such trees. (d) Existing mature trees of six (6) inches in diameter or greater shall be identified on the landscape plan and shall be maintained on the site. (e) The southerly entrance driveway shall be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from the westerly property line, as measured along the southerly property line and shall be a width of 35 feet. (f) A stacking lane shall be clearly marked for cars waiting to use the car wash with a capacity of five (5) cars. Said stacking lane shall not interfere with the required turning radius for the parking stalls. (g) The trash dumpster and the storage building located in the rear of the lot shall be relocated away from the west property line to a location acceptable to the Planning Director. 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 20. Outdoor lighting shall be located and oriented to direct light and glare away from adjacent residential properties. 21. A manager or clerk who is aware of the conditions of this conditional use permit shall be on the premises during business hours. 22. Any violation of the conditions and/or violation of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code shall be grounds for an immediate revocation hearing and/or citation. 23. Any changes to the exterior or interior design shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. 24. Prior to the conditional use permit being in effect, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department, a signed and notarized "Acceptance of Conditions" form. 25. The Planning Commission may review the conditional use permit and may amend the subject conditions or impose any new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental effects on the neighborhood resulting from the subject use. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ketz.Moore.Peirce.Rue NOES: Chmn.Ingell ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-1 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Be ch, California at their regular meeting of May V;J1990./ S5 o Inger 1 ,4 airman -62 Date Michael Schubach, Secretary a/pers931 BACKGROUND MATERIAL CUP 89-5 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL SNACK SHOP, GAS PUMPS. AND CAR WASH, AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 931 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, MOBIL OIL STATION (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF 1/3/90, 2/6/90, 2/20/90, 3/20/90, AND 4/17/90) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 12, 1990. Staff recommended approval of the request, as modified, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. At their meeting of January 3, 1990, the Planning Commission continued this request because of the inadequate noise study and the need to address concerns regarding the potential noise impact of the car wash. At the meeting of February 20, 1990, the Planning Commission again continued this request to obtain additional information and clarification on the noise measurements and the City's noise requirements. At the meeting of March 20, 1990, the request was again continued as the applicant had not submitted a revised noise study as requested. In response to concerns over noise, the applicant has modified the request to eliminate the blow dryers from the car wash and to replace them with a pure water rinse system. Also, a noise study of the noise impacts without a blow dryer has been submitted. The applicant's noise consultant measured noise levels at a comparable facility in San Diego equipped with the pure water system rather than a blow dryer. Noise measurements were taken at a distance of 61 feet (the distance at the Hermosa location to the trailer park) and were estimated for an 80 -foot distance. These measurements were compared with the ambient levels at corresponding locations at the Hermosa location. The report shows that the measured noise levels as generated from the car wash are in all cases well below the ambient levels measured at the corresponding Hermosa locations, which meets the requirements of Hermosa Beach's noise ordinance. The use of the pure water system also eliminates the need for the use of opening and closing doors, which appears to be a problem at the location in Manhattan Beach. A noise study was prepared by Davy and Associates addressing further details related to the anticipated noise impact. Staff has also taken noise measurements at the Mobil site at the corner of Aviation and Manhattan Beach Boulevard. Measured at a distance of 27 feet, with the doors closed, the blow dryer registered a noise level of approximately 75-80 decibels. During the wash phase, the car wash was barely audible above the traffic noise, and the reading was approximately 60-65 decibels. Although these are rough measurements and general observations, it seems to be consistent with the finding in the applicant's noise study that without the blow dryer, the noise problem is minimal. It was noted that the door system was in operation at the Manhattan Beach facility; although, one of the window panes in the door was missing. Interestingly, the loudest noise generated from the entire operation appeared to come from the mechanism which set the doors in motion. Staff was concerned that without the dryer in the car wash system, customers may wish to dry their cars on the site. The recommended condition for two additional parking spaces will (0- P.C. Minutes 5/1/90 satisfy some of this need. Also, in order to avoid congestion at the exit of the car wash, staff recommended a condition that the areai nedD•or nos ping Staff also noted while at the Manhattan Beach site that several cars were stacked behind the car wash. This brings up additional concerns. First, staff felt that the proposed layout would encourage a rather disorderly stacking of vehicles. As such, staff recommended a condition that a stacking lane be clearly marked on the pavement fora capacity of eight cars. The stacking lane should be oriented for cars entering from th‘souh and shall not interfere with the t .• around area for the parking stalls. Second, residents have raised a concern regarding the ,' lin¢ehicles and the potential additional emission of carbon monoxide. Given the existing volume of traffic on P.C.H. and that currently the site is used -for a gas station and auto repair facility that already emits pollutants, staff does not believe that the idling vehicles would significantly increase the impact. Another concern has been raised regarding the l ion-of-the-dave way on 9t treet. The adjacent residerits_drfKeway_backs onto 9th Street at the property line and the proposed driveway is offset from the property line onl 6.5 fee ), This may present a visibility problem and a safety problem for the residential vehicle. The applicant has been informed of this concern and is willing to offset the driveway an additional 3.5 feet to be ten feet, but claims that' • •. . _� _ IP ould affect turning radius needs for enterin and exiting vehicles. It is also important to maintain a sufficient of set from P.C.IT`FIiwever, staff felt that the driveway can be offset an additional ten feet from the east property line by reducing the width of the driveway to 25 feet, thereby keeping the offset from P.C.H. the same. As such, staff recommended a condition that the driveway be offset, as measured along the property line, a minimum of 16.5 feet. Staff further recommended that that area have some landscaping. Staff noted further concern about the location of the trash dumpster and storage building at the rear of the property and recommended a condition that it be relocated away from the property line at a location to be approved by the Planning Director. Mr. Schubach, in response to comments from Comm. Moore related to the customer service air and water units, stated that a condition has been included requiring that those units be relocated. Comm. Rue asked about the constraints of the Planning Commission requiring an eight -foot wall at this project site. Mr. Schubach explained that the ordinance prohibits any wall higher than six feet in the City; however, in this case, an eight -foot wall would be a mitigation measure and would serve as a buffer between the business and the residential neighborhood. Therefore, it might be possible to allow an eight -foot wall. Comm. Rue noted concern over possible carbon monoxide emissions from cars waiting in the stacking lane. He questioned the possibility of requiring that a sign be posted requiring that people turn off their engines while waiting in the stacking lane. Public Hearing opened at 7:22 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Brian Recksteiner, 9891 Vicksburg Drive, Huntington Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission. He displayed to the Commission a color rendering of the proposed project. Mr. Recksteiner stated that they have made many compromises related to this project in order to be a good neighbor. He noted that he had sent to the Commission a letter addressing the issue of the doors not operating properly at the Manhattan Beach site. He explained that those problems have all been solved, and air -operated doors are now being used as opposed to _II— P.C. Minutes 5/1/90 electrically -operated doors. He also noted that noise will be eliminated since the blowers are being eliminated. Mr. Recksteiner stated that the noise study has been redone, and the noise consultant would explain his findings. Bruce Davy, 865 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Manhattan Beach, noise consultant, addressed the Commission. He noted that Mobil has decided toiliminate the(ryersand use instead a ure water rinse facility. He explained that there is -an existing facility in an Diego very similar to the one being proposed here. He visited that site on April 4 and took extensive noise measurements using the same type of noise measurement device used by the City. Mr. Davy noted that the results were included in the packets; however, he desired to go through the report with the Commission. He continued by showing slides as he explained the measurements. Slides shown were titled: 'Typical. Community Noise Characteristics"; "North Side of 10th Street at Southeast Corner of Trailer Park, 61 Feet From Car Wash"; "Comparison of Measured Noise Levels With Ambient Noise Levels at the West Property Line, Eight Feet from Car Wash"; and "North Side of Car Wash at Five Feet From Car Wash Wall." He concluded by stating that the car wash noise levels will be within the guidelines set by the City. Mr. Recksteiner again addressed the Commission. He discussed Condition No. 6 related to the hours of operation. He stated that they would like to have hours of operation of 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. seven days a week. He pointed out that during the noise study at no time did the noise exceed the allowed ambient noise level; therefore, he did not see any problem with allowing the longer hours of operation. Mr. Recksteiner commented on Condition No. 14 which requires a water reclamation system to be used. He stated that they would prefer not to use a reclamation system, explaining that they can give a better wash without that system. Mr. Recksteiner commented on Condition No. 11 which relates to the signage at the site. He passed out photos depicting the current signage and explained that the sign is blocked from view of southbound traffic since there is a large tree there. He therefore requested that they be allowed to have a 45 -foot sign so that there is visibility for the business. He further asked that the ID price sign be allowed to be 19 feet, 9 and a half inches so that it can be seen. He passed out renderings depicting the ID price sign. He noted that the City ordinance allows signs of 35 feet. He also said that he would be willing to lower the 45 -foot sign to 35 feet. Mr. Recksteiner commented on Condition No.19(e) related to the southerly entrance driveway along 9th Street. He pointed out on a drawing the route the tanker trucks will use to enter and leave the site. He explained the route which will be used, and he stated that the trucks need 35 feet in order to safely exit the location; not 25 feet as proposed by staff. He continued by discussing traffic on 9th Street; however, he said that not all of those people are coming from the Mobil station. Mr. Recksteiner continued by discussing Condition No. 19(1) related to the stacking lane for eight cars as required by staff. Noting that the car wash will now eliminate the blowers and the cycle will be shortened by a minute and a half, he did not think the eight -car stacking lane is necessary. He said that people are cautious and look before backing out. He said that the cycle will now be two and a half minutes. Mr. Recksteiner discussed Condition 19(g) related to the location of the trash dumpster and stated that the dumpster can be moved. He discussed the current location of the trash dumpsters. Mr. Recksteiner asked for clarification of Condition No. 24 which states that 'The Planning Commission may review the conditional use permit and may amend the subject conditions or impose any new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental effects on the P.C. Minutes 5/1/90 —/2— neighborhood resulting from the subject use." He asked whether additional public hearings would be held for such a review. Chmn. Ingell explained that a public hearing would be held, and it is within the purview of the Planning Commission to review the CUP and add new conditions if deemed necessary. Mr. Recksteiner, in response to questions from Comm. Rue regarding the signage, explained that he would like to have two signs at this site: the 45 -foot sign, which he would be willing to lower to 35 feet; and a 19 foot, nine and a half inch ID price sign. He said that such signage is necessary so that there is visibility. He said that he has never had a clear understanding of the sign requirements and whether or not the Planning Commission could approve two signs or whether he needs to apply for a sign variance in order to allow him to have two signs. Mr. Schubach clarified that only one sign is allowed at this site. Staff felt that a 45 -foot pole sign is not appropriate for Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Lee read from the Municipal Code, Section 28(a)-13 related to signs in the C-3 zone and confirmed that only one ground sign or one pole sign is allowed; however, there appears to be no specific wording related to the height of the sign. Mr. Schubach stated that staff does not feel it is necessary to have a sign of more than ten feet in height at this location. Commommented on the issue truck turning_radiuu nd noted that this is one of the urger service station lots in the area. e said that driveways in San Francisco can be very small; yet trucks can ingr ndhgress safely. He questioned why this applicant insists that the south driveway must e 35 feet wide. Mr. Recksteiner stated that there would be difficulty with the truck turning radius if there is a narrower driveway. He noted that full-sized tanker trucks will be used, not the smaller bob- tail types. He continued by referring to the drawing to clarify his point. arker Herriott,.Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted concern over Mobil Oil's proposed project, stating that it is a disgrace and will destroy more of the City; (2) stated that insensitive corporate powers do not care about cities; (3) noted concern over what is happening to the earth; (4) said that the oil companies are not as safe as the -assert to be; (5) stressed that the noiseeill be very annoying; (6) said that this ro'ect �t�e�_�compa� tible with the neighbor1 od, noting that there is no need to have more car washes in that area; (7) commented that the applicant is now trying to get out of the staff -proposed conditions; (8) said that staff has done a good job; however, he felLthat this project should be denied since it is not compatible to the area; (9) felt th erkeratinbusinesses should n� of be encouraged; (10) stated that the car wash is merely a gimmick to get more people into the stafion; (11) stated that hours of 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. are not appropriate, noting that others are not allowed to begin working before 8:00 A.M.; (12) noted concern over the health, safety, and welfare of the residents; (13) suggested that there be a six-month review of the CUP to ensure that this business is not causing problems; (14) felt that the entire project is hazardous and could be harmful to people; (15) asked whether this project falls under the precise development plan, to which Mr. Schubach replied in the negative. Gloria Kolesar, 714 and 726 10th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the car wash time will actually be four minutes, not two and a half minutes as suggested by the applicant; (2) stated that on many occasions she has observed eight or more cars stacked up waiting at the other site; (3) commented on a news story she saw regarding a possible new requirement by the AQMD which may prohibit any further new drive-throughs with stacking; (4) stated that such a use does build up accumulated carbon monoxide fumes, and she noted that the stacking area will be very close to the residences; (5) commented on the letter dated May 1, 1990, which she submitted to the staff; (6) said that the wall will actually be only five feet on the residents' side due to the slope; (7) noted that since cars would be stacking so close to the r: P.C. Minutes 5/1/90 -/3 - residents, the noise would be very annoying; (8) commented further that the AQMD advises that turning the engine off and on emits more fumes than just leaving the engine on; (9) noted concern over the number of cars which will be lining up for a car wash, and the attendant noise and emissions; (10) commented on the problems experienced by the preschool which abuts the Manhattan Beach site; (11) noted concern over the tanks, storage, stacking, emissions, and venting system which will be so close to the residents, especially since the wall is actually only five feet; (12) urged the Commission to give due consideration to allowing higher walls in order to prevent crime as well as to prevent possible emissions. Mr. Lee commented on the issue of height and stated that there are two apparently conflicting statements in the code related to this issue. He said that Chapter 15 of the code states that unnecessary walls, hedges, or fences of over six feet in height are not allowed; however, Code Section 1215 provides that a wall, fence, or hedge not more than six feet in height may be located anywhere on the lot to the rear of the rear line of the required front yard. He interpreted that to mean that there can be a wall of no more than six feet in height at this location. However, he pointed out that it has been suggested that the Commission address the issue of amending the zoning code to provide for these types of conditions when such a use would be a mitigation measure. Comm. Ketz asked whether a variance could be approved to allow a fence of more than six feet, to which Mr. Lee responded in the affirmative; however, he noted that there would be difficulty in making the appropriate findings. He felt that a zoning ordinance amendment would be more appropriate. Comm. Rue asked whether the CUP could be approved with the requirement for an eight -foot wall; the Commission could then take up the issue of amending the code requirements. Mr. Lee stated that there could be such a requirement, based on Chapter 15 of the code; however, he felt that the best approach is to amend the code and clarify the wording in Chapter 15. Mr. Lee continued by discussing the height of pole signs, stating that there is a height limit of 35 feet; in this case, the 45 -foot sign was grandfathered in. Any change or alteration would require that the sign be brought into conformance with the current City standards. Shu Miho, 731 9th Street, addressed the Commission and read into the record her letter dated April 16, 1990, addressed to Mr. Schubach and the Planning Commission, regarding her strong opposition to the proposed remodeling of the Mobil Gas Station. June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, questioned whether the applicant intends to sell liquor at the retail snack shop, to which Mr. Schubach responded in the negative. Comm. Peirce noted that the hours of the snack shop and gas pumps are not mentioned in the application, to which Mr. Schubach responded that since no alcohol will be sold, staff had no opposition to 24-hour service. Only hours restricting the car wash itself have been included. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and (1) asked who actually owns this gas station; (2) noted that he has had trouble contacting the owner so he can ask some questions; (3) stated that the ownership appears to be very mysterious; (4) did not feel that Mobil wants to be a good neighbor, they merely want to maximize their business and get as many cars in as they can to pump as much gas as possible; (5) felt that the car wash and snack shop are merely gimmicks to get more people into the station; (6) said that most other Mobil snack shops sell liquor; (7) felt that a 35 -foot sign would be ludicrous; (8) felt that a minimum - sized sign would be appropriate; (9) said there is no reason,,for the snack shop to operate 24 hours because it would create a nuisance; (10) stresse.d. h ery is, the main issue at hand; (11) stated that this gas station is at fa ry usy intersection -and cats-make.no-effort-to-slow down because they want to get through the traffic signal; (12) noted that southbound traffic on P.C.H. merges from three lanes into two very near to this site; (13) noted concern over the tankers P.C. Minutes 5/1/90 which will be entering this station; (14) said that if a building permit is not taken out by November 24, this application may fall within the precise development plan. Mr. Longacre conu tined and:,_ (1) stated that he favors onlyt-t m e� up_isla.ncls at this site, rather than the four proppsect, (2) strongly opposed the car wash, stating that it will be a nuisance and is\merely a gimmick; (3) noted that there are already three other car washes in ( the area; (4) suggested that the snack shop be required to close at midnight at the latest; (5) suggested that the 9th Street exit be carefully scrutinized; (6) urged that the CUP be carefully studied so that things don't slip through. Sam Lennox, 845 10th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted concern over supertankers coming into this gas station, especially since it is located so close to a residential area, and it could be quite hazardous if there is an accident; (2) stated that the proposed car wash will only add more problems to the area; (3) opposed the tankers entering the site from the side streets. Gloria Kolesar again addressed the Commission and: (1) questioned whether there will be a speaker system, what the projection level would be, and what the hours would be; (2) asked whether soil testing would be done regularly, and noted concern over soil contamination; (3) asked about the disposal sump; (4) asked whether the site will be monitored for soil contamination; (5) questioned whether the lighting will have conditions so that it does not interfere with the residential area; (6) asked whether conditions will be imposed requiring that the landscaping be properly maintained, so that a nuisance is not created by trees, sap, and intrusion. Mr. Recksteiner addr -sse4 the Commission and responded to the issues raised.:—(,1) stated that thashvill las oneiminute with the new system; (2) stated that he wank24 our service for the— 'ck d" sho angas station explaining that those are the hours use their ofher locations; (3) discussed the high-rise ID sign, and stated that if they can only have one sign, that is the one they would prefer, at 19 feet, nine and a half inches; (4) stated that Mobil has an outstanding safety record; (5) explained the vent system and stated that such a system is a construction requirement; (6) stated that the current operator of the site has been there for approximately 15 years; (7) explained that the zone office in Burbank can be contacted if there are problems; (8) explained that Mobil actually owns the land„ not the station operator, and Mobil is applying for the CUP; there ogre the operator should not be responding to questions related to the CUP; (9) could not predict the sales increase, explaining that a gas station does not generate traffic because gas purchases are impulse buys; (10) stated that each of the dispensers does have a small speaker system so that if there are problems, the customer can contact someone; (11) stated that soil testing is required and will be done. Public Hearing closed at 8:29 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Rue commented on the hours of operation, stating that the Commission had previously reached a consensus that the operating hours for the car wash shall be limited to 7:00 A.M. until 9:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and from 8:00 A.M. until 8:00 P.M. on weekends and holidays. Comm. Moore could see no reason to change the hours of operation as worded in the resolution. He noted that the condition can be modified in the future, depending upon the operating experience. Comm. Ketz agreed that the hours as worded are appropriate, and she felt that 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. would be excessive. Comm. Rue felt that an eight -foot wall would be appropriate. Chmn. Ingell asked about the possibility of there being a grading differential to the property to the west. P.C. Minutes 5/1/90 %5- Mr. Schubach stated that the wall should be the same height on both sides of the property line, especially in cases where there is a slope. Comm. Peirce commented that a water reclamation system sounds like a great idea; however, in reality he did not feel it would make that much of a difference at this site. Chmn. Ingell favored the water reclamation system, noting that it would save five gallons of water for every car wash cycle, using 12 gallons instead of 17. Comm. Ketz agreed that the reclamation system would be beneficial, especially in light of the current drought. Chinn Ingell was not convinced, however, that a car wash is an appropriate use at this site. He did no)feel that theuse has been mitigated adequately, and he did not think that a,car.wash wouldbe good for the neighborhood. Comm. Peirce commented on the signage, stating that he would not vote for approval of any sign over 10 or 12 feet in height, and he would oppose more than one sign at the site. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce regarding noticing of this issue, stated that the matter was properly noticed; however, he pointed out that the matter has been continued a number of times to a date certain and no new posting was required. Comm. Peirce stated that he would �o peak innfavor of the, car wash; however, he noted that it is a permitted use which appears tome compatible so long as the blow dryers are not used. He stated that cars stacking up do not make as much ambient noise as cars traveling along the highway; therefore, there will not be a great noise impact to the surrounding neighbors. He stated that the main issue is whether or not a car wash is desired at that location. He did not feel such a use would create a nuisance. He said that people should be able to buy gas and have their cars washed, and that the car wash is a part of competition. With the removal of the noise from the car wash operation, this just becomes another service station. Churn. Ingell discussed the signage and stated that a 45 -foot sign is excessive and he would oppose it. He felt that the sign ordinance is far too liberal along the highway. He felt that a small monument -type sign would be more appropriate. Comm. Ketz felt that staffs recommendation for one ten -foot sign is appropriate. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-1, with the following amendments: (1) Condition No. 10 shall be modified to require an eight -foot wall along the westerly property line adjacent to the residential property to the west, exact wording to be provided by staff, to ensure that there is not a nuisance to the neighbors to the west; (2) Condition No. 19(f) shall be modified to require a stacking lane for five cars, continent upon design approval by the Planning Director; (3) Condition No. 19(e) shall be modified to read: 'The southerly entrance driveway shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from the westerly property line, as measured along the southerly property line and reduced to a width of 35 feet.": (4) Condition No. 19 (c) shall be modified to require that low maintenance trees shall be planted, and that there will be no nuisance created by such trees. Comm. Peirce stated that noise no longer appears to be a problem since the blowers have been removed. AYES: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue NOES: Churn. Ingell ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -i6- P.C. Minutes 5/1/90 AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to amend the previous motion to include a condition requiring that lights shall be directed away from the residential area and that the lighting will not create a nuisance. No objections; so ordered. Chmn. Ingell advised that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. P.C. Minutes 5/1/90 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission April 12, 1990 Regular Meeting of April 17, 1990 (CONTINUED FROM 1/3/90, 2/20/90, AND 3/20/90 MEETINGS) SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-5 LOCATION: 931 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY APPLICANT: MOBIL OIL CORPORATION 3800 W. ALAMEDA AVENUE BURBANK, CA 91505 REQUEST: TO REPLACE AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION/SNACK SHOP WITH NEW GASOLINE PUMPS, A SNACK SHOP, AND SELF-SERVICE AUTOMATIC CAR WASH Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the request, as modified, subject to the conditions as contained in the attached resolution. Background At their meeting of January 3, the Planning Commission continued this request because of the.knadequate, cn0 s,e stud_y, and the need to address concerns regarding the potential noise impact of the car wash. At the meeting of February 20, the Planning Commission again continued this request to obtain additional information and clarification about the noise measurements and the City's noise requirements. At the meeting of March 20, the request was again continued as the applicant had not submitted a revised noise study as requested. Analysis NOISE In response to the concerns aboutnoise, the applicant has modified the request to eliminate the blow dryers from the car wash, and replace it with a pure water rinse system. Also, a noise study of the noise impacts without a blow dryer has been submitted. The applicant's noise consultant measured noise levels at a comparable facility in San Diego equipped with the pure water - lg- p system rather than a blow dryer. Noise measurements were taken at a distance of 61 feet (the distance at the Hermosa location to the trailer park) and were estimated for an 80 -foot distance. These measurements were compared with the ambient levels at corresponding locations at the Hermosa location. The report shows that the measured noise levels as generated from the car wash are in all cases well below the ambient levels measured at the corresponding Hermosa locations, which meets the requirements of Hermosa Beach's noise ordinance. The use of the pure water system also eliminates the need for the use of opening and closing doors, which appears to be problematic at the location in Manhattan Beach. Please review the attached noise study prepared by Davy and Associates, Inc. for further details about the anticipated noise impact. Staff has also taken noise measurements at the Mobil site at the corner of Aviation and Manhattan Beach Boulevard. Measured at a distance of 27 feet, with the doors closed, the blow dryer registered a noise level of about 75-80 decibels. During the wash phase the car wash was barely audible above the traffic noise, and the reading was about 60-65 decibels. Although these are rough measurements and general observations, it seems to be consistent with the finding in the applicant's noise study that without the blow dryer the noise problem is minimal. It should be noted that the door system was in operation at the Manhattan Beach facility, although one of the window panes in the door was missing. Interestingly, the loudest noise generated from the entire operation appeared to come from the mechanism which set the doors in motion. kn'ADDITIONAL CONCERNS Staff is concerned that without the dryer in the car wash system, that customers may wish to dry their cars on the site. The 8e„1.,� /recommended condition for two additional parking spaces will satisfy some of this need. Also, in order to avoid congestion_at ' r.>/77 the exit of the car wash, staffais recommending a condition that the areae signed for no stopping:, Staff also noted while at the Manhattan Beach facility that several cars were stacked behind the car wash. This brings up two additional concerns. First, staff believes that the proposed layout would encourage a rather disorderly stacking of vehicles. As such staff is recommending a condition that a stacking lane be clearly marked on the pavement for a capacity of eight cars. The stacking lane should be oriented for cars entering from the south, and shall not interfere with the turnaround area for the parking stalls. Second, residents have raised a concern regarding the idling vehicles and the potential additional emission of carbon monoxide. Given the existing volume of traffic on P.C.H. and that currently the site is used for a gas station and auto repair facility that already emits pollutants, staff does not believe that the idling vehicles would significantly increase the impact. Another concern has been raised regarding the location of the drivewa on 9th Street. The agj acent residence's driveway/ backs on reet at the property line and the proposed driveway is from the property line only� 6.5 feet. This may present a • •il em andaz_safet}�•prob for the residential The applicant has been informed of this concern and is willing to off -set the driveway an additional 3.5 feet to be 10 feet, but claims that any more of a shift would effect turning radius needs for entering and exiting vehicles. It is also important to maintain a sufficient off -set from P.C.H. However, staff believes that the driveway can be off -set an additional 10 feet from the west property line by reducing the width of the driveway to 25 feet, thereby keeping the off -set from P.C.H. the same. As such, staff is recommending a condition that the driveway be off -set, as measured along the property line, a minimum of 16.5 feet. Staff is also concerned about the location of the trash dumpster and storage building at the rear of the property, and is recommending a condition that it be relocated away from the property line at a location to be approved by the Planning Director Please refer to the attached previous staff reports for further /:/ , 214 A �4- (,c;;`..+./ (Ken Robertsion Associate Planner analysis. CON UR: Michael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Resolution P.C. 90-1 2. Applicant's letter, and noise study 3. P.C. Staff Reports 2/20/90 & 1/3/90 4. P.C. Minutes 3/20/90, 2/20/90, 2/6/90 & 1/3/90 5. Correspondence a/pcsr931 -c).0 M:bil OH Corporation CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive ' Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 Attention: Mr. Michael Schubach Director of Planning Dear Mr. Schubach, 3800 WEST ALAMEDA AVENUE, SUITE 700 BURBANK, CALIFORNIA 91505-4331 April 10, 1990 5. P' R 1 0 1990 RE: CUP 89-5 MOBIL OIL STATION 931 PACIFIC COAST HWY. After careful consideration of the concerns of the neighbors and the Planning Commissioners regarding our proposed car wash at P.C.H. and 10th. street, we have decided to remove the blow dryers from this unit. All studies show that the dryers are the cause of noise at the car washes. To assure the neighbors and commissioners that the neighbors will not be disturbed by the car wash, they are being removed. This is not our preferred method of marketing a car wash, however without the dryer,pure wa er rinse)is used to keep cars from of n34 Due to the problems we had with the doors at our Manhattan Beach station, we wanted to be able to offer the commissioners an alternative they could approve with a clear conscience knowing that there is no chance the neighbors will be disturbed by the car wash. Attached is the sound study of a car wash without dryers as compared to the ambient levels of the Hermosa Beach site. As you requested we took additional sound readings at the trailer park location and near where the proposed car wash will be located. Current readings were also taken at the property line as the original study was done in January of this year. The study shows we are considerably under the ambient for all locations and for all measurements. CC: PLANNING COMMISSION Sincerely yours, Brian E. Rechsteiner Davy Associates, Inc. Consultants in Acoustics 865 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Suite 202 • Manhattan Beach, California 90266-4900 • 213/546-3387 PROJECT MEMORANDUM TO: BRIAN RECHSTEINER FROM: BRUCE DAVY PROJECT: MOBIL STATION, 931 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY HERMOSA BEACH DATE: APRIL 6, 1990 JN: 90006 MEMO NUMBER: P90006-4 SUBJECT: NOISE MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYSIS FOR CAR WASH WITH PURE WATER RINSE 1. In accordance with your request, we have measured noise levels and analyzed community noise impact from a car wash facility with a pure water rinse. It is our understanding that you are now proposing to utilize such a car wash at your site in Hermosa Beach. Previous wor as concentrated on a car w with an .'r dry cycle. The er is responsible for th noise om these car was acilities. The alternate car wash •oes not utilize an air dryer which eliminates the noise source that the homeowners have objected to. 2. Noise levels were measured during operation of a car wash in San Diego on April 4, 1990 that operates without air dryers but with a pure water rinse. Measurements were made with the car wash operating and with the car wash not operating with two sets of Larson -Davis 700 Sound Level Meters. The first meter was located at a distance of 61' to the front of the entrance to the car wash to simulate the conditions at the Hermosa Beach site. The receiving microphone was mounted on a tripod approximately 5' above the ground. The second sound level meter was located on the side of the car wash building at the property line fence at a distance of approximately 5'. The car wash was operated utilizing station employees' cars in a continuing cycle. Over the 15 -minute time period when the car. wash was in operation, it was operating at maximum capacity with cars waiting at all times. Both car wash doors were open during the entire measurement period. A 15 -minute ambient noise level was taken immediately following the operation of the car wash. The ambient was governed by a nearby arterial and freeway. —22- Brian Rechsteiner April 06, 1990 P90006-4 Page Two 3. The data collected during this site measurement was corrected for ambient levels. In all noise level catagories (LEQ, L50, L25, L8, and L2), the ambient levels were subtracted logrithmetically from the total levels to determine the contribution from the car wash. It was noted during the measurment time period that noise levels from the car wash were below ambient levels in all cases. Most of the time the car wash operation was not audible at a distance of 61 feet. When it was audible, it was barely indistinguishable from the ambient. To determine the noise level impact at a distance of 80', a distance correction of 1.8 dB was subtracted from the car wash noise levels. This corresponds to a 4.5 dB per doubling of distance. Even though we feel that 6 dB is the more approriate correction, the Homeowners acoustical consultant has stated that 4.5 db should be utilized. 4. The car wash noise levels corrected for ambient levels were compared with the ambient levels measured at the Hermosa Beach site over a 16 -hour day. In all, a total of 4 days of measurements were taken. The first measurement day, data was collected at a point 33' west of the west property line. On April 5, this data collection was repeated at the property line. At all three locations, the minimum ambient level in each catagory was selected. Most of these were noise levels that occured in the late afternoon hours between 4 and 6 p.m. These minimum ambient levels were compared with the car wash noise levels as discussed above. The results of the analysis are summarized in Tables 1 through 3. 5. As can be seen from the data in Tables 1 through 3, noise levels at the west property line, north property line, and the mobile home park to the north west are all less than measured ambient noise levels at those locations. Therefore, the proposed car wash with a pure water rinse cycle and no air dryer will be in compliance with the Hermosa Beach Noise Ordinance with the doors open. Distribution: Brian Rechsteiner Brian Rechsteiner April 06, 1990 P90006-4 Page Three Measured SPL at 61' 4.5 dB/dd 61' ' to 80' Table 1 Comparison of Measured Noise Levels with Ambient Noise Levels at the West Property Line (80' from Car Wash) LEQ L50 L25 L8 L2 56.9 dB 55.9 dB 56.9 dB 58.9 dB 61.0 dB -1.8 -1.8 -1.8 -1.8 -1.8 SPL at 80' 55.1 Minimum Ambient at 80' 59.0 54.1 55.1 57.1 59.2 57.0 59.0 61.5 64.5 Brian Rechsteiner April 06, 1990 P90006-4 Page Four Table 2 North Side of 10th Street at South East Corner of Trailer Park (61' from Car Wash) LEQ L50 L25 L8 L2 Measured SPL at 61' 56.9 dB 55.9 dB 56.9 dB 58.9 dB 61.0 dB Minimum Ambient at 61' 63.0 61.5 63.0 66.0 68.5 Brian Rechsteiner April 06, 1990 P90006-4 Page Five Measured SPL at 5' Table 3 North Side of of Car Wash at (5' from Car Wash Wall) LEQ L50 L25 L8 L2 59.2 dB 53.0 dB Minimum Ambient at 5' 65.0 54.0 dB 55.9 dB 57.0 dB 64.0 65.5 68.0 71.5 MOBIL OIL, 931 PCH IN HERMOSA AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS START TIME: 00 A.ii STOP. TIME J0:00 s P M LOCATION: WEST PROPERTY LINE INTERVAL REPORT 'DATA FROM: MOE(I L4 LARSON-DAVIS LABORATORIES MODEL 700 SN B0428 04/06/90 09:57:43 ate +' ( k'' C car 01 ►U h' :_fli Time LEQ. SEL Lm i n Lmax Lpk Ex F'k Ov L02 LOB L25 L50 4:00:01 6. : j 99_0 4‘..0 7a_..4.1 (---nV o n t) 6P 0 66 S,? 64 5 6q t••) 6 .g0ac"sl 6`� (t' lcsU C �� (s f3U 5 97.0 U is (s 7U � 67 64.0 ; vv :O l 65.5 101 0 b 0 76 97 d 0 0 0 i 1 V 68 U 66.0 64.55. _i r ..: i. An 9 C+ (� .::.0 tj .:.7�i 5-67' C) A2' �� 10:00:01 66.0 101.5 51.5 95.5 123.0 0 0 0 70.0 65.5 62.0 60.m :00:01 60.5 96.5 50.5 73.5 99.5 0 0 0 67.5 64.0 61.0 5-'9.0 �,+Q _1+1 41:.0 94 _- 5l) 5 8a 0 10L") c t) 0 0 b6 U f,^ 5 AQ i) �R i`) > .. _. ._.....«... ..:. :: r..... •.,i: r, , :.' :!. T, "f :a:"I :.: G7 tb f i .: tom+. -:.a) .. IJ ..... A. ::ill :. f5 i c ". G.T.' T Y17 ) ) ..ty 'i.17... .f _i7 6V 0 "1R -() 59.5 95.5 52.5 85.0 108.0 0 0 0 65 .0 62.0 59.5 58.0 "::17:00:01 59.5 95.0 52.0 83.0 98.5 0 0 0 65.0 62.0 59.5 57.5 8.:00).:.01 59.0 94. 5... 50. `, 81,.0 97 0 0 0 0 /-4-5 ,41 ci �4_0 7_is ercs is 76 0 9::0 5 cs 0 0 65 6: .0 59.5 `_.7.5 �U 2000 .01 59 �� : q� .. c s 48 0 76.0 99 c s U c s c� 64.E 6 ' . c s 60.0 58. ("s {y�.:•. p,f, 0 -7,:, °=, 99 U 0 0: �) f,f, _O -:.6) d,.' ',9 '..!:1 .`=IR _(-] �? ''::`.` 1AVERAGE LEQ (16 HOURS): 62.4 dB MOBIL OIL-HERMOSA BEACH AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS START TIME: 6:00 A.M. 'A�� AV1'-LAB ` ^� `.t~,,=, ' 0? �18Q N B 4�_8/' 13115/9011:::39:07, -.' . .-.` .` . ' .' - .` �,7:00:01 67.0 102.5 58.5 77.0 95.5 0 0 0 72.0 69.5 68.0 66.5 Z:'8:00:01 66.0 102.0 58.0 79.5 95.5 0 0 0 70.5 68.5 67.0 65.5 3:00:01 14:00:01 - '' 64.5 100.0 53.5 79.5 98.5 71.0 67.5 65.0 63.0 71.0 67.5 64.5 63.0 9:00:01 64.0 99.▪ 5 53.▪ 5 78.0 96.0 0 0 0 68.5 66.5 64.5 63.0 20:00:01 64.5 100.0 52.0 83.0 98.5 0 0 0 70.0 67.0 65.0 63.0 =p�,o�~o�^~� ''AVERAGELEQ (16 HOURS): 65.7 dB AVERAGE L25 (16 Hours): 65.9 dB MOn/| O7-HFRMO9' tFACH AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS qTA9T TIME A^00 A.M ''.:JSTOP TIME: • 10:00:P.M. /n��TF, 3/21/90 + -' _��_' . / O�ATT[lN: NORTH PROPERTY LINE. AT CAR WASH IMTERVAL Gfft"'fR • DATA FROM: MOBIL3 03/22/90 13:31:45 Time LEQ SEL Lmin Lmax Lpk Ex Pk Ov L02 LOB L25 L50 ' 6:0O:01 68.5 104.0 54.5 79.0 101.0 0 0 0 72.5 71.0 69.5 68.0 - . = ' ' '~ `11:00:01 67.5 12:00:01 68.0 � `-- • - - 103x, ''_- -�'-. ^` 20.0-!�� 1.-1. 103.0 103.5 ^^~ .` ' `~ 5 5'�'�69.5.''68C` �- ` ��790 85 69 5 •103�}/�� 0'��jI�0 . �/�/^� ��' ~ . .� 56.0 82.5 98.0 56.0 83.5 112.5 - - ^^^ ^ ^^~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 73.0 74.0 _, _ 70.5 68.5 66.0 71.0 68.5 66.5 17:00:01 18:00:01 �Z0:00:() 66.5 102.0 66.5 102.0 58.0 87.0 98.5 59.(} 85.0 101.5 •'' 0'�� 3 5��88 0• 66 0,��^� ' b/~ �''�-�� _�^ U� 64.5' .` . 0 0 0 0 0 0 72.5 72.5 69.0 66.0 64.5 69.0 67.0 65.0 ' � .0 Cr :1-72.5 68.0 66.0 68 0r- 66.0 URS ' (6 8 a) -?7O�3 dB ' � Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission (CONTINUED FROM THE 1/3/90 MEETING) SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-5 LOCATION: 931 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY APPLICANT: MOBIL OIL CORPORATION 3800 W. ALAMEDA AVENUE BURBANK, CA 91505 REQUEST: February 15, 1990 Regular Meeting of February 20, 1990 TO REPLACE AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION/SNACK SHOP WITH NEW GASOLINE PUMPS, A SNACK SHOP, AND SELF-SERVICE AUTOMATIC CAR WASH Recommendation Staff recommends continuance of this matter unless the applicant can satisfactorily explain how this project is in compliance with the noise ordinance (It does not appear to be). If the project is approved, staff recommends it be subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. Background At their meeting of January 3, the Planning Commission continued this request because of the inadequate noise study, and the need to address concerns regarding the potential noise impact of the car wash. Analysis The applicant has submitted the revised noise study and has also provided revised plans which show four new gas pump islands instead of three and which relocate the northerly entrance ten feet to the west resulting in the relocation of the car wash ten feet closer to P.C.H . NOISE The noise study indicates that the project can comply with the City's noise ordinance as the rather high decibel levels at a 20 -foot distance (81 db's) are shown to be significantly reduced by the additional distance to the residential area and from the attenuation of a sound wall. Furthermore, ambient noise measurements were taken at the northwest corner of the site and are shown to be less than the projected levels. However, the study assumes a 104 foot distance to the residential area, when the actual distance to the property line is 80 feet (the study measures to the house, while the noise ordinance requires sound levels to be measured from the property line), and the measurement which shows that the sound levels meet the noise ordinance are based on attenuation due to distance and the sound wall. Also, other residential locations across 9th and 10th street are not considered. Further there seems to be a lack of -30-- compliance with at least two other section of the noise ordinance. In sum, staff is still concerned about the noise impact of the automatic car wash. Staff investigated the Mobil car wash site on the corner of Aviation and Manhattan Beach Boulevard which is identical to this proposed car wash, and noticed that the higher pitched noise during the automatic drying with the doors open is not a very pleasant sound. Although the sound wall utilized at this location significantly mitigates this noise it is clear that there is still impact. Therefore, in the absence of any certainty that sound levels will not cause a nuisance, staff is recommending conditions requiring that an automatic door be installed on the west end of the car wash to be closed during the drying operations. According to the applicant's study keeping the doors closed can reduce the noise level at 20 -feet from the car wash 8 decibels. This becomes important when the noise impact down the street and across the street is considered where sound wall attenuation is not provided. The applicant has indicated that he would be willing to install one door at the entrance to the car wash but that he does not think requiring a door on the side of the car wash facing P.C.H. is necessary. Unfortunately the sound study provides information regarding the impact of having two doors closed, however, staff has discussed this with noise consultant who indicated that closing the one facing the residences should have a similar effect. Other concerns are the height of the sound wall and the noise frequency. The zoning ordinance allows walls of only a maximum height of 6 feet, but the applicant's consultant has recommended an 8 -foot high sound wall. There are some numbers in the study correlating noise frequency and effectiveness of the wall, but the sound frequency of the car wash dryer is not clearly noted. To further address the noise impact staff is recommending that the hours of operation of the car wash be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. and 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. on weekends. The applicant is opposed to this, and would like the hours to be 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M., however the noise study only identifies ambient noise levels to 9:00 P.M. In sum, staff has attempted to address the apparent inadequacy of the noise study by recommending some additional conditions. If clearer explanations are not provided at the meeting to show that the car wash can comply with the noise ordinance, the Planning Commission should again consider continuing this request. Another concern was the location of the air and water compressor equipment. The applicant has agreed to move these facilities, although it is not shown on the revised plans. The relocation of these facilities is a recommended condition. -3/ - c Staff has contacted the City of Manhattan Beach regarding the conditions imposed on the Mobil Car Wash at the corner of Aviation and Manhattan Beach Boulevard and found that there are conditions to keep the doors closed during dryer operations, and limitation on hours from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. on weekdays and 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. on weekends. Also, Manhattan Beach requires an alarm system to signal a door malfunction requiring that the car wash be turned off until the doors are repaired, and that a back flow prevention device to prevent spilling of the wash water. Staff is recommending similar conditions in the attached resolution. Staff continues to recommend conditions prohibiting vacuum cleaners, outdoor sales of merchandise, and the removal of the 45 -foot high pole sign. Also conditions have been added regarding the water reclamation system, the use of biodegradable materials, and drainage. For further discussion of some of these matters please refer to the previous staff report. CONCUR: i/ Michael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Resolution P.C.90-1 2. P.C. Staff Report 1/3/90 3. P.C. Minutes 1/3/90 l� Ken Robertson Associate Planner a/pcsr931 C � December 21, 1989 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission January 3, 1990 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-5 LOCATION: 931 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY APPLICANT: MOBIL OIL CORPORATION 3800 W. ALAMEDA AVENUE BURBANK, CA 91505 REQUEST: TO REPLACE AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION/SNACK SHOP WITH NEW GASOLINE PUMPS, A SNACK SHOP, AND SELF-SERVICE CAR WASH Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a Conditional Use Permit and a Negative Declaration subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. Project Description Zoning: C-3 General Plan Designation: General Commercial Present Use: Service station, snack shop Proposed Use: gasoline station including gas pumps, snack shop and car wash 1572 Square Feet 28,665 Square Feet Area of Buildings: Lot Size: Background On June 8, 1989, the Staff Environmental Review Committee recommended a negative declaration for the request, with a mitigation that a traffic analysis be prepared to address impacts of ingress and egress on Pacific Coast Highway. Staff's concern was because of a proposed change in the configuration of the driveways. Since that time, however, the applicant has revised the plans by relocating the car wash and maintaining access to 9th Street. -33.- Analysis The applicant is requesting to demolish the existing service station/snack shop and replace it with a modern facility which includes additional gas pumps, a retail snack shop, and a self-service car wash. The proposal includes three new gas pump islands, a large new canopy structure (3974 square feet), a new snack shop building (924 square feet), a drive-thru car wash (648 square feet), a storage building, extensive landscaping, new signs, and 4 new driveway approaches to replace the existing ones. The proposal does not include auto repair service. Pursuant to Section 8-4 of the zoning ordinance, a conditional use permit is required for the operation of a car wash in the C-3 zone. Section 10-3 specifies the minimum conditions applicable to a Car Wash, which are provided for or exceeded in the conditions recommended by staff. Since the use of the property will change from its existing service station use to a retail/commercial service use, the applicable parking requirement is 1 space per 250 square feet of gross floor area, resulting in a requirement of 6 parking spaces. The parking for the gasoline pumps is provided in the service lanes, and the plans show 4 additional spaces, located along the rear of the site. The applicant has indicated that two additional spaces could be striped in parallel, along the southerly property line, to meet the parking requirement. Staff believes that the parking is more than adequate for the proposed facility as most users of the snack shop will be parked in the gasoline pump service bays. In regards to the traffic impact, the applicant has not submitted an adequate traffic analysis. However, in consideration of the revised plans which include access via 9th Street, the Planning Department is satisfied that the traffic impact as a result of this upgrade will not be significantly different than what is currently experienced at this location. Additionally, the revised plans propose relocating of the driveway access points on 9th Street and 10th Street further back from P.C.H. which should improve traffic flow. Staff has consulted with the Public Works department on this matter, and it was agreed that a full traffic analysis is not warranted in this case (memo attached). It is important to note that the proposed facility is adjacent to residential uses to the west. Therefore, staff is concerned about the possible noise impact of the automatic car wash. In that regard staff is recommending a condition requiring the applicant to submit a noise impact study to ensure that the car wash uses the best available technology to keep noise levels below existing ambient noise levels during the hours of operation and to ensure that no annoyance is caused to the neighbors. Also, to further ensure that noise will not be a nuisance, staff is recommending a condition limiting the hours of operation of the car wash from 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. meaning that the car c wash will not be operated during the periods when noise carries the most, and when the ambient noise levels caused by P.C.H. traffic are the lowest. Also, the plans provide landscaping along the rear property line, and a six (6) foot high block wall, which provides an adequate buffer from the residential property and meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Staff believes, however, that a tree should be provided at maximum 20 -foot intervals to provide an effective buffer --meaning that 12 trees should be provided along the rear property line --and is recommending a condition to that effect. The elevations exhibit the standard Mobil Station pre -fabricated buildings and a generally modern, "stream -line," appearance. The plans, however, provide a significant amount of landscaping (11% of the site area) including trees, which will greatly enhance the appearance of the buildings and the property, and which would be a great improvement over the current mix of shrubs and artificial landscaping on the site. The plans indicate that the existing 45 -foot high pole sign will remain, and be supplemented with the addition of a new identification and price ground sign to replace an existing pole sign. This is not permitted as the sign ordinance allows only one pole or ground sign. Also it appears from the information given that all the proposed signage exceeds the maximum allowed by the ordinance. As such staff is including a condition to ensure that a complete sign plan, including dimensions and copy will be submitted to the Building Department for approval, in accordance with the sign ordinance. In addition, because of staff's concern about the appearance of the site, staff is recommending a condition that the existing 45 -foot high pole sign be removed, and that the proposed new identification and price sign be the only permitted ground sign on the site, limited to a height of 10 feet. The existing 45 -foot sign appears to be the largest and highest sign along the entire P.C.H. corridor. Staff believes that this type of "freeway" sign is innappropriate for a densely urbanized area and given the location of this business at a major intersection where traffic is usually stalled, its usefulness and visibility for advertising is questionable. Also, the proposed new canopy structure will include additional identification signage, meaning that the 45 -foot pole sign would be excessive and unnecessary. It should be noted that it is clearly within the Planning Commission's authority to consider the appropriateness of proposed signs. Section 10-2(7) of the zoning ordinance, one of the criteria to be considered for granting of C.U.P's states: "The proposed extierior signs and decor, and the compatibility therof with existing establishments in the area." -,3S In sum, staff believes that these proposed improvements and the modernization of this facility will be a positive improvement for this location along Pacific Coast Highway and will be compatible, as conditioned, with surrounding commercial and residential property. CONCUR: Michael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Resolution P.C. 90-1 2. Site Map/photographs 3. Application 4. Staff Review Minutes of June 8, 1989 5. Correspondence 6. Public Notice Affidavit a/pcsr931 _36_ en Robertson Associate Planner MOTION by Chmn. Ingell, seconded by Comm Peirce, to continue this matter to the me.etinra April 3, 1390 order to allow the applicant time to prepare alternative designs_— AYES: Comm Kett, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Inge1L/��' NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Rue Recess taken -from 8:18 P.M. until 8:25 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL SNACK SHOP. GAS PUMP, AND CAR WASH. AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 931 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. MOBIL OIL STATION (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF 1 /3 /90. 2/ 6/ 90. AND 2/ 20/ 901 Mr. Schubach stated that staff recommends this matter be continued, noting that additional materials had been received only today and there has not been time to fully review the new information. A continuance will also provide the applicant time to submit the noise study as requested by the Planning Commission at their previous meeting. Chmn. Ingell agreed that a continuance would be appropriate in order to allow the Commissioners time to study the new material. Mr. Lee suggested that the public hearing be opened so that people who cannot attend the next meeting inay have an opportunity to speak on the matter at this time; the hearing can then be continued. Mr. Schubach stated that he would not be giving a staff report at this time, noting that the matter will be continued to a future meeting. Chmn. Ingell requested that only those who cannot attend the next public hearing to speak on this issue approach the podiuin this evening. Brian Rechsteiner, 9891 Vicksburg Drive, Huntington Beach. representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and concurred with staffs recommendation that this matter be continued so that the sound study can be completed. He stated that a continuance to April 3, 1990, would be acceptable to him. Mr. Schubach advised that the agenda for April 3 is already quite full; he therefore suggested that this item be continued to April 17, 1990. Public Hearing opened at 8:27 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Lou Bourgeois, 910 1st Street, Manhattan Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he and his wife operate the Magic Rainbow Preschool which is adjacent to the Mobil Car Wash in Manhattan Beach; (2) advised that hearings were held in Manhattan Beach regarding that car wash, at which time conditions were imposed on the CUP requiring that the car wash was not to operate unless the doors were closed; (3) stated that at no time since the end of last October have the doors of the car wash worked: (4) stressed that there is a falsehood in regard to Mobil's concerns over the proper operation of the doors; (5) noted that the City of Manhattan Beach had advised Mobil in writing that they would be closed down unless they complied with the CUP requirements, and as of March 19 the car wash was closed down by the City; (6) urged the Commission to use caution in approving this request. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted concern that this hearing has been continued several times. and he felt that matters should be renoticed after two continuances so that people are aware of what is occurring; (2) noted concern that the car P.C. Minutes 3/20/90 wash in Manhattan Beach was not in compliance and Mobil had no interest in correcting the problems; (3) stated that he totally objects to the proposed car wash because the noise is intolerable; (4) said that there should be no more than three gas pumps because of the hazard potential. and, (5) stated that the proposed use will be too intense. Gloria Kolesar, 714 and 726 10th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) explained that she retained a sound consultant to prepare a noise study for the proposed Mobil Car Wash, copies of which had been given to the Commissioners; (2) stated that she went to a great deal of trouble to have this report prepared; (3) said that the noise emanating from the project will be too intense; (4) explained how she went to a Mobil Car Wash in the City of Corona and the fact that the doors did not operate properly at that location either; (5) said that she made a 15 -minute videotape at the car wash in Corona. which she wanted to show to the Commission; (6) directed that the videotape be started, at which time the tape began playing over the cable channel. Chinn. Ingell directed that the playing of the videotape be halted immediately. He explained to Mrs. Kolesar that no one was aware that a tape was to be played at the meeting; he questioned how this tape was being aired; and he informed Mrs. Kolesar that the meetings follow prescribed procedures. Mr. Lee suggested that this tape not be accepted as evidence at this time; and that the public hearing be continued to a future meeting. Comm. Moore stated that he would prefer to study the new materials before taking new evidence, such as Mrs. Kolesar was attempting to present. Mrs. Kolesar countered that the videotape will supplement the new written materials presented to the Commission. She said that she may not be able to attend the next meeting; therefore, she wanted the Commissioners to view the tape at this time. Comm. Peirce did not think it was necessary for the Commission to view a 15 -minute tape of the car wash, since all of the Commissioners had gone to the Manhattan Beach site. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chinn. Ingell, to deny Mrs. Kolesar permission to show the 15 -minute video. Comm. Moore stated that he would support the motion, explaining that all of the Commissioners have gone to a Mobil Car Wash to view the operation, and a visit is much more accurate than a tape. He also felt that the showing of a 15 -minute video would be excessive at a Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Lee suggested that Mrs. Kolesar submit the tape to the Planning Commission as evidence. If the Commissioners so choose, they can either view the tape at the continued public hearing or they can view it at City Hall at their convenience. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm Peirce as maker and agreed to by Chmn. Ingell as second, to deny permission to show the videotape at this time; but to direct that the video be made available so that people can view it at City Hall if so desired. Chinn. Ingell asked Mrs. Kolesar what information is in the video which cannot be obtained by actually going to the site. Mrs. Kolesar stated that the video shows the car wash from various locations on the streets; it is possible to actually hear the noise from the car wash on the video; the video gives an opportunity for other people in the City to see the car wash in operation; and the video gives a good indication of what can be expected at the proposed location. P.C. Minutes 3/20/90 -3g- AYES: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Conon. Rue Mrs. Kolesar stated that she went to a great deal of trouble to prepare this video, and she was disappointed that she was not allowed to show it. MOTION by Chmn. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Moore, to continue this public hearing to the meeting of April 3. 1990. Shu Miho, 731 9th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) opposed the planned 9th Street approach to the proposed car wash which is directly next to her driveway; (2) felt that the approach is hazardous and will create furnes; (3) stated that the proposal will be dangerous; (4) asked that Mobil be required to extend the proposed planter buffer at 9th Street adjacent to her property by at least 20 feet; (5) stated that a planted area next to her property will provide a better buffer to her property. Howard Longacre noted that if this matter is continued, it will be the fourth continuance. He asked that the packets in the library contain all new information. He also felt that it would be appropriate to renotice this matter since it has been continued so many times. Mr. Schubach suggested that this matter be continued to the meeting of April 17, 1990. He also suggested that this be the final continuance of this item. He clarified that there are no provisions to require an applicant to renotice continued public hearings. Mr. Lee concurred that no law requires that this matter be renoticed. He stated that it can be continued at the discretion of the Commission. He suggested that a deadline be set for submission of all materials. He noted that those who are parties to this action are on notice and are present at this time. Sam Lennox, 845 10th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that his property is directly behind the proposed car wash; (2) strongly opposed any more car washes in the a:ea; (3) noted that the parking is already a terrible problem in the area; (4) said that the other car wash across the street is causing problems. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Chmn. Ingell as maker and agreed to by Comm. Moore as second, to continue this public hearing to the meeting of April 17, 1990. Gerry Compton addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that, even though it is not required by law, in the past applicants have been requested to renotice continued public hearings; (2) suggested that the videotape be made available so that interested citizens can view it; (3) commented that Mrs. Kolesar went to a lot of trouble to prepare the videotape. Comm. Peirce stated that the comments made by Mr. Longacre are correct, in that this matter has been continued a number of times; and it would be appropriate to ask that it be renoticed. He further noted that the applicant has been derelict, since the materials have not been provided on time. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Chmn. Ingell as maker and agreed to by Comm. Moore as second, to: (1) require that this matter be renoticed; (2) direct that the videotape be made available for the public to view; and (3) direct staff to obtain any information which Manhattan Beach has available in regard to the Mobil Car Wash in Manhattan Beach. AYES: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Rue P.C. Minutes 3/20/90 people next door to his property would like to use his second story for storage. He asked ,'f - business can expand into an adjoining building. Chmn. Ingell. suggested that Mr. Reiman consult with the planning staff. Mr. Schubach suggested that Mr. Reiman prepare a written regs`f asking that the Commission make an interpretation in regard to his specific propert Comm. Rue suggested that thisissue be put on a future agenndd omf Commission consideration. 'rf Mr. Schubach stated that staff needs a written lett the applicant explaining exactly what is being requested. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, addrese. tCommission and described a project he is currently working on, one which is a nprfconforming-unit in a nonconforming zone. He stated the property is on The Strand, an e questioned the requirements for front yard setbacks on both The Strand and Hermosa nue. He said that the current code reads that both streets are considered front yard setb s; therefore, he needs an interpretation in order to meet the parking requirements. - felt that The Strand would be the front'yard, and Hermosa Avenue would be the rear d. He questioned whether parking could be''utili7ed from Hermosa Avenue. Mr. Comp on requested that the Commission address this issue when the nonconforming section -of the code is discussed. He asked that the matter be heard at the March 6 meeti CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL SNACK SHOP. GAS PUMPS, AND CAR WASH, AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 931 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. MOBIL OIL STATION (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF JANUARY 3 AND FEBRUARY 6. 1990) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 15, 1990. Staff recommended a continuance of this matter unless the applicant can satisfactorily explain how this project is in compliance with the noise ordinance, which the project does not appear to be. If this project is approved, staff recommended that approval be subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. At their meeting of January 3, 1990, the Planning Commission continued this request because of the inadequate noise study and the need to address concerns regarding the potential noise impact of the car wash. The applicant has submitted the revised noise study and has also provided revised plans which show four new gas pump islands instead of three and which relocate the northerly entrance ten feet to the west, resulting in the relocation of the car wash ten feet closer to Pacific Coast Highway. The noise study indicates that the project can comply with the City's noise ordinance as the rather high decibel levels at a 20 -foot structure (81 dbs) are shown to be significantly reduced by the additional distance to the residential area and from the attenuation of a sound wall. Furthermore, ambient. noise measurements were taken at the northwest corner of the site and are shown to be less than the projected levels. However, the study assumes a 104 -foot distance to the residential area when the actual distance to the property line is 80 feet. The study measures to the house, while the noise ordinance requires sound levels to be measured from the property line. The measurement which shows that the sound levels meet the noise ordinance are based on attenuation due to distance and the sound wall. Also, other residential locations across 9th and 10th Streets are not considered. Further, there seems to be a lack of compliance with at least two other sections of the noise ordinance. P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 Staff is still concerned about the noise impact of the automatic car wash. Staff investigated the Mobil car wash site at the corner of Aviation and Manhattan Beach Boulevard which is identical to this proposed car wash, and it was noted that the higher pitched noise during the automatic drying with the doors open is not a very pleasant sound. Although the sound wall utilized at this location significantly mitigates this noise, it is clear that there is still impact. Therefore, in the absence of any certainty that sound levels will not cause a nuisance, staff is recommending conditions requiring that an automatic door be installed on the west end of the car wash to be closed during the drying operations. According to the applicant's study, keeping the doors closed can reduce the noise level at 20 feet from the car wash at 8 decibels. This becomes important when the noise impact down the street and across the street is considered where sound wall attenuation is not provided. The applicant has indicated that he would be willing to install one door at the entrance to the car wash but that he does not think requiring a door on the side of the car wash facing P.C.H. is necessary. Unfortunately, the sound study provides information regarding the impact of having two doors closed; however, staff has discussed this with a noise consultant who indicated that closing the one facing the residences should have a similar effect. Other concerns are the height of the sound wall and the noise frequency. The zoning ordinance allows walls of only a maximum height of six feet, but the applicant's consultant has recommended an 8 -foot high sound wall. There are some numbers in the study correlating noise frequency and effectiveness of the wall, but the sound frequency of the car wash dryer is not clearly noted. To further address the noise impact, staff is recommending that the hours of operation of the car wash be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. and 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. on weekends. The applicant is opposed to this and would like to the hours to be 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M.; however, the noise study only identifies ambient noise levels to 9:00 P.M. Staff has attempted to address the apparent inadequacy of the noise study by recommending some additional conditions. If clearer explanations are not provided at the meeting to show that the car wash can comply with the noise ordinance, the Planning Commission should again consider continuing this request. Another concern was the location of the air and water compressor equipment. The applicant has agreed to move these facilities, and new plans submitted today show that they have been relocated to the southwest corner of the car wash. Staff has contacted the City of Manhattan Beach regarding the conditions imposed on the Mobil Car Wash at the corner of Aviation and Manhattan Beach Boulevard and found that there are conditions to keep the doors closed during dryer operations and there are limitations on hours from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. on weekdays and 8:00 AM. to 8:00 P.M. on weekends. Also, Manhattan Beach requires an alarm system to signal a door malfunction, requiring that the car wash be turned off until the doors are repaired and that there be a back flow prevention device to prevent spilling of the wash water. Staff is recommending similar conditions in the proposed resolution. Staff continued to recommend conditions prohibiting vacuum cleaners, outdoor sales of merchandise, and the removal of the 45 -foot -high pole sign. Also, conditions have been added regarding the water reclamation system, the use of biodegradable materials, and drainage. Mr. Schubach, in response to a comment from Comm. Peirce regarding clarification of the City's noise ordinance, stated that the ordinance is quite technical. He continued by giving a brief description of the ordinance; however, he noted that staff could provide more detailed information for the next meeting. P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chain. Ingell regarding the Mobil Car Wash in Manhattan Beach, stated that he is aware of no complaints about that operation. Public Hearing opened at 7:21 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Brian Rechsteiner, 9891 Vicksburg, Huntington Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and explained that since the last meeting, a noise consultant was hired to perform the required noise study of the car wash. Mr. Rechsteiner discussed Condition No. 5 and the proposed hours of operation of the car wash, stating that they are requesting hours of 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. seven days a week, including holidays. He noted that the ordinance does allow those hours; therefore, they are not requesting anything above and beyond the noise ordinance. Mr. Rechsteiner discussed Condition No. 9 regarding the six-foot wall. He stated that they have proposed an eight -foot wall along the westerly property line as a further mitigation measure to reduce the noise emanating from the car wash. He continued by stating that the car wash meets current City noise requirements with or without the doors closed. Mr. Rechsteiner said that. since the last meeting, the car wash has been moved ten feet toward Pacific Coast Highway, not because of the noise factor, but because the pumps needed to be relocated closer to the driveway so that deliveries can be made easily. Mr. Rechsteiner discussed Condition No. 13, which requires that a water reclamation system shall be utili7ed. He stated that such a requirement was not originally mentioned, and they would prefer not to have that requirement unless there is a drought situation. He said that such a system would cost approximately $15,000 to install. He requested that the condition be modified to require the reclamation system only in the event of a drought. Mr. Rechsteiner discussed Condition No. 16, wherein the City is requiring that the automatic doors shall be closed during the operation of the automatic dryer. He noted that they have agreed to comply with this condition; however, the noise study shows that the noise ordinance can be met whether the doors are open or closed. Mr. Rechsteiner discussed Condition No. 18, which requires that an alarm system shall be installed to signal to an employee on site any malfunction of the automatic doors. He said that the purpose of the signal is actually to alert someone if both doors become stuck. An attendant could then come and open the door. Mr. Rechsteiner discussed Condition No. 19(a), which states that "complaints from residents shall constitute a nuisance." He asked that the condition be clarified by the addition of wording stating that "legitimate complaints" shall constitute a nuisance. Mr. Rechsteiner explained that Mobil is attempting to upgrade this property in order to bring it into the 21st century, and he asked for approval of the project. Bruce Davie, 865 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Manhattan Beach, noise consultant, addressed the Commission. He explained that he was asked by Mobil Oil to prepare a noise study document to determine the potential noise impacts at the car wash. He said that a report was submitted which consists of calculations of noise levels at the nearest residences as well as a measurement of ambient noise levels. He said that the Planning Department had requested information regarding the noise level at the closest property line, which is 80 feet, including the ten -foot movement of the car wash. Mr. Davie explained that he also included measurements including an eight -foot wall; however, he was informed by staff that the City allows walls of no more than six feet. Mr. Davie explained that his report included information with both doors open and both doors closed, as well as calculations for a six-foot wall and an eight -foot wall. P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 -4-2- Mr. Davie discussed his calculation of the noise level at 80 feet from the property line, based on the assumption of a six-foot wall with the west door being closed. This basis indicates a noise level of 52 dba. The City's noise ordinance adopted in 1989 contains two types of standards. One is the LEQ standard, which is the average noise allowed during the measurement period. The other aspect is known as a stair step ordinance, which allows a certain noise level at a particular location for so many minutes out of an hour. He said that this City's ordinance is unique in that it is based on half hours, allowing so many minutes of noise per half hour. Mr. Davie stated that the Mobil car wash has a maximum noise level only at times when the air blower is in operation. He said that the air blower will be on for approximately one minute out of every four minutes, assuming that cars are waiting in line. This would be 25 percent of the time during a measurement hour. The noise ordinance refers to this as the L25 noise level, the level that would be allowed for seven and a half minutes out of every thirty minutes. Mr. Davie continued by discussing the computer printout which was generated on the ambient noise monitoring at the west property line. The chart indicates times of measurement from 6:00 A,M. to 10:00 P.M. on January 24, 1990. He directed the Commissions' attention to the column pertaining to the L25 level, stating that shows the ambient noise level existing at this location 25 percent of the time. He noted that the ambient noiselevel in the morning is in the low 60s; in the afternoon the noise level falls off to the high 50s. At no time during the day does the ambient noise level fall below 58.0 dba. Mr. Davie discussed the ambient noise levels in regard to the City's ordinance, explaining that in R-1 and R-2 zones adjacent to commercial the L25 allows for 50 dba during the evening hours (10:00 P.M. to 8:00 A.M) and 55 dba during the day (8:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M). The ordinance states that if the ambient noise level goes above those amounts, it can be increased by 5 dba increments in order to accommodate the noise level. So long as the ambient is not exceeded, one would not be in violation of the noise ordinance. Taking into account the allowable ambient noise level of 65 dba during the day and 60 dba during the evening, this project with its projected dba of 52 is clearly below the requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Davie continued by explaining that the City's noise ordinance is written in terms of A - weighted sound levels, and the calculations projected A -weighted levels. Also, considered in the calculations were the frequency characteristics of the air dryer. He explained the octave band noise measurements which were made at the existing facility. He also explained how A - weighting is done. He said that the analysis was done by taking the frequencies into consideration. Mr. Davie, in response to a comment from Comm. Peirce, explained that the measurements were taken when the air dryer was in operation. Mr. Davie stated that this project, with the doors closed and a six-foot wallin place, would comply with the City's noise ordinance. Mr. Davie, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, explained that the noise measurements were taken at the northern end of the westerly property line, as opposed to being taken from the existing residences. He explained that there are problems in going onto private property to take noise measurements. He noted that the automatic collection device measures virtually everything, and the device was secured to a post on 10th Street in order to record the measurements. Mr. Davie, in response to questions from Comm. Moore regarding the estimates of decibel attenuation of various -height walls as a function of frequency, explained that the noise level behind a six-foot wall would be 52 db; whereas the level just above the wall would be 62 db. Mr. Davie responded to questions from the Commission regarding the computer printout related to how the measurements were made, taking into account the fact that the noise P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 emanating from the car wash would be directional. He explained that the calculations were based on corrections to measured levels, with both doors open and closed He stated that measurements were not taken with one door open and one door closed; however, very little change is anticipated if the door toward P.C.H. is open. Mr. Davie, in response to technical questions from Comm. Peirce, explained how the point of noise radiation is determined. He further stated that the ground surface will provide some noise attenuation, which will of a positive benefit. Comm. Moore asked whether data is available related to future two-story structures in this area and possible noise levels at a height of fifteen feet where a wall would do no good. He questioned whether there are unpredictable effects of noise radiating upward. Mr. Davie stated that the only difference would be the attenuation of the wall, explaining that a wall would provide an approximate 10 db noise shielding. He did not feel that the noise is particularly directional, stating that most of the noise would go out toward Pacific Coast Highway. Comm. Peirce asked questions about the noise ordinance, particularly regarding the LEQ 25 and the L25. He asked for clarification on the LEQ 25, to which Mr. Davie responded by explaining it in further detail and explaining how noise ordinances are typically drafted. Comm. Moore, noting that building design itself has a great effect on how much sound radiates out, asked whether Mr. Davie is aware of any variations in building construction and materials used which would provide sound attenuation. He mentioned acoustical seals on the doors and various other materials such as padding. Mr. Davie stated that he is not aware of any locations where this standard manufactured product has been modified in an attempt to reduce noise. He said that this building is metal. He went on to say that most of the noise transmits out from the door and the doors seals. Comm. Rue commented on the length of the cycle during which the air dryer would be on, stating that it was previously asserted that the cycle would be 1 1/2 minutes; however, the report states that the worst-case scenario indicates one minute on for every four minutes. He asked for clarification on the length of the cycle. Mr. Davie said that the numbers were based on their observations during the study. He noted, however, that the manufacturer states that the air blower is on for less than 1.5 minutes per cycle. Noting that he did the measurements himself at the site, he explained that the entire time is approximately four minutes per car; 2.5 minutes for the car wash, and approximately 1 minute for the air dryer, depending on the length of the car. Mr. Rechsteiner clarified that the building is not metal; it is a concrete fiberglass material. This is the same material used for their other buildings. He stressed that this building will not be a "tin shed," but rather will be a very substantial building. Mr. Rechsteiner, in response to questions from Comm. Moore regarding design alternatives for noise attenuation, stated that of all the buildings they have completed and are proposing in the future, they have never been in a situation where a city required a building modification to mitigate noise. When the doors are down and operation is during the appropriate hours, noise has not been a problem. Comm. Moore was quite interested in whether there is an alternative which is relatively low- cost that Mobil could use to further reduce the sound. He questioned the feasibility of a short. sound -proof entry tunnel or the use of extra insulation on the interior or exterior of the doors. Mr. Davie did not feel that such modifications would be necessary, noting that the project will meet the noise ordinance requirements. He stressed that it is not the intention to create noise P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 problems with the neighbors. He explained the configuration of the drive-thru area and stated that, if necessary, other materials could be used to reduce the noise in the event problems arise. Roger Otte, 521 Kings Road, Newport Beach, representing the car wash equipment manufacturer, addressed the Commission on the issue of the reclamation system. He said that the equipment used in the car washes is actually very miserly in terms of the amount of water used per car wash. He said that the equipment in use at the Manhattan Beach site does not have a reclamation system. His company makes approximately 85 percent of the systems of this type in use in Southern California, and only about one out of ten have a built-in reclamation system. If necessary, reclamation systems can be built into the equipment later. Mr. Otte said that each wash cycle uses 17 gallons of water. People washing at home by using a hose use approximately 34 gallons of water to wash one car. Comm. Moore, noting that an alarm system to be used in the event of a breakdown of the doors is being proposed, asked what assurances the manufacturer can provide to ensure that the system will be shut down in the event the doors do malfunction. Mr. Otte stated that the standard equipment used by Mobile has been a Code -a -Wash 3 computer inside the cashier's area which generates a code for the customers' use. There is a shut-off at the cashier stand in the event of a malfunction; although, the shut-off is not related to the doors. There is a buzzer inside, though, in case of emergency. Mr. Rechsteiner stated that the new station will have automatic sprinklers, timers, and low - flow toilets, all in an effort to save water. He also noted that there will be no mechanical repairs; therefore, the area will not need to be washed down, so water will not be used for that purpose. Mr. Rechsteiner continued by discussing Condition No. 10, requiring that the existing 45 -foot pole sign, located at the southeast corner of the site, shall be removed. He said that they would like to apply for a variance to maintain the sign. Mr. Lee explained that the 45 -foot sign is a grandfathered use at that site. If the applicant desires to add to the pole sign, a variance would be necessary. Only one sign is allowed: therefore, if the applicant adds another sign, it would force the property into violation of the sign ordinance. Mr. Rechsteiner explained that there are currently two signs at the site, the 45 -foot pole sign and the sign at the other end of the property. The pole sign will remain as is, and the other sign will be modernized. In addition to the freestanding signs, there will also be building signage. Chmn. Ingell pointed out that if the signage is changed on a piece of property, the sign ordinance is triggered, thereby requiring that all signs be in conformance with the current standards unless a variance is obtained. He noted that no action can be taken on a variance at this time. Mr. Rechsteiner passed out photographs depicting the site and the current signage. He said that it is necessary to upgrade the signage so that the business will be visible from southbound traffic on P.C.H. He noted that trees currently block the large pole sign completely from view on P.C.H. The only place the sign is visible is from traffic on Aviation. This is why he wants to maintain the other sign. He stated that nothing can be done about the trees since they are on private property. Mr. Rechsteiner stated that the success of this business is dependent almost entirely upon visibility by passersby and by gasoline pricing. If people don't know the Mobil station there, they will not stop in. P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 —�5 Mr. Rechsteiner noted that Condition No. 10 also requires that the other sign be limited to ten feet. He discussed the other proposed signage, stating that the ID sign is five and a half feet high, the price portion of the sign is four feet, ten inches, and the car wash portion of the sign is three feet, eight inches, which totals 14 feet. Adding five feet so that the sign will be visible over the height of a car brings the total sign request height to 19 feet. He noted that this is still well below the maximum 35 -foot height allowed by the code. He stated that, if necessary, he will return with a variance request. Comm. Rue asked whether it is possible to obtain a street elevation of this project, stating that it is difficult to tell from the plans what is where on the site. He stated that it would be easier to discuss the signage if it were clearly detailed on the plans. Mr. Rechsteiner directed the Commissions' attention to Page 4 of the plans which depicts the locations of the proposed signage. Comm. Rue stated that he would like to have project elevations from the west, north, and east, noting that it would make it easier to visualize the project in its entirety. Comm. Rue asked whether the use of landscaping is a viable solution to sound mitigation. Mr. Rechsteiner said that there will be 20 -foot trees spaced along the area, and the landscaping could be further enhanced in an attempt to reduce the noise. Mr. Lee returned to the issue of the signage and explained that the code allows for either one ground sign or one pole sign in the C-3 zone. A pole sign is defined as a permitted use only in the C-3 zone and may be a maximum of 35 feet. Therefore, the existing 45 -foot pole sign which was grandfathered in probably existed before the current ordinance was adopted. He felt, therefore, that the sign is not in compliance at the current time. Margaret Rathbun, owner of the Bob's Big Boy Restaurant property and the trailer park to the west of the property in question, addressed the Commission. She stated that she had not received notice of this hearing; therefore, she did not attend the first meeting at which this matter was discussed. Mrs. Rathbun noted concern over the noise. She said that the tenants at the trailer park live 110 feet back from the front property line on P.C.H. She noted concern over the location of the car wash on the site in relation to the location of the trailers to the southeast. She noted further concern over: (1) high frequency noise; (2) the operation of two large doors which can be disturbing to people who are resting; (3) other attendant noise from this project; (4) loss of parking on 10th Street; (5) tankers which will be entering the site from 10th Street and using the northerly driveway, which could mean additional loss of parking spaces; (6) impacts on the property because there are no left-hand turns from 9th Street; and (7) problems with cars using private property to egress the gas station. Mrs. Rathbun discussed the trees, stating that the Bob's property is up for redevelopment, and plans may be made as early as spring of 1991; therefore, the trees may be removed in the future. Mrs. Rathbun felt that Mobil is in a position to modify their plans, stating that car washes should be adjacent to commercial uses rather than residential. She felt that the car wash should be on the southerly portion of the property, since that area is completely commercial and people are not there after work hours. Mrs. Rathbun stated that it is more feasible to have cars exiting on 9th Street rather than on 10th Street. She disagreed with Condition No. 2 which states that this project will not adversely affect the welfare of residents. She also felt that the proposed hours of operation are excessive and should be reduced as recommended by staff. P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 -q-6- Mrs. Rathbun questioned the feasibility of a six-foot sound wall along some portion of the northerly boundary of the property to protect the people in the trailer park. Shu Miho, 731 9th Street, noted concern that- Mobil seems to have changed their comments regarding this project. She felt that it is not appropriate to compare this car wash, which is next to residential property, to the car wash in Manhattan Beach, which is next to a preschool and a market. She noted concern over the proposed hours of operation, stating that the proposed hours are excessive. She noted concern over traffic congestion on 9th Street as well as safety of the children in the area. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, stated that this Mobile site is very under-utilised for its size. He felt that the site is large enough to accommodate the four pumps; however, he noted concern over a car wash at this location, stating that it could be a potential problem. He urged the Commission to use extreme care in studying the noise study results and in making their determination. He noted that the owner wants to extend a currently existing use; however, stringent conditions should be imposed on the project. Gloria Kolesar, 714 and 726 10th Street, noted that she sent a letter dated February 19, 1990, to the Commission regarding this matter. She stated that her property is actually the closest to the proposed site. She noted that the people in the trailer park are elderly and rest during the daytime hours. Mrs. Kolesar stated that she went to the car wash site in Manhattan Beach, and she gave her observations of the operation at that time: (1) autos exiting the car wash are wet, and people stop to dry off their cars; (2) both doors were open at all times during all car washes; (3) water was being emitted during the washes; (4) when air dryers are on, the noise is excessive; (5) noise was clearly audible on the other side of the wall at Trader Joe's. Mrs. Kolesar noted concern that the doors are not closed at the Manhattan Beach site, other than during times when the system is not in operation. She continued by explaining the four various types of washes which are available at the station, each of a varying duration of time. Mrs. Kolesar noted concern over the noise which can be very disturbing to residents. She was pleased that the Commission expressed concern over possible two-story development to the west. Mrs. Kolesar urged each of the Commissioners to go to the Manhattan Beach site to listen to the noise emanating from that car wash. She noted that noise does not seem to emanate laterally from the car wash, but rather from the ends of the building Mrs. Kolesar noted that there will be only 68 feet from the car wash to the trailers, and the noise will radiate to that area and will be quite disturbing, especially for prolonged hours all day long. She felt that this project will adversely impact the property values. Mrs. Kolesar discussed the landscaping, stating that trees planted 20 feet apart will not do much to mitigate the noise, other than at the first -story level. She suggested alternate types of trees in her letter to the Commission. Mrs. Kolesar noted concern that the doors at the Manhattan Beach site are not closed; however, she said that she would not like to be inside a car wash when the doors are closed. Mrs. Kolesar, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, discussed plantings which would be appropriate to reduce the noise. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission and noted concern over large delivery trucks entering the site to fill the gas pumps, and she reminded the Commission that this site is adjacent to residential property. She noted that because of the depth and narrowness of 10th P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 Street. there have always been problems on that street. She agreed with previous testimony that people do use the private property at Bob's, and she noted concern over safety and suggested that that route be blocked to protect the residents. Mrs. Burt noted concern not only over noise, but also over loading of the gas tanks. She commented on the snack shop and noted that several other food establishments are being proposed near this site; therefore, she noted concern over congestion. Mrs. Burt felt that Mobil is discriminating to older people and women because they provide no service to customers. Mrs. Burt felt there is potential danger in regard to the delivery and loading of the tanks, the possible underground contamination caused by buried tanks, and unsafe entry into the station because of the narrowness of the street. She felt that the proposed hours are excessive and there will be too much noise. She noted that two-story condos as well as the trailer court are adjacent to this site; therefore, the hours should be restricted. Mrs. Rathbun clarified that, contrary to rumor, there is not going to be a McDonald's restaurant at the Bob's site in the future. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and stated that he opposes a car wash at this location. He favored only three gas pumps at the station, with no more than three cars allowed per pump. He questioned whether Mobil has indicated a desire to sell alcoholic beverages at the snack shop; however, he opposed the sale of any liquor at this site since it is within 100 feet of the residential zone. Mr. Longacre noted concern over possible accidents related to the gas tankers and deliveries, especially since there is so much traffic in that area. He noted that it is not appropriate to have tankers unloading in the middle of the night so near to a residential area. Mr. Longacre felt that this project will totally max out the property. Since it will be a completely new project, he did not feel it would be appropriate to allow any grandfathered signs to remain. He felt that everyt'.iing should be brought up to current code requirements. If the 45 - foot sign is not in compliance, he felt it should be removed. Mr. Longacre reminded the Commission that there are very expensive homes to the west of the proposed car wash. He speculated that the new business will generate a great deal of traffic which will spill onto 9th Street and Ardmore. Mr. Longacre felt that Mobil wants to build another car wash merely as a gimmick to pump gas, stating that they are not providing a service. He almost felt defeated in his battle against such a huge conglomerate. He felt that Mobil does not care about the City; they are only interested in their profits. Mr. Longacre felt that the proposed hours of operation are excessive, and he recommend hours of 8:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Mr. Longacre felt that residents have more rights than a giant corporation which puts in a computer -operated gas station which is totally impersonal. Mr. Longacre felt that the issue of the 9th Street entrance should be addressed. He continued by expressing concern over the noticing of this issue and questioned whether everyone was properly noticed. He noted that the agenda contains wording that staff recommends this matter to be continued. He said that some people might see that statement and decide that no action will take place; therefore, they do not attend the meeting. He felt that such wording should be omitted in the future so that as many people as possible attend these important meetings. When matters are continued, he suggested that people be sent another notice so they P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 know when to attend. He also noted concern that the site itself was not noticed prior to this meeting. Mr. Longacre questioned whether an environmental impact report was done for this project. Mr. Schubach stated that the Planning Commission is the lead agency in deciding whether or not to require an EIR. He explained that the staff environmental review committee recommended that this project receive a negative declaration with mitigation measures. He stated that the planning staff studied this issue and recommended that more information be provided in regard to the noise. Sybil Hess, 647 9th Street, noted concern over traffic and noise. She lives on the downside of 9th Street and said that the noise will be very loud for the residents. She gave staff several self- addressed stamped envelopes and asked that she be notified of any future hearings on this matter. Mrs. Hess stated that this project will generate heavy traffic on 9th Street. She said that the street is already so crowded with multiple dwelling units that it is difficult to back out of one's own driveway, especially since the street is so narrow. Since the City is requiring that the cars from the car wash exit on 9th Street, she felt that the neighbors would bear the burden of the increased traffic. Mrs. Kolesar again addressed the Commission and asked whether a new sound study will be considered due to the fact that there are residents only 40 feet from the car wash. She also noted concern that four to ten parking spaces might be lost, and she asked whether the Commission has considered this. She asked whether it has been considered to install a signal at 10th Street. Mr. Rechsteiner offered rebuttal to the comments made during the hearing. He stated that the 9th Street driveway will be left open by request of the City. He could not see how the Mobil station would affect traffic going behind the Bob's Big Boy, as mentioned by several people. He said that the original plans showed the 9th Street driveway closed, but the plans were changed at the City's request. Mr. Rechsteiner stated that cars exiting the car wash will exit on Pacific Coast Highway, explaining that the cars will stack to the rear before exiting; however, the logical flow will be onto P.C.H. He noted that most of the business will be from southbound traffic on the highway, and people will then exit on P.C.H. to continue driving south. Mr. Rechsteiner discussed the proposed hours of operation and stated that they are requesting hours of 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Mr. Rechsteiner agreed with comments that this site is under-util»ed; that is why Mobil is attempting to upgrade the property in order to keep up with the times and use the property to its full potential. Mr. Rechsteiner discussed the trailer park and stated that he does not have the actual figures, but he remembered that it was 72 feet from the car wash opening to the trailers. He said that he could verify the exact distances. Mr. Rechsteiner commented on people stopping to dry off their cars, and he stated that the car wash is designed to dry the cars off by 80 percent. He was not sure how people could be prevented from stopping to dry their cars. Mr. Rechsteiner discussed testimony regarding the doors being opened at the Manhattan Beach car wash. He stressed that he will look into the matter in order to ascertain why the doors are not being kept closed. P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 -�9 Mr. Rechsteiner discussed the tanks being next to the residential area. He stated that gasoline deliveries are safe operations, and they have had no accidents in the past. He said that delivery people have been contacted and told that they are not to make noise, such as radio noise, when they are making their deliveries. Mr. Rechsteiner stated that trucks will enter the site from 10th Street; however, he noted that there will still be a parking space there. But he noted that the curb is currently painted red on either side of the driveway; therefore, it will be easy for people to get in and out of the driveway. Mr. Rechsteiner addressed the issue of personal property rights and stated that as property owners, Mobil has rights too. They are in a commercial zone; however, the people in the abutting residential zone were aware they were next to commercial when they purchased their homes. He stated that they are trying to be good neighbors, and he took umbrage to the comments made regarding the business being operated by a computer, explaining that the business is leased to an independent operator. Mr. Rechsteiner addressed the issue of cars racing down 9th Street and stated that Mobil left the 9th Street driveway open per the City's request. He again noted that the majority of traffic will enter and exit on Pacific Coast Highway. Comm. Moore noted concern over the doors being left open at the other site. He noted that some operators do not comply with requirements, and he asked where citizens could go to make a complaint. Mr. Rechsteiner stated that citizens can contact Mobil directly. He suggested that they call the marketing office in Burbank if problems arise. Comm. Peirce asked if they would be willing to install an interlock on the doors so that the dryer fan cannot be activated unless the doors are closed. Mr. Rechsteiner replied in the affirmative, noting that this has not been done in the past; however, he is sure that that technology is available. He said that he would accept such a condi :ion. Comm. Rue discussed the issue of walls and asked what materials would be used for the wall. He also asked how any property disruptions to surrounding properties would be handled. Mr. Rechsteiner stated that the wall would be built on Mobil property; therefore, there should be no disruption to surrounding private property. He stated that if any plants were damaged, they would be replaced. He continued by stating that the wall would probably be some type of concrete block construction. Comm. Rue asked about the trade-offs between water reclamation and energy consumption. Mr. Otte stated that water is run through a motor -driven cyclone separator and then pumped out: therefore, some energy must be used. He noted, however, that he has not done any studies on the exact numbers. He stated that in reclamation 12 gallons out of 17 are saved, explaining that five gallons are lost in evaporation. Mr. Davie explained that the noise study was based on ambient noise measurements taken at the west property line. He discussed the location of the homes in relation to the location of the car wash and stated that the difference in noise at 72 feet as opposed to 80 feet is negligible. He said that the ambient noise levels on P.C.H. are quite high; however, he said that the proposed retaining wall will mitigate noise. He stated that a wind -wall along the north property line can be constructed in order to attenuate noise. He said that the wall would possibly the same height as the building. P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue regarding the allowable height of walls, explained that the current code allows walls to be no more than six feet in height. If it is desired to allow a higher wall, it would be necessary to amend the code. He stated that staff is currently studying this issue. Mr. Davie stated that an attempt will be made to provide the same noise attenuation to the northwesterly property line as is being provided to the westerly property line. Mr. Davie stated that a material which can be used in noise attenuation is Tecktum which is manufactured by National Gypsum. He explained that this is an absorbant material made of compressed wood fibers, and if required to do so, they could apply this material to the face of the walls. Mention of this product was not made in the report due to the fact that they were so far below the ambient noise level, he did not think the issue would arise. Mrs. Rathbun again addressed the Commission and stated that she cannot agree with Mr. Rechsteiner. She said that the program is to install a snack shop; therefore, traffic will increase. She said that parking spaces will be impacted because the driveway has been moved to the rear of the property to accommodate delivery tankers. She said that people who want to travel north will exit on the 10th Street side of the property. She discussed the possibility of a sound wall being constructed on the 10th Street side; however, she questioned whether a six- foot wall would be effective. Mrs. Rathbun felt that Mobil should utilize their properties abutting residential differently than they use properties abutting commercial zones. She noted that airborne pollutants will be emitted and there will be underground containers holding volatile fuels. These factors, along with the noise, make such a use inappropriate and dangerous so close to a residential area. Mr. Rechsteiner stated that there is 17 feet from the driveway to the end of the property. There is another 10 to 12 feet to where the street stops. He continued by discussing the dimensions for the driveway. He said that more traffic will not be drawn to a gas station, because gasoline is an impulse purchase. He stated that they hope to bring in more business from the street, not attract more business from another area. Public Hearing closed at 9:34 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Peirce stated that there are three issues before the Commission in making its decision: hours, signs, and noise. He felt that if this project is approved, a condition requiring that there be an interlocking door should be included. He also said that he could not favor this project unless the hours are restricted to nothing beyond 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. on weekdays and 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. on weekends. He disagreed with the applicant's assertion that it is necessary to have a 45 -foot sign and a 14 -foot sign at the entrance of this gas station, and he felt that the project should be in compliance with the sign ordinance. Comm. Peirce continued by discussing the noise issue and stated that a critical question is whether the noise is 55 db or 60 db on the LEQ measurements. He stated that a reading below 60 db on the LEQ would make the project in compliance with the noise ordinance. Mr. Schubach read from the noise ordinance and explained that certain circumstances allow adding 5 db to the total: whereas, in other circumstances, 5 db is decreased from the total. He stated, therefore, that these two actions can cancel one another out; therefore, staff felt that the reading is 55 db on the LEQ. Comm. Peirce discussed the handwritten chart submitted by the applicant regarding the figures, and he stated that the total would appear to be 61 db. He stated that the sound wall cannot take credit for noise attenuation because there is every possibility that surrounding new construction will be built to two stories. Unless a sound wall is built to 20 feet, there can be no sound attenuation from the wall above the wall. P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 Comm. Peirce stated that the project appears to be 5 db above the allowable maximum. He felt that the appropriate location for the car wash would be parallel to the highway so that the noise perpendicular to the car wash would be quite small. He stated that the noise figures would need to be verified by staff. Comm. Peirce did not feel that the water reclamation system is necessary because of the small amount of water which will be used. Comm. Peirce stated that the main issue is noise, noting that this project will be very noisy, especially to the people in the trailer park and those down the street. He questioned whether this is an appropriate use at this location which is so close to a residential area. Comm. Ketz was not certain that this is an appropriate use at this location, stating that she is not totally satisfied that the project will not create an adverse impact. She was not convinced that the proposed measures will mitigate the noise, stating that the residences will be able to hear the noise, especially anything at two levels. She, therefore, could not support the project at this time. Comm. Rue noted that there appears to be a discrepancy between staffs opinion and that of the noise consultant in regard to the numbers. He felt that the matter needs to be clarified before a decision can be made. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that staff felt this project would not create sufficient additional traffic to warrant a traffic study. He continued by explaining that staff felt the relocation of the driveway would improve the situation. Comm. Rue, noting that concerns had been raised about the traffic to the rear of the Big Boy, questioned whether something could be built to stop traffic flow to the north. Comm. Rue asked whether there would be any positive aspects to closing off 9th Street, to which Mr. Schubach replied that he would need to discuss that issue with the public works director; however, he did not feel there would be a significant problem with closing it off. Comm. Peirce felt that the noise could be mitigated by putting walls around the property; however, sometimes the cure can be worse than the illness and the site could look like a prison. Mr. Schubach stated that he has seen very high walls covered with vines and they looked somewhat attractive; however, high walls have an impact on light, air, and ventilation. Comm. Moore did not feel that high walls are the answer. He was convinced that the appropriate measure is the proper selection of door materials, insulation, and gasketing to reduce the noise. He stressed, however, that the key to success is to be sure that everyone understands the required standards before the project is built so that there are no surprises. Comm. Moore stated that he can support the car wash once there is a clear statement of the noise standard and assurances that the noise ordinance will be enforced. He wanted to make it clear to Mobil that the standards will be enforced. He further questioned the feasibility of closing off 9th Street before a study is done. He agreed that the sign ordinance must be met at this project. Comm. Moore agreed with Condition No. 10, which requires that signage shall be in compliance with the sign ordinance. Comm. Moore agreed that water reclamation is an important public issue; however, he did not feel this project is the appropriate place to begin. He therefore favored deleting Condition No. 13. P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 S -Z Comm. Moore discussed Condition No. 19(a): "Complaints from residents shall constitute a nuisance." He felt that such a condition would be worthless as worded; therefore, he favored amended wording delineating specific noise standards upon which complaints must be based. Comm. Moore discussed Condition No. 20(b): "The air and water facilities shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from the rear property line." He wanted to ensure that such a requirement is carried out. Comm. Moore concluded that he could support approval, with the inclusion of his above - suggested modifications. Comm. Rue felt that additional noise information is necessary before a final decision can be made. Comm. Moore felt that the noise information is very close; however, a final determination cannot be absolute until the project is built. Comm. Peirce agreed that it is probably possible to mitigate the noise and meet the standard; however, to allow the project to be built before obtaining additional information could cause confusion. He felt that it is important for everyone to agree on the noise standards before the project begins. Comm Peirce wanted to ensure that the project can meet the standards before it is built. Chmn. Ingell agreed and stated that he would prefer to see the mitigation measures on paper before final approval is given. He felt that the proposed hours are too long, and he felt that the hours should be limited to 8:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Noting that this project abuts residential, he felt that the proposed delivery hours are also excessive. MOTION by Comm. Rue to continue this matter to a date agreeable to both staff and the applicant. Mr. Schubach reminded the Commission that staff had included a condition requiring a water reclamation be used. Chinn. Ingell also favored requiring a water reclamation system, and he noted that it is never too soon to prepare for a drought. Chmn. Ingell discussed the number of gas islands and the snack shop, and he questioned whether the traffic will indeed be increased. Mr. Schubach stated that staff did not feel there would be an increase; however, additional information regarding the traffic can be provided if this matter is continued. MOTION WITHDRAWN by Comm Rue. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to continue this matter to the meeting of March 20, 1990, for the purpose of obtaining additional information, specifically: (1) to reach an agreement between the City and Mobil in regard to the actual noise measurement, the value it will be held to, and how it is measured; and (2) to request a design of the car wash, which by analysis or test, will show that they can meet the numbers Mobil agrees to before this project is actually built. Comm. Moore noted concern over this matter again being continued when there are only two areas of concern. Comm. Peirce suggested that a straw vote be taken on all items, with the exception of the two issues contained in his motion. P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 With the exception of Chmn. Ingell, all the Commissioners agreed that Condition No. 10 regarding hours of operation is adequate. Chmn. Ingell felt that the hours are excessive and should be limited. Comm. Peirce suggested hours of 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. on weekdays, and 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. on weekends. Chinn. Ingell opposed the proposed weekend hours, stating they are excessive. Comm. Moore favored the proposed hours of operation, and continued by stating that if the applicant can prove superior noise reduction, they could in the future request the additional hour to be open. Comm. Peirce favored wording in Condition No. 10 requiring that all signage shall be in conformance with the Hermosa Beach Sign Ordinance. All Commissioners agreed. Comm. Peirce favored deletion of Condition No. 13 requiring a water reclamation system. Chmn. Ingell favored retaining that condition. Comm. Peirce discussed Condition No. 16 and favored additional wording requiring that an interlock shall be installed to prevent the operation of the air blowers when the doors are open. All Commissioners agreed. Comm. Peirce suggested the deletion of Condition No. 18. Comm. Peirce discussed Condition No. 19, stating that the wording should be deleted and replaced with wording specifying how and where the measurements shall be taken. He also suggested inclusion of the actual wording from the code so that there are no discrepancies. Comm. Moore stated that he is ready to vote on the entire matter. with the exception of the two above-mentioned issues related to noise. He noted concern that if the matter is continued, all of the issues will again be discussed at the next meeting. He felt that with the exception of the noise, this matter has been adequately discussed and studied. Mr. Lee stated that the matter could be continued, at which time the public hearing could be re- opened solely for the purpose of taking additional testimony on the issue of noise. He suggested, however, that it would be appropriate to leave the entire matter open in the event other relevant testimony is given. Comm. Rue reminded the Commission that he had requested additional information from staff regarding the closure of the 9th Street exit. Comrn. Peirce did not feel closure of 9th Street would be appropriate, stating that that exit is necessary for ease of leaving the property. Mr. Lee reminded the Commission that Mr. Schubach had been requested to provide additional information on the issue of increased traffic caused by this use. Chmn. Ingell stated that the matter would be continued, and that public testimony would be taken in the future on the issue noise; however, if deemed necessary, other additional comments will also be taken. (Vote on motion to continue. See Page 15.) AYES: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chinn. Ingell NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-6. RE'SQLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BE - H, CALI RNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARC MAP #20620 R A THREE -UNIT ATTACHED CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1344 M •: IHATTAN AVENUE, ESSCRIBED AS LOT 4, BLOCK 49, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOS : EACH. No objections; so b dered. Comm. Rue noted . ypographical correction to Resolution P.C. 90-7 ondition 2(b): "No vehicles for sale shall b ... MOTION by Comm. Rue, seco A RESOLUTION OF THE PL CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CO (AUTO BROKERAGE) AND AN EXCE BUILDING PERMIT IN COMMERCIAL DESCRIBED AS LOT 18 AND PORTION OF so ordered. ed by Comm. Ketz, to approve a . ended Resolution P.C. 90-7, ING COMMISSION OF T. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, ITIONAL USE PER FOR AN AUTOMOBILE AGENCY ON FROM TH ORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF RRIDO' • T 638-640 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, T 1 ! , WILSON AND LIND'S TRACT. No objections; MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDE RECREATION MASTER PLAN Ingell, no objections; so ord- ed. Comm. ' eirce, to approve Resolution 90-10, A OMMISSION • THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH. APPROVING THE OMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND A GENERAL POLICY P Noting the abstention of Chinn. COMMUNICATIONS -FROM THE PUBLIC Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, Hermosa Beach, asked whether the publi Mobil Oil tation and Car Wash would be opened this evening. Chinn: Ingell replied in the affirmative. V CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL SNACK SHOP. GAS PUMPS. AND CAR WASH, AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 931 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. MOBIL OIL STATION (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JANUARY 3. 19901 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 1, 1990. Staffs recommendation was to continue this matter to the meeting of February 20, 1990, per the applicant's request. The applicant was unable to obtain the required noise study in time for the staff to review it prior to the meeting this evening. Public Hearing opened at 7:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. He noted concern for the commercial corridor and the uses going in along the highway, stating that there should be better planning which would be more conducive to attracting quality businesses. He questioned the feasibility of allowing another car wash so close to one already existing there. He said that the highway appears to be all auto -related uses. He strongly opposed a car wash at the proposed site. Mr. Longacre continued by asking what action would be necessary to change the uses allowed by the permitted use list. He urged the Planning Commission to take steps to encourage more high-quality projects along the highway. He suggested hotels, offices, shops, and restaurants. Public Hearing continued at 7:18 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. P.C. Minutes 2/6/90 MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation to continue this public hearing to the meeting of February 20, 1990. AYES: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21728 FOR A UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 914 7T11 STREET CommRue, explaining that he has an on-going business relationship with this'.plicant, stated that he would abstain from discussion on this item. Mr. Schubacli,gave staff report dated January 29, 1990. Staff recommended tl t the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit for a two -unit condominium and vesting tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed reso'(ution. This project is located in the R -2B zone, with a general plan designati6n of medium density residential. The lot size\is 4800 square feet. Five parking spaces are provided. The open space provided is 1040 squaag feet. The current use is as a single-family dwelling. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The subject property is rectangular in shape and slopes sid'e to side toward Pacific Coast Highway to the west. It is the sixt1i residential lot up the slop from P.C.H. and therefore has a view of the ocean to the west. The proposed units contain 2637 and ‘551 square felt and include three bedrooms, a game room, and two and a half bathrooms. Thi proposed,/structure consists of two stories above a semi -subterranean garage. The proposed building elevations propose acco exterior, mission clay tile roofing, and a decorative window to enhance the front f�acad\e, skylights, and decorative wrought iron railings These features give the building sgfnewhat\of a Mediterranean appearance. Each unit is provided with a private entry porch, d several first- and second -level decks, giving visual relief to the otherwise simple structure. This project is similar in size and style to the recently completed project located adjacent d to the east at 9.18 7th Street, except for the 25 -foot height as compared to the 30 -foot h ht of the existing project. One effect of the lower height is that the roof is flat rather than a - ached Spanish -tile roof. The plans indicate a front w'd setback of ten feet, which is . • equate considering existing setbacks along the street, and is consistent with what was req i ed for the project on the adjacent lot at 918 10th Street. Required parking is prdvided in two two -car garages oriented toward the • 'ddle of the lot, and one guest space is p vided. The garages are accessed via a nine -foot wid- driveway replacing the existing drivew y; therefore, no existing on -street parking is lost as a res t of this project. The project co plies with all planning and zoning requirements, although it i not clearly indicated wh e the trash receptacles will be stored. Adequate private open space s provided on first- an second -level decks for Unit A, and on a roof deck for Unit B, and adequa storage areas ar identified in the garages. Staff is including a condition that the location fit trash recepta, es be identified on revised plans. The4roject also complies with Interim Ordinance No. 89-995 which established a height limit for/this area at 25 feet because of its proximity to R-1 zoned view lots. P.C. Minutes 2/6/90 --S`6 put from the Commission on how to impose this. The ity Attorney stated that he couldn't make a clear interpretation of th section of Code either. Chmn. Rue tated that he would prefer to take up this issuat a later date, The 'mmission was in concurrence. ' When questioner on how staff felt about having only a"4'8" walkway to the entries, Mr. Schubach replied that staff wotq`d prefer a wider walkway. The public hearing wa reopened by Chmn. Rue a 7:37 p.m. Mr. Cameron noted that th is not a two s •ry building for its entire length, and stated that he •uld adjust t building for a wider entry. The public hearing was closed b Chm Rue at 7:39 p.m. Comm. Ketz felt that the Commissi• couldn't make an interpretation on the sideyard issue at this meet g d.te. Chmn. Rue felt it was a goo before them that represent see a 6 foot entry walkw Comm. Ketz concurred. time to do t because they had a project that very is e. He said he would like to MOTION by Comm. K= z, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to app •ve the Conditional Use Permit and -sting Tentative Parcel Map. AYES: omms. Ketz, Pierce, Chmn. Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: Comm. Moore ABSENT* Comm. Ingell Ch Rue stated that this item may be appealed by writing to the ity Cncil within ten days. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL SNACK SHOP, GAS PUMPS AND CAR WASH, AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 931 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, MOBIL OIL STATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 21, 1989. This project is located in a C-3 zone, with the General Plan designation of General Commercial. The present use is as a service station and snack shop. In addition, Mr. Schubach stated that the attached noise study is deficient in that no nighttime noise levels were taken, and confirms that the car wash will violate the City's Noise Ordinance. The highest noise level at 60 feet will be 76.2 DbA, which is loud enough to cause PC 01/03/90 a disturbance to adjacent neighbors. The automatic roll -up doors do close when a vehicle enters the car wash, and cut the noise level somewhat, however, it still may not be sufficient. The applicant has stated that he would provide an ambient night-time noise level study at this meeting date. The Staff Environmental Review Committee, at their meeting of June 8, 1989, recommended a negative declaration for the project, with a mitigation that a traffic analysis be prepared to address impacts of ingress and egress on Pacific Coast Highway. To date, the applicant has not submitted an adequate traffic analysis, however, the Planning Department is satisfied that the traffic impact, as a result of an additional access via 9th Street, will not be significantly different than what is currently experienced at this location. The Planning Department consulted with Public Works, and it was agreed that a full traffic analysis is not warranted in this case. The applicant is requesting to replace an existing service station/snack shop with a more modern facility containing additional gas pumps, a retail snack shop, and a self-service car wash. This proposal does not include auto repair service. Because the property use will be changed to a retail/commercial use by this new proposal, the parking requirement will now call for 6 parking spaces. Staff, however, feels that the parking is more than adequate, with parking provided at the pumps and four additional spaces located along the rear of the site. The plans provide landscaping along the rear property line, and a six foot high block wall, which provides an adequate buffer from the residential property to the west. Staff is also recommending that a tree be provided at 20 fDot intervals to provide a more effective buffer. Staff has included a condition ensuring that a complete sign plan be submitted, to include dimensions and copy, for approval, in accordance with the Sign Ordinance, and that the existing 45 foot pole sign be removed and the proposed ground sign be limited to a maximum height of ten feet. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Conditional Use Permit and Negative Declaration. When questioned if there were any restrictions on fuel deliveries, Mr. Schubach stated that staff hadn't considered it an issue, but the Commission could impose a condition on delivery hours if necessary. When questioned about the nighttime light levels and the amount of noise generated by the air and water compressor, Mr. Schubach explained that the applicant has suggested putting an 8 foot wall at the rear property line, instead of a 6 foot wall, and the air and water facilities could be relocated. Mr. Schubach further explained that the allowable noise level in PC 01/03/90 residential areas is 55 DbA from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 50 DbA from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. In commercial areas the allowable noise level increases by 5 DbA. Public hearing opened by Chmn. Rue at 7:52 p.m. Brian Recksteiner, 9891 Vixburg Drive, Huntington Beach, representative of Mobil Oil, addressed the Commission. He stated that fuel delivery is a fairly quiet procedure because the trucks are shut off and the fuel tanks are gravity fed. Fuel deliveries need to be on a 24 hour basis, and the neighbors haven't complained so far. Mr. Recksteiner explained that all lighting is indirect, or direct down - lighting, and will not spill over to the neighbors. Additionally, he asked that the conditions relating to the car wash be modified, conditions #5, #9, and #12. Condition #5 limits the hours of operation to between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.; Mobil is asking for a 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. operating schedule. Condition #9 requires a 6 foot wall at the rear property line; Mobil wants to put up an 8 foot wall instead, and have it stepped down as it reaches the street. Condition #12 relates to the maximum noise levels permitted at the property line on 10th Street, 60 DbA daytime and 55 DbA at night; Mobil has no doubt it will meet the ordinance limits. Mr. Recksteiner noted that a reading done at 9:30 p.m. the previous evening equalled 56 DbA, straight into the front door of the car wash. Comm. Peirce was concerned that the noise would radiate down the street where there was no wall to block the sound. Mr. Recksteiner agreed that it would be noisy in the street, but the residences would be protected. Chmn. Rue voiced his concern about any future development on the adjacent lot to the west, and asked how far away from the edge of the car wash a new residence would be. Mr. Recksteiner replied approximately 74 feet. Comm. Peirce noted a memo from Mr. Schubach, together with the supporting figures on page 5 of the staff report, indicate that the noise level at the entrance of the car wash is 67 DbA. This would indicate that the noise level if measured from the top of the wall would be at least 65 DbA, which exceeds allowable limits. Roger Otte, 521 Kings Road, Newport Beach, representative for the manufacturing company of the car wash equipment, stated that the noise to be received by a new residence on the adjacent lot to the west would have to be measured by a sound engineer. The studies conducted by Mobil were performed using a meter only, positioned approximately 5.5 feet PC 01/03/90 r C above the ground. Mr. Recksteiner interjected that Mobil would be agreeable to Commission approval with the condition that a noise and acoustical study be performed to ensure that the car wash meets the noise ordinance requirements. He further added that the pole sign has been in place a long time and Mobil would like to maintain it, changing only the price board. Mobil would agree to lower the pole sign from the present 45 foot height to the maximum allowed height of 35 feet. The trees along Pacific Coast Highway inhibit the view of the logo sign, but the pole sign remains visible. Comm. Moore questioned the degree of investigation that went into choosing the trees to be used along the rear wall. He asked that a condition be imposed that would require a thorough analysis of various types of trees to determine which would make the best buffer for the residential area while requiring little or no maintenance from those adjacent residents. Mrs. Shu Miho, 731 9th Street, Hermosa Beach, a resident, stated that she had received notice about the proposed car wash during the holidays, and she has sent letters of protest to the Mayor and Mr. Schubach. She was concerned about the waste of water generated by the car wash, and the possible impact on the environment. She asked that the hours of operation be limited to between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. only. She also agreed that the tankers delivering the gasoline weren't noisy, but the blaring radios from the trucks were. Sybill Hess, 647 9th Street, Hermosa Beach, a resident, stated that she was concerned about the extra traffic that will be generated by the addition of a car wash. The streets in the area are narrow and there are lots of parking problems, and problems with cut -through traffic from the station. Mr. Recksteiner addressed the Commission in rebuttal to the comments and concerns of the residents. He explained that the car wash is far enough away from the residences that it shouldn't wake anyone in the morning. He agreed that the radios playing in the delivery trucks could be a noise problem, but gas delivery itself is a relatively quite procedure. The tanks could be relocated to the front of the site, between the driveways, if the Commission deems it necessary. Mr. Otte explained that the equipment used in these types of car washes is very water conservative, using only 17 gallons per car as opposed to approximately 40 gallons per car used during a home hand washing. As for the water drainage and overflow, this type of car wash uses a blower system which dries the cars to approximately 85%, which prevents it from being carried out into the street. When questioned about the type of detergent used and the proposed waste PC 01/03/90 • water drainage system to be installed, Mr. Otte explained that only biodegradable detergents and waxes are used with nothing else added to the water. A water reclamation system, approved by the County of Los Angeles, is installed in areas where water conservation is a major issue. It is a more expensive system to use and maintain, mainly because contamination builds up in the tanks and the sewer connections which have to be cleaned on a regular basis, however, it is very effective and the water is safe enough to use over again. This system is not required by the county for all areas. Public hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 8:31 p.m. Comm. Peirce summarized the three major areas of concern as: 1) the 45 foot pole sign, which he felt was too much signage and agreed with staff's recommendation to eliminate it; 2) the hours of operation for the car wash, which he felt should be determined by the traffic flow on Pacific Coast Highway; and, 3) the noise generated by the car wash, which he felt needed further study in order to set adequate restrictions on allowable noise levels. Comm. Ketz concurred with Comm. Peirce about the need for special attention on the noise levels generated and what restrictions to impose. She asked if staff would be able to measure the noise levels first hand to ensure that everything was within range. She also felt that the pole sign should be lower. Mr. Schubach replied the City was in the process of training staff members on meter reading, but an actual study needs to be performed to determine the ambient noise level. Comm. Peirce said that he would prefer a continuance of this item until a noise study could performed. Mr. Schubach informed the Commission that a noise study should only take one to two weeks to conduct, and this item could be back before them for the first meeting in February. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to continue this item to the first regularly scheduled meeting in February, February 6, 1990. This continuance will allow the applicant time to receive a. completed noise study from a licensed acoustical engineer. No objections; so ordered. Chinn. Rue asked that staff also supply any information that could be obtained from a similar project located at Manhattan Beach Boulevard and Aviation in the city of Redondo Beach. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF SALE—G- v—AbGQii IC BEVERAGES AND ADOPTION OF TH . �� •: •MENT LNGATIVE DECLARATION AT 74 �EN.UE� RO IOUOR. PC 01/03/90 From: John R. and Gloria Kolesar 714 10th Street and 726 10th Street Hermosa Beach May I, 1990 City of Hermosa Beach Attention: Planning Commission and Staff City Council City Manager \4 A\` 1 1990 City Attorney Regarding: PROPOSED MOBILE CAR WASH AND GAS STATION The attached material is to supplement our letter dated April 17, 1990. In it we expressed our concerns about a health hazard that may be imposed upon usas adjacent neighbors by the idling of cars waiting to drive-through the car wash and again returning to the parking spaces at the rear of the site. Our coaeerns about the build-up of emissions along with carbon monoxide have been realized and expressed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in a Plan Revision in 1989. A proposed control stra tegy to reduce emissions from drive-through facilities is to ban construction of new facilities in the Basin. This is just a proposal at this time, however, it recognizes that a problems exists and suggests strong actions. Please, let your actions indicate that besides being a City Official you are a concerned citizen. Sincerely, SUPPLEMEN INFORMATION 1 'L-11 G_ 7L LI7 • r • n BANNING OF. NEW DRIVE-THROUGH FACILI [ROG, NOX, CO] .„ r.ci4 CM #88 -H -I **************i************************ *** ************************* SUMMARY Source Category: .Light Duty Passenger.ehicles.. Control Methods: Banning New Drive -Through Facilities Emissions:. (Tons/Day) Year 1985 .:CO Inventory 14.8 C0 Reduction. CO'Remaining * Not Determined Control Cost: Not Determined Year 2000 • Year 2010 18..1 _ 20.3 1.5 .. 3.7 16.6 16.6. -'Other Impacts: • : Larger 'Parking Space *************************************** *********•*****************•*** DESCRIPTION''OF`SOURCE CATEGORY Background Drive-through facilities are a convenience that allows people to transact business without leaving their automobiles. hese facilities are common in both banks and fast-food restaurants. Seve al local jurisdictions limit the location or number of drive-through facil ties or restrict their design to reduce idling time and congestion throug zoning, land use and permit ordinances.. Proposed drive-through facilitie are also reviewed as a part of some city and county planning processes o determine their impact on traffic congestion and local environmental a d aesthetic impacts. Drive- through facilities can cause extensive vehicl- idling as vehicles wait for service. Regulatory History In the County of Sacramento, drive-through 'fa ilities are regulated through use permits. By imposing design criteria, the County helps reduce congestion and time spent, idling in the drive several air quality districts in Northern Calif• use of. restrictionson drive-through facilities carbon monoxide build-ups. CM #88-H-1 -through. In addition, rnia have recognized the in preventing localized PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL The proposed control -:Strategy - to reduce emis•ions from drive-through facilities is to ban construction of new facilities in the Basin. EMISSIONS REDUCTION Carbon monoxide (CO) would be the primary pollutan strategy.. The emissions from idling vehicles at are listed in the summary table. If the ve restarted, there is a substantial increase in ROG the carhad remained idling. The emission red measure is estimated to be 1.5 and 3.7 tons' per da and 2010, respectively. reduced by this control drive-through facilities icle.is turned off and :nd,NOx emissions than if ction.potential of this of COin the years 2000 COST EFFECTIVENESS The, cost effectiveness of implementing. propo•ed control measure is uncertain at this time and requires further analys s. OTHER IMPACTS Larger parking space may be needed to accommodate or additional vehicles. SHU MIHO 731 NINTH STREET HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE FRONTIER 4-5949 April 16, 1990 Mr. Michael Schubach Planning Commissioner City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 Re: Proposed Remodel Gas Station Dear Mr. Schubac1: We vigorously oppose the present plans for the remodeling of the Mobil Gas Station at Ninth and Pacific Coast Highway for the following reasons relating to traffic safety and personal peril: 1. The proposal for an entry approach on the 9th street side is about 4 feet from the driveway to our residence at 731 9th Street, causing auto- mobiles to come dangerously close and often at high speed to the entry to our home. This danger could be alleviated by the extension of the planter area next to our home by 20 feet and shortening the planter on the Pacific Coast Highway side by the same footage, thereby maintaining the station's desired 35 feet for entry approach. 2. With the addition of a car wash and added gas pumps, we do not believe a six-foot wall provides a sufficient buffer from the noise and fumes. We request a wall of at least eight feet. 3. Because the car wash will be located close -. to private residence, we request the hours of operation be limited to twelve hours. As the records of these hearings show, we have consistently maintained our position that automobile and people safety and consideration for the neighbor- hood involved should be a first priority of the Planning Commission. Yours very truly, SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION _66 l o ; •i-;: c. cz9UUEttE. 7.31 /00z c.SbrEck Va. 2 c7E41no1a Lcacn, C_a. 90254 b Rc 3 A r F' 1 0 1990 kgIo oC r1tRMo=4. e� .4472nd; fl\; ��ay��Mc- Qom ss:�c� ; i ' MN <`( eo : Moat L c 2 L+.la.s ‘-t ?c 4 B, (o- . �1= a F .- r- LI � � R E.4. SoMS l t-( , i,� K =..`( u r .:: { "7"-t4'5- 4-- L-2 7"-t4IL-2 M_N•ra A--ek� of L -r; .{ S Y sr.c. ( _ Y; 3 0.1 s a W4S 1iCG �o z T'C.�. ts- ;(Z.OUsL-`t i E+ c. M C7: -.a " ,14 1-a'; . C M Az `f u Sr D K i cit Gt c- a c4 S 12, Ll 14P �- S. I` L` c''t A%-- MaC0- From: John R, & Glo-,a Kolesar 714 10th St. & 726 10th St. Hermosa Beach City of Hermosa Beach Attention: Planning Comission and Staff City Council City Manager City Attorney C March 19, 1990 Regarding: PROPOSED MOBILE CAR WASH AND GAS STATION We are adjacent property owners and residents to the proposed Mobil car wash and gas station. We have taken a good deal of time to study the impact the proposed Mobil car wash and gas station is going to have on us and other adjacent neighbors and property owners and must report that we will be adversely affected in many ways, unless those so authorized meet their responsibilities for making sure that all regulations, requirements, reports and studies are meet without question. Also, that upon considering issuing a conditon use permit all those so authorized have made sure that all parameters of impact, both present and future, to adjacent residences and property owners are very carefully considered. We request that the following material be read carefully and that each make an appraisal, comparing it to what. thus far as been presented in writing and/or oral presentation, and that all questions to correctness, reliability and validity be questioned and addressed at future public hearings. We unfortunately have found from all of this is that what you are told, have read or perhaps assumed is infact - - - NOT FACT-. 'Nv„,1:? r 0 lQQfl SUPPLEMENT` L INFORM AT{ON -69- The noise studies prepared for Mobil to date leave many questions to be answered. In the most recent study, submitted February 5, 1989, the calculations were based on the distance from the proposed car wash to the house at the rear of the westerly property at 104 feet. Planning staff noted this to be and error in reviewing that report, noting the calculations should have been based on the distance to the property line which was approximately 80 feet. However, this distance of 80 feet is in error also, because infact the closest affected residences that would be affected are those living in the trailer park at 731 10th Street, which is to the northwest at approximately just 52 feet. It is hard to understand how this could be overlooked by all those concerned I Hopefully, in the future all reference to noise impact implications and calculations will be based on that distance of 52 feet. Please review attached diagram. Another questionable area of that same report, submitted February 5, 1989 was pointed out to us by George Leighton. Mr. Leighton was retained as a noise consultant. The subject matter in question is at the bottom of page 6 of the same report. As it was reported1 they used the L25 which is the noise level that is exceeded for 25% of the measurement hour as the ambient noise level to determine compliance with the City's Noise Ordiance. By so doing inflated(khe actually ambient noise !!!! (copy of same attached) Another area of question den be reviewed by again referring to that same study of February 5, 1989. In the middle of the second paragraph on page 4 there is an obvious contradiction with regard to the length of time the drying cycle takes. The first statement indicated 1.5 minutes, while a statement 6 lines below indicates I minute ! After observing 3 different mobil car wash (all that were to have automatic operating doors ---None that did) the drying cydle took 1.5 minutes. From all of this - - - con or should you use such reporting to be valid„ reliable, and accurate enough to base important decisions on!! I 1 stogy STUCCO I 4925E 1 I 5'••:0.:0!*N-E B.0.-. viL NI3.26.00•V 108.17'1 c' •4IC CC.CPC,[ B:OC. vLL 1 I ) • M!'26'00'V—IOB.IY l. 112.•P 5'-0• 5•.0• S 1 S -OPT stucco S•CO cUSTCK• TC 6ICC 66C•661(61 C• I I ; 1.: j '` Ij !I i ocQcw.1416666., 006 L1 = • e' 64..- —SIT -656-1 II e ;.• [['^wiyE . • 9.;I nllo L' wl✓. CCKK T( 2104 4 C1 .n! r P•9. EKL0W6E _ S I -ca.c..LrE l I i1 ;IiI 1 5 H 5 Ia�l11 f a Ivv�y• I I jI.• j l l g S�L 3 I,Q to o I I I o 1 6 CO..CPCTE BLOC. 6•LL 1 y/% ol�e'BNLOIwO sETBKt .1 I 4006 !APE. L1G641 EI I 6! I I I 1 r I I n art• u C•.9r. LECEVI •' 5U1.01NG SETB..C[ 1 4- K. 0.0. 550.14cE ---�� 1.0•65 41 6•COK. tiT ,PE,OvE (0150. • I j Si.UCTURES PEG.SUS JISC /7) _ / 2 PLOCES.TTP.I',s ii -7 5r0R•GE GO BUILDING �Tj 04 LIG441 1005 �; 1` r`5rw_rIc.oL J• er 662 2•'-P . 5 : 0100 LE0Ee0 665 ;IAIs}anee-i-o e tLstcesuees kei 11/4.3 ��•�1-° en res.+ 14Sideire4 f�ra�, o��r I? aril e• t 1 CF I i I I I I •� I t CAr war wi 11: nln40-3} blccK 4roii QC1�.J.r.o}� �"j `� S1Or}1 „j nj ethic SeG I:an as050500. lSS 11121114.1'.IL 4 n• (Le snLE54004 so - II r IPE!le I wrOP•,. T'I " 60C• Tviw61.11/46 10 • we; L10: •.1Os 0, n `N. riJtjarSIN ILS -, �T •-- / `TLL LO . N Or'AL B06 B'" •�+c 005C1i rn.T Kc:vsrpKr [ r:STI,C 66Nwy{. —666 lac Can •1,01•• K• CUT 550'5 ❑n.) 6660• C5w00T L (09(PE1E Nat _ 1/- - -J ELEL DEPT* "SM•LT (0C"ETE •LYING K6 6. MK. CI , IT MI �2•" .:. LEvCI L•(• L:Gwr 4( a TE" 0•1]'26'00'0 216.27• 6.5 ; N / I I \ wo II I C I PG.9 1 1 \ / Ir.r. 6600• .o.[ 11 11I L . 0• r,( :::T J •(o_` 61, L'•rvl:[rC• S. \ /• I I 1 R3 ••••40.(6.5,4•E KCOC•rE aP K:TC(::N 6:7 i511 �,( !'I�./[4:STIe•: S ,•.,•(... OPr;;i i • S•P •4. 6. C0•C. NR941n-T �iY�9 / ',Of Slew I. c6 l[Tn 6640• llGwl PLgr.fU i .G // • I ' i.1 �illx•T I 2T - [c-�c sa °'" RLL em 1 \i 1 ~ G •P*;c PAL BO P51:,61L 0 / \ •CLOUT E"15TIeC I 1 _ -N., B:r • 1 !C••• -.ss ..r 1 •t. o •-yn..,i. CCr,Sr �S,I'• •c• co.Z ....O.K. GiE+�rysr . 2? -0• 1.66.1'C 6,E1 420.00. w1• . . I.•ac.n1 :Co,1.. • _Ire t no r5re s-Viu Sc 'YU 1+61 Feb s� /947o 11-3,,i mob; 140 564 U 14 Runos& gktach P10 n1V%G 4.0 Ambient Noise Levels Dtp�. Ambient noise levels were measured at the site at the location shown in Figure 3. Noise measurements were made with a Larson -Davis Model 700 Noise Analyzer calibrated with a B&K 4230 Acoustical Calibrator immediately prior to use. The analyzer monitors noise levels automatically over selectable time periods such as 1 hour. The analyzer is'a microprocessor -based unit with its own internal clock and sound leve meter that samples the acoustic environment several times per minute. Al of the noise samples thus collected are stored in the analyzer, and the noise levels exceeded for various percentages of time are automatically computed. The Larson Davis Model 700 Sound Level Meter was located at the northewes property line of the site where the car wash will be. The system was set to collect data automatically from 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. on January 17, 1990. The sound level meter was installed in a security box with a sensing microphone located approximately 6 feet above grade. The data collected during this noise measurement is shown in Table 1. The L25 is the noise level that is exceeded for 25% of the measurement hour (7.5 minutes out of 30 minutes). This is the ambient noise level that will determine compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. Table 1 A -Weighted L25 Noise Levels in dB South Property Line of Site Time L25 6 a.m. 62.0 7 63.5. 8 63.0 9 62.5. 10 60.5 11 60.0 12 60.5 1 p.m. 60.5 2 59.0 3 59.0 4 58.5 5 59.5 6 - 58.0 7 59.5 8 58.5 9 58.5 6 UULIA ACUUS 11CAL CONSU(( ANTS. 206 Riversido Avenuo, Suito E Nowport Boach, CA 92663 (714) 631-7315 54d(—tjrnpa i b4 J R7-210 f ? l�h texts -I"he @ovember 24, 1987 I.jG}- C�} ham, ' 1� ecpu I1t0 1 CABtu() � q��Q-(..ro-� _ `h0 � rlx�nhc� �aYI �l�h��cl,,, Btu() wne Ire. They have_ Mr. Roger Otte � 1 doors? CDoot- } { W,e� Ryko Manufacturing Co. ervist1 - warkt nci Ot*rinci „-au e Rb t q go. • 940 E. Orangethrope, Unit G ? NAv�th�001' Anaheim, CA 92801 �.era}ed c ti�' D F C lgg� dU 4 -ton U S> r''� ! . ? • SUBJECT: Sound Study Taken At The Drive -Through Car Wasli At rfistin Avenue and 17th Street in Santa Ana why suchUn aid SA -tic{ y ? Dear Mr. Otte; At your request I have completed sound level measurements at the drive- through car wash at Tustin Avenue and 17th Street in the City of Santa Ana. The purpose of the measurements was to evaluate the noise levels emitted during the car wash cycle at various points around the Model R7B-Mini-Tunnel and Ultra Cleaner car wash structure. Noise level measurements were made on November 19, -1987, at the existing car wash facility referenced above. Mr. Ken Kimball assisted in the tests by operating the car wash mechanisms: Based on previous tests of similar facilities for Ryko, the greatest noise impact was expected to occur during the dryer. cycle. This fact was confirmed at this far,i]. i I:y it I.:4). Because the cycle represents .the highest noise level generation, the tu;;I: results indicated in this report are from dryer cycle measurements. Measurements were made by running the car wash cycle with tlie.dryer/blower in operation and recording noise levels of the dryer cycle at positions of 20 foot increments around the car wash structure. Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 show the measurement locations and distance from the structure at each position. The indicated positions are similar to tests previously reported. To expedite the measurements a majority of the noise levels were recorded when the dryer cycle was manually operated to repeat without the washing cycle. The highest noise levels of the dryer cycle occur at the start-up when the blowers are activated. The noise levels then stabilize as the blowers move forward and back over the car in the stall. They duration of the cycle is about one minute and thirty seconds. The ani ue feature of this facility was the roll -u) do s on the entrance_ and exit sides of the structure. Tests were So' ruri with the clu: est roll -up door closed during the test and the far roll -up door open. Another set of measurements were made also with both sets of d closed. ours c use Does A hts S eme k1a U,e 9 ou e decors tau o r kauto Ynct-ha l ly-- exi l-ir j Cam.? what__——,(uhety absero isfqo +h ey01:d of 13 Institute of Noiso Control Enolnoorino • Acoustical Socioty of Amorica ,wUV-"k At the public hearing on February 20, 1990 it was noted that to date it was believed that there hadn't been any complaints about the Mobil car wash in Manhattan Beach on Manhattan Beach Blvd. and Aviation. However, the owners of the adjacent pre-school had made numerous calls and on January 8, 1990 directed a written letter to the city council (letter attached) expressing their concerns for the lack of enforcement of the conditional use permit. They could not understand why the Mobil car wash continued to operate even when it was a condition (#12 & #13), that they were to shut the car wash down if the doors did not operate. Connie Sieber, Mayor of Manhattan Beach, wrote a letter to the owners of the pre-school indicating her concern (letter attached) and that the director of Community Development, Mr. Woosley, would look into it. On February 28, 1990 the senior planner, Rosemary Ballister, directed a letter to Mobil that mandated that by March 16, 1990 they must have the doors operating properly or they would have to shut the car wash down (letter attached). On March 19, 1990 after it was observed that the doors still did not operate) Manhattan Beach in enforcing the CUP had the car wash shut down : All concerned have found this to be and eye opening experience Hopefully, something will be learned from all of this. After talking with residents of the white apartments directly to the west of the car wash on Manhattan Beach Blvd. and Aviation, they have been subjected to the noise from the car wash for approximately 6 months. They cannot remember ever seeing the doors on the car wash operate. Several indicated (letters attached) that they had to close their windows and turn up the radio or TV so as to drown out the noise from the car wash. This would indicate that the noise generated by the car wash, does infact have an adverse affect on near by residents even with a 7 foot sound wall at about 30 feet from the car wash exit and about 80 feet to their apartments. 376-7556 • //J///. 37q---12.23 January 8, 1990 To: Members of the City Council Re: Mobil Gas Station/Car Wash at Manhattan Beach Blvd. & Aviation We are next door neighbors to the new Mobil Gas Station/ Car Wash at the corner of Manhattan Beach Blvd. and Aviation. For more than 3 months, we have listened to the almost constant roar of the newly installed car wash equipment. When this project was originally proposed, we voiced our concerns about the added noise to an already very busy, noisey corner. We were assured by both Mobil and the City Council that the car wash would only be allowed to operate with the doors in the closed position. But the doors are only closed when the car wash is closed. We have contacted the building department, just as many of the neighbors have, and been told repeatedly that they are working on the problem. I do not understand why the car wash is being allowed to operate outside of the guidelines originally set-up and agreed upon with the city. It has always been my understanding that a business must conform to certain regulations before being allowed to open and operate. Obviously, this is not the case for this particular project. Were all building, fire, and conditional use permit regulations met? Please inform us on the exact status of this project and any deadlines that may have been set for compliance. THE MAGIC RAINBOW PRE -SC Thank you for your attention to this matter. Lou Bourgeois drtL, Wrik,1 Bonnieis Bou geo Owners OL 1159 Aviation Blvd. Mangy' tan Beach, California 90266 Connie Sieber, MAYOR Steve Barnes, MAYOR PRO TEM COUNCILMEMBERS C.R. "Bob" Holmes Larry Dougharty Pat Collins Mrs. Bonnie Bourgeois The Magic Rainbow Preschool 1159 Aviation Boulevard Manhattan Beach, California 90266 Timothy J. Lilligren CITY CLERK Stephen A. Schlesinger, C.P.A. CITY TREASURER January 19, 1990 Re: Mobil Gas Station/Car Wash Dear Mrs. Bourgeois: Thank you for'your letter of January 8th calling our attention to the problems you were having with the new car wash near you. We on the City Council are also very concerned that noisy uses and equipment throughout the City be properly monitored and regulated so as to minimize the impact on their neighbors and the public in general. I have asked Byron Woosley, our Director of Community Development, to look into this matter as soon as possible and coordinate directly with you to see if we can address this problem. Please feel free to call Mr. Woosley at any time on 545-5621, extension 277. CS:da Sincerely, 1..1 o�-svz+c,LC� CONNIE SIEBER Mayor City Hall • 1400 Highland Avenue, Manhattan Beach. California 90268 (213) 545-5621 C February 28, 1990 CITY HALL - 1400 HIGHLAND AVENUE - MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90266-479 TELEPHONE (213) 545-5621 FAX (213) 545-5234 Mobil Oil Attn: Katja Rytokoski 3800 West Alameda Avenue, #700 Burbank, Calif. 91505 Subject: New Mobil Gasoline Station: 1865 Manhattan Beach Boulevard Dear Ms. Rytokoski: I am writing to confirm our recent phone conversations concerning the referenced project, specifically concerning the car wash door closure problem. As you are aware, the car wash is not in compliance with the conditions of the approved Conditional Use Permit. I am aware of the efforts that are being made to replace the door motors and understand that the motors will be replaced no later than the third week in March. Because of this time frame, the City is requiring that the car wash not operate between the hours of noon and 2:00 p.m. during the week. This is the time most sensitive to the nursery school next door. If the car wash doors are not able to be operating properly and reliably by March 16th, the City will have no alternative but to require a complete shut down of the car wash. I am sure you are equally anxious to resolve this matter. Please contact me at 545-5621, ext. 274 should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, Byron Direc osley Communi opment By: Rosemary B lister Senior Planner cc: City Manager g:A_t vige '7/'L L ' /- e7t /s3 / ti'!u J� j/L 61t-4 / ; — /0-ef 6/6/1t—/ 1c:(:ifi , Like— ✓JZ - L- L(iC vli`G4 f�13'C/ , LC/1 ✓l t -z. LoL //�E' ./; 7. I'LL. 7u7,50 CE LL L ifZ6,,e 2J -`G;'2 Ar -3' 4- /C '(% L 10 Whom lE Y'cla9 Coz.ncern: Dur apart %b v stiArs d'�reckc en line spirt � � y o'\ C.arwas or A‘i t Aon and manhait ah 13ta h 151 Y . the tk\% 0-k Tht m conN mnce wc:Arv3 -(1.'orn .51/4)01 dts os _. P ox�rn�y dcrnr ed Crorn t4nt- 'tdd Coro rOvse. AAw,arA cort\nvo11 i , and ctrtatnly so an � witdvoillas The_ sovrici of -Met. 6% exit Wad' s resetmivc. \\ow xS blare. . hroQ5h Vur .. ‘,av(,ws • -Che vN6sc coat, be tvorrred -to ANNe- NrI4Tvin _txick c* a 65s0v)esINer. Or over d 5 oi4 15,arturciN e,nd► SurNcia w e arc, 9 jeckeS 'to - hh►5 if C+* r •rom as - car i fa, 430.. 30 a . and Corwok)5l fhrouho5t ,tin c. dz.N. 1 n - orcdex- t o alloid ht fir + oox' we5h lour 45t co oar 1v r lvst Ve. -torsed op 'ro rnapsY' sok) rd. . 1.21; rpt c arc asses lel by -F},` c�nd VC%oe over -r41)-)75 bt 100(1 Smoker' tail ki a o v511 -c neer att a- oJas 5leiiorl gland . mtg.. a 2'I - hour- steckn , -t'hvs cold ha a- an p 6AJA % Bre.mi a l.ev,q eke„ 18 3C, t Zth S 43 m an ha -i Boczell j 90 ?MD -29 -- Previously, the representive from Mobil likened the similarity of the proposed Mobil car wash in Hermosa Beach to the newly constructed onein Manhattan Beah at the corner of Manhattan Beach Blvd. and Aviation. It was indicated that the doors at the entrance and exit, operated automatically, triggered by the entering and then exiting car. That by having such a door system, controlled sound emissions could be calculated so as to insure that any noise emitted would be acceptable. That is great if in fact the doors work! The following duplicated material is from Manhattan Beach's resolution # 4505, the conditional use permit for the Mobil gas station and car wash on Manhattan Beach Blvd. and Aviation. The conditions that were mandated appear to be very clear and directed, but even at that they are finding to date that enforcement may be a more difficult matter. Recently, Manhattan Beach has had to mandate Mobil to make the doors on the car wash operational as a requirement in their conditional use permit ( #I2 8 #13). Mobil was given until March 16, 1990 to make the necessary repairs or be shut down. However, as of March 19, 1990 they are still operating but the doors do not close.? It is questioned if infact the doors ever operated??? It should be questioned also that if they are made operable how long w11.41 the' function in this manner?? How many Mobil car washes have these doors?? How many are actually operational?? We asked Ken in the Hermosa Beach planning department to please find out from Mobil:where there was a Mobil car wash in this area where the doors operated as described. We were interested in seeing how the doors operated -- if they made noise-- how long it took for the entire cycle -- and how they contained the noise. We were told there was one on Magnolia off the 1-15 in Corona !! We were going out that way on March 15, 1990 and stopped by..... GUESS WHAT? Yes, your right !!! THE DOORS DID NOT WORK !!!! What else can be said. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 A RESOLUTION Oh ILII CITY COUNCIL UI•' THE CITY OE MANHATTAN BEACH, C FORNIA, APPROVING THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF .NING ADJUSTMENT MADE IN ITS RESOLUTION NO. 88-18, AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AS MODIFIED, PURSUANT TO THE APPLICATION OF MOBIL OIL CORPORATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1865 MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD IN SAID CITY landscaped area due to anticipated street widening, addi- tional landscaped areas should be provided to improve site aesthetics. 6. The proposed sign program is in conformance with Municipal Code requirements. 7. The proposed 24-hour operation for the gasoline dispensing use is a desirable convenience and will not create nuisances to nearby properties. The hours of operation, however, for the mini -market and coin operated car wash may create potential nuisances for nearby properties and hours of these operations should be limited. 8, The project, with the recommended conditions of approval, will be compatible to all surrounding properties in the area. 9. A street dedication and construction of street improvements to provide one additional roadway lane adjacent to the project along Aviation Boulevard has been determined to be consistent with transportation improvement plans along the Aviation Boulevard Corridor intended to increase traffic bearing capacity of Aviation Boulevard. Said widening and street improvements construction is consistent with a goal for improvement of traffic circulation in the infrastructure element of the General Plan adopted by the City Council. SECTION 4. The City Council does hereby approve the Conditional Use Permit for the subject property based on the foregoing findings, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. All outdoor lighting shall be arranged so as to reflect the lighting away from residential properties, if applicable. 2. The rear area between the main station building and the west and north property lines shall be adequately illuminated with low intensity lighting for security pur- poses, with the installation subject to the approval of the Community Development Department. 3. All roof -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view from any adjacent public rights-of- way. 4. The use of all power and air compression equipment located in the accessory areas shall be restricted between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 5. The landscape plan shall provide as a goal, landscaped areas equal to approximately 10% but not less than 7% of the lot area, subject to the approval of the Community Development Department. All property line planters adjacent to the street shall be increased in size wherever feasible. All planter areas shall include, at a minimum, berms, trees, shrubs, flowering plants, and irrigation system. 6. A minimum of eight (8) parking spaces shall be provided. All shall meet the required dimensions and their 3 2 3 4 5 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 A RESOLUTION ulf THE CITY COUNCIL OC THE CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH,(.IFORNIA, APPROVING TIIE DECISION OF THE BOARD ZONING ADJUSTMENT MADE IN ITS RESOLUTION NO. 88-18, AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AS MODIFIED, PURSUANT TO TFIE APPLICATION OF MOBIL OIL CORPORATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1865 MANHATTAN BEACH BOULEVARD IN SAID CITY locations shall be approved by the Community Development Department. 7. Noise emanating from the property shall not create a nuisance to the adjoining properties. 8. Access to the public restrooms shall be controlled by the station attendant. The restrooms, when unused, shall remain locked and the attendant shall distrib- ute the key upon request. The public restroom shall be permanently available to the public between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight and shall be kept in a sanitary and working condition. 9. The hours of operation of the mini -market shall be limited to between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight seven days a week. The gasoline dispensing opera- tion may operate on a 24-hour basis, seven days a week. 10. All signs shall conform to the Municipal Code. `11. At a minimum, a 7 -foot high solid block wall shall be constructed along the northerly property line for a f distance of 121 feet from the westerly corner of the site, and then be reduced to thirty inches (30") in height, a distance of about fifteen (15) ,feet to the new property line, meeting the approval of the Community Development Department. 12. The building plans for the car wash shall be revised to include the placement of doors at the entrance and exit to the building. The doors shall be closed whenever the car wash dryer is operating. -r--13. The car wash shall not be permitted to operate whenever the doors are inoperable. '14. An interior sign inside the car wash shall be displayed to inform the user of the car wash of emergency exit procedures meeting with the approval of the Community Development Department. ,--15;--; An alarm device to be operable from the interior of the car wash, to alert the attendant when the car wash or doors thereto malfunction, shall be installed, meeting with the approval of the Community Development Department. 16. The hours of operation of the car wash shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00, Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 8:00 a.m to 8:00 p.m., Saturday, Sunday and holidays. 17. All utilities serving the site shall be underground to the nearest power source, subject to approval of the City and all appropriate utility companies. 18. The applicant shall dedicate in fee simple title a strip of property 12 feet in width along the Aviation Boulevard frontage of the development and construct street widening improvements within the 12 -foot wide dedicated area. In addition, a property corner cutoff having the radius of 25 ,feet shall be dedicated at the southeasterly corner of Lot 1, 4 C The question that must be asked NOW Does Mobil in fact have car washs as indicated by them, where the doors work automatically and close with an,emtering car that is to be washed and dried and than the doors reopen to al low the car to exit ??? Attached are pictures of the sites that were to have those continually automatic operating car wash doors!!! At the three sites indicated by the pictures--- the doors never operated and is questioned if they ever did-- or could ---or if they could for how long? (pictures attached) From all of this, it seems unconceivable, that any further consideration could be given to the use of such an automatic door system, by those so authorized, as a control for noise emissions. let the car wash in Manhattan Beach dictate the reliability of the system or the intent of those who so constructed it. - gy.....__ mobil an f) q fli /iL i,v atrrrrta_-- tete slattern et mob; n /Ibbr/ of rhag4v//a % LfOrrr»a_- 1,IeLu rticbi 1 4 g+OW* moot s&t% eviontaic. e l ec rtcat tt s/? 1 'The dors pi DNS" ctgi Lawn N A 4 3 do& c c xe A question at an earlier public hearing was raised as the enforceablity of the noise ordinance. Well, presently the noise created by the Hermosa Car Wash accross the street from the proposed Mobil car wash is being tested. The police department has determined that the noise eminating from that car wash is in fact above the allowable noise levels. This should be a good test case for the enforcement of the noise ordinance. It is unfortunate that the residents and pooperty owners were ever subjected to the noise created by that establishment. Another problem that needs to be discussed, is one that was realized by the owners of the pre-school adjacent to the Mobil car wash on Manhattan Beach Blvd. and Aviation, only after the car wash was built. They believe the health concerns could be serious in that at that car wash, which is very busy, long lines of waiting cars (as many as 8-10) leave their ENGINES RUNNING!! The emissions from those idealing cars is obvious at their location because the cars line up along their common wall to wait, as they would have to do at the proposed Hermosa Beach site. (letter attached) Please, consider how you would like to ingest the emissions from such waiting cars just on the other side of a wall at your residence!!! Remember, this would be all day, every day for years? Also we fear the noise the waiting cars will make, radios, loud conversations, slamming doors, loud engines and who knows what !!! 376-7556 To Whom It May Concern: Friday, March 16, 1990 It is now the deadline established by Byron Woosley, the Director of Community Development for the City of Manhattan Beach, for the Mobil Car Wash at the corner of Manhattan Beach Blvd. and Aviation to have the doors on the car wash operating as promised in Tiginal proposal by Mobil. The car wash continues to operate with the doors open except between the hours of 12 and 2 PM when the car wash has recently been closed. At one point during the week of March 5th, the car wash doors did operate as proposed; the doors closed while the car inside was washed, but this only occured twice and the doors were only used between the hours of 12 and 2 PM!!! Mobil has not met the deadline! Pn added concern that has recently surfaced is the line os etears waitin to be washed with their motors running. `T� added missions from the running engines was not something we thought to consider when this project was proposed. It is an added health concern. And finally, the tall wall constructed by Mobil at our request to cut down the noise, has also caused more dampness and loss of afternoon sun warmth on our playground. In closing, in this particular case, progress and new construction have had very little benefit for us. OL) -t NIMA) (61 Lou & Bonnie Bourgeois Owners THE MAGIC RAINBOW PRE-SCHOOL 1159 Aviation Blvd. Manhattan Beach, California 90266 89-- In conclusion, we hope you were able to take the time to throughly review the preceding discussions and materials. From the foregoing we hope you can see why on JUST THE SUBJECT of NOISE we feel that we will be adversely affected. Also, we hope that those so authorized and responsible make their feelings known at the public hearings with regard to the questions asked and the many errors made and information that is pertinent and has not been brought to light. Your time will be appreciated --- your comments and actions even more. Thank You, MeS6DC-2-y John R. and Gloria Kolesar 714 10th St. b 726 IOth St. Hermosa Beach Calif. We the undersigned are as concerned as the Kolesar's about the matters discussed and hope to all this is addressed take the time to consider and address these questions. egt-OZt/)te c- / '?l iaz ' 13.7. 54 �'- i7 la P7Y 5 T ? / o F/ �j (=i6 SHU MIHO 731 NINTH STREET HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE FRONTIER 4-5949 MARCH 19,1990 MR. MICHAEL SCHUBACH PLANNING DIRECTOR CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HERMOSA BEACH, CAL 90254 DEAR MR. SCHUBACH: �c.PT.. f LAN Nj11J (AQuil I AM WRITING TO OPPOSE THE PLANS BY THE MOBIL OIL STATION WITH REGARD TO THE APPROACH DRIVEWAY ON 9th STREET. AS IT DIRECTLY ABUTS THE DRIVEWAY TO MY HOME, IT PRESENTS A CONSTANT DANGER TO US EVERY TIME WE COME IN OR GO OUT. ALSO, TO OUR GUESTS AS THEY MUST USE OUR DRIVEWAY TO PARK. AREN'T THERE ANY REGULATIONS REGARDING THE SAFETY OF CARS ENTERING OR EXITING A PUBLIC AREA NEXT TO A PRIVATE RESIDENCE? I ASK THAT THE PRESENT PLANTER EXTENSION OF 35 FT. BE MAINTAINED TO PROVIDE A NECESSARY BUFFER BETWEEN OUR PRIVATE DRIVEWAY AND THE STATION'S APPROACH. THE 35 FT. APPROACH CAN STILL BE ACHIEVED BY SHORTENING THE PLANNED PLANTER AT THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY END. SINCERELY, 90 Carch 12, 1990 City of Hermosa Beach Attention: Planning Commission & Staff City Council City Manager City Attorney Regarding: Proposed Mobile Car Wash and Gas Station he undersigned •ents of 731 10th Street, the o the -•ortheses. •f the proposed Mobile Car Wash and Gas Station, want o •ring the following matters for consideration to the attention of all those this notice is addressed: 1. The location of the trailer park as described above, is the closest residences to the proposed Mobil Car Wash and Gas Station at approximately 52 feet and all concerned should have realized this previously in their proposals. With this fact being brought to your attentionr;we believe in determining an acceptable noise level, this distance of approximately 52 feet, should be the distance used to evaluate if infact the proposed car wash will meet the noise ordinance of..Hermosa_.Beacb. This location is approximately 52 feet to the northwest at a 45 degree to the car wash site. From a noise study that Mobil presented to the Planning Department submitted December 26, 1989 by Colia Acoustical Consultants (on pages 4 & 5 ) at a car wash at Tustin Ave. and 17th street in Santa Ana, their study with doors open or doors closed would indicate the noise generated by what we would assume to be a similar car wash, at approximately 52 feet at a similar angle in fact may generate noise above the acceptable noise level standards established by Hermosa Beach in the noise regulations on page 274.30, Table I, for Exterior noise standards. We hope to those that this 1Yg3 9/ : letter of attention has been addressed make a determination to this fact and so report. 2. It has been brought to our attention that a correction needs to be made in the future for giving notice, correspondence and mailing to this trailer park from the city--- we have learned that it is addressed as 725 10th Street (each trailer individually numbered). For mail delivery this trailer park is and has been addressed as 731 10th Street with the appropiate trailer number. Hopefully, this discrepancy will be corrected soon. Thank you for giving due consideration to these matters. 7-3/ 1A`. X0,1 73! 7 3/ 93-7 /0btsT � /vim 3 ��: 517 frJ/"- c I/. 1- /1 ?2 d� 1 10 N.otse 4 6Y Colret- acv teal _ e LSulfac,4s .For mobil sc'bntiiied 4-0 tier scv.: ;$c• 2dt--De G. 2.41/ I iv. tutu 04 tef arerni iitrs 51ticly wootd 14 }u o4 t ru:Ito0-e -rhe 1.301se. t'evel 4-o be vice 4 'e• f-hL.c'icc q blee i'eu•e17 Sa' 4o /7/10 +rniier• park ss Act f a cets!- 4-0 -Ht 1 br+/-1 w rs4 tr4 to.rl jilt pro posiecl C nr (Ai ash sr ie '0 c 1 ern, Wit ai- m. 11 N. • N. V N./N 82 Re14•' 11 In Y 'Q• or. /0 9 n 11 ,•o r -• 1 --ie Olcs€0i- 1 /-,?, o pip I `� CO ict�n�-� � 11 \ " /N 0 0 4.4t: - •O • en prtpf)5eq N. 0 t` N ii Iw. _.ICY t - \ ow uxisi\ ,,Q, .1 n n • il It Y� C O -. ~ (1)U CO t•1 II n 1 0 0 0 w N ..1 0 0 a CP •ri • � 'o I0 • II c o • N 11 0 11 0 a. —II – ^. O 0 0 0 \ N w Y • \ O 0 FIGURE 1: Sound Study Taken At Car Wash At Tustin Avenue and 17th Street 'in Santa Ana, CA. Noise Levels Are Indicated As Equivalent Sound Level (Leg) Taken During Dryer Cycle. Noise Levels Recorded With Both Roll -Up Doors Open ?larch 7, 1990 City of Hermosa Beach 11lanning Commission RE: Proposed Mobile Oil Car Wash Dear Sirs: I am a property owner at 845 - 10th Street, Hermosa Beach right behind the Hermosa Car Wash. It has been brought to my attention that Mobile Oil across the street (Pacific Coast 1-Iwy.) is planning to put another car wash in there. My house is one of the very few houses left with a nice ocean viewhich should upgrade the value of my property; but it doesn't, because of the very, very, very, immensely not Hermosa C-Erlrallnr It devalues my property. This car wash runs seven days a week from dawn until dusk. Not only is the noise a detriment; but 10et is a very narrow street with parking o one .ide only. Hermosa Car Nash has a good twenty er o_ ees who take up t,;hese parkin spaces... I can't even park in front of my own house. Now I know there are laws on noise decimals, but these places don't seem to abide by there. The Hermosa Car Nash has no sound deadening enclosure of any kind. Surely something can be done about this. I certainly don't need another noisy car wash directly across the street and taking up more parking spaces that literally aren't available. So not only is this letter in protest to the proposed Mobile Oil Car Wash, but is a formal complaint against the Hermosa Car Wash. Thank you for listening. Yours truly, . J. Lennox (213) 328-6262 cc; Building Department City Manager City Council L HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL HERMOSA BEACH, CAL 90254 DEAR COUIICIL MEMBERS: FEB 2 21990 FEBRUARY 17,1990 2 6 1990 RE: IMPENDING CAR WASH AT MOBIL GAS STATION AT 901 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. SHOULD THE CAR WASH BE APPROVED, WE HOPE THAT THE NOISE WILL BE KEPT AT A MINIMUN. THE WASTING PART ISN'T BAD,BUT THE BLOWER DOES CAUSE QUITE A BIT OF LOUD NOISE. SHOULD THE CAR WASH IS APPROVED,WE HOPE THAT THE TIME OF USE WILL BE FROM 8A.M. AT THE EARLIEST AND 8 P.M. AS THE LATEST TIME, WE WOULD LIKE T1HE MOBIL OIL CO. EITHER ADD TO THE PRESENT BRICK WALL, OR LET IT REMAIN AS IT IS. THE WALL THERE IS AN VERY ATTRACTIVE ONE, AS WE HEAR THAT THE WHOLE STATION IS GOING TO BE REMODELED, WE HOPE THAT THERE WILL BE HIGH ENOUGH RETAINING WALL BUILT ALL AROUND BOTH FOR SECURITY AND SAFETY TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. SHOULD THERE BE THE POSSIBILITY OF MANY CHANGES OF THE MOBIL GAS STATION, WE HOPE TWAT THEY WILL ADD TREES THAT WILL BOTH BENEFICIAL TO THEM AS kILL BE ADVANTAGES TO THE NEIGHBORS WITH TREES THAT WILL HELP KEEP THE NOISE FROM 'T11L STREETS AND THE STATION, TREES THAT WILL NOT SHED LEAVES INTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES, TREES SUCH AS FICUS BENJAMINUS, CARROT TREES ARE JUST A FEW SUGGESTIONS, YOURS TRULY, 4-2) SHU MIHO, HISAK6 NIIHO 731.9th St HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 February 19, 1990 Honorable Council Members, Members of the Planning Commission, and Staff: As an adjacent property owner to the proposed Mobil Gas Station and Car Wash, located on Pacific Coast Highway between 9th Street and 10th Street, we hope the City Council, Planning Commission and Staff will take the time to consider the following inquires, questions, appeals and requests when ammending or approving the conditional use permit by Mobil 011 Corporation in restructuring their station at that site. We request for consideration the following: I. The westerly wall which stands at 6 feet presently be raised to 8 feet. This request to increase the wall's height was made with consideration to reduce noise, to maintain privacy, and to help prevent intrusion -- as the property exist today and as it maybe developed in the future. A planting area next to the wall was designated on the proposed plans to allow for trees and shrubbery to improve appearance and to reduce noise. We appreciate and approve of such a designation. However, we hope that first with regard to the planting area. That if it is to be a raised planting area that again consideration be given to the wall's height so as to maintain at least 6 feet above that area. Secondly, as to those trees and shrubbery that are to be planted there, we would appreciate and hope that one of the following trees be considered : Ficus Benjaminia or Melaluck Luckdandrum.- Also to make a condition in the Conditional Use Permit that what so ever be p lanted that they are to be maintained, trimmed and not allowed to encroch over the wall so as not to litter leaves, branches, sap or what so ever. 2. In reference to condition 6 on page 6 of Resolution P.C. 90-I presented January 3, 1990 that the "wal 1 shall not exceed 42 inches in the height for a distance of 10 feet from the edge of the rightaway for both 9th Street and 10th Street" be reconsidered for 10th Street. That height would al low for intrusion, IosSUPP[F R,j'_dsJ_ ( of privacy and vunerab i I ity fo theft. We hope that a --n ;,-,,,10 . the wall in that designated area be stepped up �f1�<��= starting at 5 feet above ground, be it level or a raised planter, for 5 feet and within 10 feet or more gradually stepped up to hopefully an approved height of 8 feet. 3. If it is approved that the wall be raised to 8 feet we are in hope that the existing wall be maintained and just added on to. If demolished we feel we will have damage and perhaps lose to structures, plants and trees adjacent to the wall because of demolision, escavatlon and induced ground instability. Added to this our property is considerably higher than the Mobil property only adding to the concerns above. 4. The lighting for the proposedgas station/car wash be designated in the conditional use permit to be engineered so as to insure privacy to adjacent properties. 5. The operating hours for the car wash be limited as well as for the gas station to times so as not to distrub waking and sleeping hours. ----Car wash- 8 to 8 Gas station- 6 to II. We thank you for your time and hope you will consider the above. S incere Iy, 1,1.1 fi �--(-' John Robert and Gloria Kolesar 714 $ 726 10th Street Hermosa Beach 17 6,ZcLCia6L:eu February 19, 1990 Honorable Council Members, Members of the Planning Commission, and Staff: As adjacent property owners $/or residents to the proposed Mobil Gas Station and Car Wash, located on Pacific Coast Highway between 9th Street and 10th Street, we feel we will be adversely affected as most recently indicated by the plans submitted by Mobil Corporation. In which a Car Wash is to be located mid -way on the north side of the Mobil Property boundried by 10th Street. We are opposed to the plans as proposed for the reasons listed below. We hope all involved will give full consideration to the following: 1. The adverse affects on adjacent residents and property owners. Those to the west (as their property exist today or as it may be developed in the future); residents of the trailer park to the north-west ( many who are senior citizens); and patron of Bob's Big Boy. 2. Noise from the proposed Car Wash is of prime concern. The Mobil Corporation Representitive likened the noise IevAI to nothing much more then a conversation between 2 people? We believe that hearing is believing and that all Counsel Members and Planning Staff should personally appraise the noise by going to a similiarly developed Mobil Car Wash, on Aviation and Manhattan Beach Blvd, and actually listen to all phases of the washing and drying cycles. We believe that after listening to a full cycle, it would be agreed, that the wash and rinse generates little noise. Itis the drying cycle, when the blowers come on, when the noise is excessive. It is even noisy, when one is positioned on the other side of the wall to the west that is atleast 8 feet high. The noise radiates like being blown out of a megaphone from the entrance and exit, while to the sides the noise is muffled. The adjacent SU; PLEME TA! property to the West would be roximately only .0 fee> from the end of the Car Wash while the iler to the Northwest -is only approximately t. How would you like to live within that !stance and listen to that level of noise for approximately I minute- 150 times a day- 7 days a week- from 8am to 8 pm ? Please, consider how one would be affected by this noise, not just when one is in their home sleeping but throughout the day when one enjoys their home and yard. 3. Concern for the lose of 4-10 parking spaces on the north side of the Mobil Property on IOth Street because of the proposed change in the entrance/ exit to the Mobil property being moved to within 6 feet of the west boundry. 4. Traffic flow and added congestion e also of concern because of the Car Was es oca ion. Bo imes when the Car Wash on. Aviation and Manhattan Blvd. was observed, there were 4 and 5 cars waiting to go through the Car Wash. It took approximately 5 minutes to go through depending on what type of wash they payed for (4 different types of washes). The line of cars ext^ded 60-70 feet from the end of the car wash pay station. When the wash was completed most of the cars observed would then stop a little ways from the exit door and proceed to dry their car and clean their windows backing up 2-3 cars. We are concerned that there is insufficent room for waiting cars to enter the car wash thus backing up on IOth Street as well as having exiting cars pulling back around to exit on IOth Street to dry their cars. The exit capabilities from IOth Street at present are poor because of the lack of a signal andthe excessive) hi.hflow of .._'.cifi C• -.t e°1? -k ® HiQhway with Aviation merging in. We hope full consideration will e given to traffic flow to and from the Gas Station/Car Wash along with safety and congestion factors created by the same. 5. Residence in the trai ler park are concerned that if the proposed driveway on IOth Street is in fact moved to the west boundry they will have lights shining directly on their residence throught the night along with considerable additional noise generated by cars entering and exiting throughout the day and night. -97_ Adjacent property owners $/or residents opposed to the proposed conditional use permit plan submitted by the Mobil Corporation now before the City Council of Hermosa Beach because of the previously discussed reasons. NAME \ ADDRESS CJI r3 ( 10-cla -; r' —131 c C:lit- //) -"'•• j-- • 2 3/ u DATE r 174 / - / `/ --7 C - 2 j <-- PLANNING COMMIS ION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIF. 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA. 90254 ATT: MICHAEL SCHUBACH GENTLEMEN: DEC. 23, 1989 fEC271889 WE HAVE THIS DAY RECEIVED YOUR NOTICE FOR A CON- DITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL SNACK SHOP, GAS PUMPS, AND CAR WASH, AND NOTICE THE HEARING THERE- ON TO BE HELD JANUARY 3, 1990. WE,THE UNDERSIGNED VIGOROUSLY OPPOSE THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. MOBIL OIL IS PRESENTp. OPERATING A SNACK SHOP, GAS PUMPS, A GARA4PAIRS AND SEE NO NEED TO FURTHER CONGEST THE AREA, AND WITH A CAR WASH AND ITS RESULTANT NOISE, WATER AND DIRT. 2. NUMBER OF CAR WASHES IN THE AREA. AT PRESENT THERE ARE TWO CAR WASHES WITHIN ONE- HALF MILE OF THIS LOCATION, ONE BEING DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE MOBIL GAS STATION. 3. TRAFFIC: AN INSPECTION OF POLICE RECORDS, WE ARE SURE, WILL SHOW UNREASONABLY HIGH NUMBER OF CAR ACCIDENTS IN AND AROUND 9th STREET AREA. BECAUSE OF THE SHORTNESS OF YOUR NOTICE, WE ARE UNABLE TO PROVIDE NUMBERS. 4. IMPACT OF NOISE AND DIRT POLLUTION. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF RESIDENCES IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THIS FACILITY (OURS INCLUDED) WHICH WILL BEAR THE BRUNT OF ALL NOISE, DIRT AND WATER DRAINAGE IF A CAR WASH IS INSTALLED. WE REQUEST TIME TO STUDY ANY ENVIRON- MENTAL STUDIES MADE IN THIS REGARD. 5. HERMOSA BEAUTIFUL: WHAT WILL BE THE RESULT OF A MESSY CAR WASH AT A LOCATION WHICH IS PRACTICALLY THE FRONT ENTRANCE TO OUR CITY? FOR THESE AND OTHER REASONS WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS, WE RESPECTFULLY URGE THE DENIAL OF THIS -10 aW . avvuiL Vt��7 •7.1, . PERMIT OR, AT LEAST, THE CONTINUATION OF THIS HEARING UNTIL SUCH DATE AS WILL REASONABLY ALLOW OPPOSITION TO GATHER FACTS. YOUR NOTICE WAS RECEIVED ON DECEMBER 23, AND REPLY DEMANDED BY DECEMBER 28th, 1989, A TOTALLY.UNFAIR AMOUNT OF TIME AND WORSE, DURING A BUSY HOLIDAY SEASON. YOUR CONSIDERATION OF OUR VIEWS WILL BE APPRECIATED. YOURS VERY TRULY 4.Vi/A &UV RESIDENTS AND OWNERS OF PROPERTY AT 731 -9th ST., HERMOSA BEACH, CA. Cie, 06%a) il ;h i? the/)., �6z6 & 4-4/ SIDENT AND OWNERS OF PROPERTY 726— 10th ST., HERMOSA BEACH, CA.. ci0a- \ ,tip,1 '<it NUJ" WJ L t &eLcd, e C' . - 02 s( 6 4 "7- I ti JL 575 PasA•' h,,• ,ay.o.13t14•.,C Sols f 1.7 � � `T° " l�' divra, ,..1„zyAk., s 4_ c74. . de -a -e -A 'it, A a -4Z q,d laZ— CIL 9400Z. Sy • 30 W ARDMORE 30 :ooE 340 1990 i IOTH 12 rod . " (: �� I - N 76,34'[ 1•,L, 6' I y4!(475D (, ST. 0 i 38 - iI .. I i 99 OO l O I O l sO i s Qs I 1 o I I LOT 5 1 Po I I I 76I BILK. I1 38 l ,. I 38 1 I 40.26 44/OAS 7 , 4/.32 45 /4 8 .,;E 15 9 /6 10 .. a -' -_ F !\ 'Ny- , \ �\ ` `•. 1 49.32 3...79,1,o' 1 ti 0 I o I I 50.38 I So., 10 SO SO I I 1 I/ I /2 1 LOTI.6 I t .. t SO 1 70 /3 70 2a 21 4S 2© 1 20 .. �� 27 1 . ,. '..'.. ?/ 18 :i -:.t Is 45 i O (:V( LN O 9TH i L3/ -7 3/ ST OR PREV.: ASSMT. SEE: 167-27 28 SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH M. B. 3-11-12 TRACT NO. 223 0 o o ISO M. B. 13 -.193 CONDOMINIUM PARCEL MAP P M. 222-9 1 K l/AR/ES 2 a a QI Vd� ,;o• 461 10 TH ST. 9. ASSESSO,.'S HAP COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CAl MOBIL P.C. H.• & 10th. HERMOSA BEACH LOOKING NOR --. 1 1 " ,• i071.1.131 !i$1.1211 1/111.1.35i eui 061c4v\p) ,ftor (X.C,V.a 5+re-e.-47 r V(\,) (;) S cce.v.0.5 CITY• OF HERMOSA BEACH I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the 304i, day of Ma.r, , 199 , deposit into the United States Post Office, fgv rst class postage prepaid, a copy of the Public Notice attached as Exhibit "A" to each and every person attached as Exhibit "B". I warrant that the persons named on Exhibit "B" are all the persons required by applicable law to receive the Public Notice attached as Exhibit "A". I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to cause these Public Notices to be made in an aaccurate and timely fashion and agree to hold the City harmless against any liability whatsoever for any defect of said notice or notices. In the event an action is instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction which questions the legality of the Public Notices, then the City may in its exclusive discretion suspend all hearings or cause the cessation of any consturction or of any use which was permitted as a result of a hearing which was held on accordance with the Public Notice. In the event that the court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be effective, then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke any permits granted and cause any approvals given pursuant to those Public Notices to be declared null and void and I agree on behalf of myself and my heirs, assigns or successors -in -interest to hold the City harmless in connection therewith. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. L I have executed this declaration on this the JL)L day of /�aL�� 1990 at Hermosa Beach, California. ?3i 1 c ,ld. n) E-64_. o•Q S .-a--)-L. }'u - j', v c— Ti G, (Name) (Sic riatuie. (Capacity) State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) SS Onllthis the r'(3 day of 4Z , l99 0 , before me, `a(e/'jC e /j/, )1)./CK-',/r the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared y„ Y,,.ey. 7/,2' and proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence t'o be the person(s) whose name(s) /S suscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) OFFICIAL SEAL LAURICE M. DUKE Notary Public - Crlito.nla PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN L A. COUNTY My Comm. Exp Mar. 12. 1993 I STORY WOOD HOUSE 1 STORY .000 GARAGE 8•.0• . 20'-9 400 MR., 3 PHASE ELECT. SER CE AIN W/ PULL 1 SEC ION N'.RAINPROOF BOX '00'W-108.19 8'-8$c f16,-0. WOOD SHED II NO PARKING SIGN 9' HIGH CONCRETE BLOCK WALL 18 FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY) PLANTER '1 400W AREA LIGFjT NEW 6' CONC. CURB ITYP.) B' B 400W AREA LIGHT G SETBACK I II o OEXIST. MANHOLE .4 is,I W 1 N STORAGE TRASH ENCLOSURE (11 w. ST.s I 41110 ch. ST. a SITE 19 th.S/u LL a u 8 th. Pt. VICINITY MAP } � I CONC. CURB TURN PER CITY I ROSITYPJ \ I 1 I II CONCRETE BLOCK WALL 8' FROMUATACENT PROPERTY 9' HIGH CONCRETE 6LOCK,WAL' N13'26'00'W 108.17' 1 STORY STUCCO 400W AREA LIGHT LITIT W/POS 8' BUILDING SETBACK NEW 6'CONC.-CURB ITYPJ PLANTER B' BUILDING SETBACK 4- NEW U.G. STORAGE TANKS WI WI 6' CONC. MAT 0 0 24'-0' 9OINSTRUCTIONAL 5 i 114,•0" C i Norm SFT- X GROSS • NET AREA OF PROPERTY.•6S ACA. "28.645 SBF COOLER _ 3181 ILI.. GS BUILDING _ l6 41 5Roa/ STRUCTURES_HEIGHT TYPE OCC. 18'-4' (TVP EDGE OF PLATFORM tui CUSTOMER SERVICE AREA LAIR • WATER) MOBIL MART LEGEND 34'-8' I.D.U. 6 PLACES. TV./ FIRE HYDRANT) AREA CANOPY & CONCRETE MAT 14081L' CANOPY LEGEND MOBIL CANOPY LEGEND 400W TWIN FIXTURE AREA LIGHT 'W/POStK FULL DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVING NEW 6' CONC. ?�'� (TYP-1 ID/PRICE/CW SIGN NEW 6' CONC. CURB ITYPJ PLANTER 5, N13'26'00'W PLANTER „ I I t. E._WI I i I u-1 Y /�/1QQ WII MAY 23 1 9° ti. I I BOO RELOCATE ,- 9 EXISTING • 'NEIGHBORHOOD o1 RELOCAT EXISTING _SILL BO ,I = I I 1 I I I „) NEW CONC.CITE. RETURN PER CITY99315- ITYP.1 RELOCATE TRAFFIC SIGNAL (ELO 4XIS1 EXISTING HIGHWAY NEW CONC CURB & GUTTER PER CITY & CAL TRANS STO'S. PACIFIC COAST LEGAL DESCRIPTION f LOTS 1612.13.14.15.16' & 17 OF TRACT 223 IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH. COUNTY OF. LOS ANGELES. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AS - PER RECOROEDIN BOOK 80. PG. 190 OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF, THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY: S 0 I -- �W W W Q UT • =Z H UT Wcc o ca O i U. U• S. z su 0. uW =4- O �4L a u) E US I O0. O a¢ a. STATISTICAL INFORMATION Norm SFT- X GROSS • NET AREA OF PROPERTY.•6S ACA. "28.645 5005 LNOSCAPE AREA 3181 ILI.. PARKING SPACES 1318dB 0114.18 /LG _ l6 2808 3.80 STRUCTURES_HEIGHT TYPE OCC. G S BLDG. 11Y-6' (I N 82 ' 924 3.22 CANOPY 16'-3'., U N BI 4,44 17.3 CAR WASH 12'-I1/2' R N 82 • 646 2.26 STOR./T.E. 6'-U' II N 82 192 .006 TOTAL BLDG. AREA 6106 21.3 NET OPEN AREA 16.550 57.8 ZONING EMPLOYEES 141 PER 24 AR. PERIOD APPLICANT, B. RECHSTEINER PLANS PREPARED BY, L.W. MOBIL OIL CORPORATION 3800 - BURBN/L IIANLEY 18181953-2585 W. ALAMEDA AVE.42000 CA.. 91505 1 I T I- T I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I• T 1' I fl 1 Z DESIGN FILE NNE, 1IE3FPP2.0GN43 e g ;2aLit) 22r. June 4, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members Regular Meeting of of the Hermosa Beach City Council June 12, 1990 RE-CREATION OF A SEPARATE VEHICLE PARKING DISTRICT BOARD AND FUND Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council make a policy decision regarding transfer of management of the Vehicle Parking District (VPD) to the business community. If the Council decides to reinstitute a separate VPD Board, staff recommends: 1. the two Ordinances to create a separate Board of Parking Place Commissioners and VPD Fund be introduced, 2. that staff be directed to recommend revisions to the 1990-92 Budget to adjust for the loss of revenue to the General Fund, and 3. that staff be directed to a verrtise the Com fission vacancies. Background On May 22, 1990, the City Council directed staff to set a public hearing on the matter of re-creation of a separate Vehicle Parking District Board and Fund. The staff report from the May 22, 1990 meeting is provided as background material. Analysis Additional information was requested at the May 22, 1990 meeting: 1. balance in VPD Fund when combined with Parking Meter Fund 2. excess funds transferred to General Fund each year since creation of Parking Fund. The attached comparison shows a beginning balance $111,837.75. If the VPD had been maintained as a revenue and expenditures for the five year period resulted in a 6-30-89 balance of $41,267.72. Net five year period would have been $16,824.27 which on 7-1-84 of separate fund, would have income for the would be the amount transferred to the General Fund. If we assume, however, that the VPD would pay 12% overhead for general support services from the City (based on the 1984 MSI user fee study), there would have been no transfer to the General Fund, since capital expenditures for the motorcycle lot and Bard Street garage would have created a loss of $70,570.03. Without the capital purchases, the VPD would have had net income of $216,963.70. In other words, the District made money over the five year period, but used it for capital purchases. 6 c• i Items deferred by Council until decision on separate VPD Board has been made: - possible sale of 14th Street lot - possible early renewal of Allright parking contract - review of restaurant and hotel parking requirements in downtown area. The City Manager recommended in the 1990-91Street Maintenance Division budget that consideration of a requested sidewalk scrubber be deferred as well. Staff has also checked with the Coastal Commission and no permit is required for the creation of a separate VPD Board. A permit would be required, however, if the parking program or parking standards are being changed. Concur: Devin B. Northc ft, City Manager Viki Copeland, Finance Director VPD REVENUES: VPD LOT PERMITS DAILY VPD PERMITS/MONTHLY VALIDATION STAMPS PARKING LOT RENTAL LOT A LOT B LOT C VPD LEASES INTEREST TOTAL REVENUE EXPENDITURES: SALARIES CONTRACT SERVICES MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/OTHER CAPITAL OUTLAY TRANSFERS TOTAL EXPENDITURES NET INCOME LESS OVERHEAD 12% NET INCOME AFTER OVERHEAD CHARGE 84/85 $2,579.65 $35,494.00 $9,079.10 $13,187.25 $34,177.04 $10,609.78 $22,292.48 $3,166.66 $1,973.38 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VPD OPERATIONS COMPARISON 85/86 $3,399.43 $10,343.97 $6,490.13 $30,440.34 $22,845.11 $66,003.78 $2,757.39 86/87 87/88 88/89 $3,659.42 $5,598.71 $8,127.98 $9,889.20 $11,183.62 $11,533.20 $13,144.24 $3,816.14 $22,559.47 $31,107.00 $29,107.00 $22,307.00 $20,319.76 $22,990.08 $22,990.08 $63,723.35 $76,027.99 $85,291.91 $2,386.08 $2,604.52 $1,903.86 $132,559.34 $142,280.15 $144,229.05 $151,328.06 $174,713.50 $69,418.20 $68,787.13 $9,744.73 $1,850.00 $55,200.00 $12,559.33 $30,477.40 $6,715.98 $31,456.88 $18,252.24 $30,475.22 $11,146.87 $256,726.54 * $24,574.67 $30,176.40 $4,340.01 $17,055.26 $44,504.28 $4,582.79 $241.90 $205,000.06 $81,209.59 $316,600.87 $59,091.08 $66,384.23 ($72,440.72) $61,070.56 ($172,371.82) $92,236.98 $108,329.27 $24,600.01 $9,745.15 $37,992.10 $7,090.93 $7,966.11 ($97,040.73) $51,325.41 ($210,363.92) $85,146.05 $100,363.17 *PURCHASE MOTORCYCLE LOT $149,776.53 PAY OFF BARD STREET GARAGE $99,417.01 TRASH ENCLOSURES $7,533.00 RECAP BEGINNING BALANCE 7/1/84 5 -YEAR TOTAL REVENUE $111,837.75 $745,110.10 5 -YEAR $728,285.83 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 5 -YEAR NET INCOME $16,824.27 LESS 5 -YEAR OVERHEAD $87,394.30 5 -YEAR NET INCOME ($70,570.03) AFTER OVERHEAD CHARGE BALANCE 6/30/89 $41,267.72 BewAry of fr /i�s I(tI74H0,Asc,L fine.,/67.10 4 BACKGROUND MATERIAL • 1r' May 17, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members Regular Meeting of of the Hermosa Beach City Council May 22, 1990 VEHICLE PARKING DISTRICT REPORT Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council make a policy decision regarding transfer of management of the Vehicle Parking District (VPD) to the business community. If the Council decides to reinstitute a separate VPD Board, staff recommends: 1. the two Ordinances to create a separate Board of Parking Place Commissioners and VPD Fund be introduced, 2. that staff be directed to recommend revisions to the 1990-92 Budget to adjust for the loss of revenue to the general Fund, and 3. that staff be directed to advertise the Commission vacancies. Background An objective of Goal 7 directs staff to study establishing a separate body for the Vehicle Parking District and Ordinance returning Lots A, B, and C to that body. At the February 22, 1990 meeting with the Chamber of Commerce, the Council discussed setting up a Council sub -committee to consider changes in the VPD. Since that time, staff has been researching the appropriate information to consider the advisability and methodology of possible changes. Analysis The analysis is divided as follows: 1. History 2. Purpose of Changes 3. Re-establishing Separate Board 4. Creation of Vehicle Parking District Fund 1. History The VPD was created by ordinance in 1961 pursuant to the provisions of the Vehicle Parking District law of 1943 for the purpose of acquiring and improving certain property for parking places. Assessments were levied upon the lands within the 1 district for the costs of the acquisitions/improvements. However, "net" parking meter revenue (revenue remaining after deduction of costs relating to meters) was pledged to pay the assessment. A Vehicle Parking Place Commission was appointed and served until July 1984, when the City Council was appointed to serve as the Commission. 2. Purpose of VPD Changes The research indicates the VPD was created at the request of business owners and generates funds that benefit the District though surplus funds have been eventually going to the General Fund. Creation of a separate VPD Board and Fund would return all revenues from the lots to the District for use as the Board determines best. 3. Parking Place Commissioners The Board of Parking Place Commissioners is governed by the California Street and Highways Code, beginning with Section 31770. The Board, unless appointed in an advisory capacity only, would have complete discretion in the operation, management and control of the parking places within the District specified to be under its authority. Commissioners may be removed by a 4/5 vote of the City Council. Members are appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the legislative body. If the Council decides to appoint a new board, Ordinance 84-756, which appointed the City Council as Parking Place Commissioners, would be repealed and a new ordinance adopted. The board may consist of three or five members. Commissioners shall be persons of business experience and ability. Powers of the Board would include: - Possession and complete control of all parking places acquired by the District or for the benefit/use of the District, i.e. Lots A, B and C, and the motorcycle lot on 14th Street - Enforcement of regulations for use of parking places Fixing, regulating and collecting rentals, fees or charges for parking of vehicles in parking places under its control. Appointing employees in the same manner as other employees (legislative body determines number and salaries). Granting leases, franchises or contracts for operation of public parking facilities. - making improvements to parking places 2 The attached Ordinance would grant the Board these powers. It also includes a provision regarding excessive absences similar to the provisions for other City Commissions. 4. Creation of VPD Fund Creation of a separate VPD fund is recommended. For purposes of financial reporting, the VPD is still an entity of the City as defined by generally accepted accounting principles and would be included in the City's financial statement. Collection and use of funds should follow the same procedures as those used by other City departments. Funds of the District include all revenues from the above noted parking lots, interest on idle funds and lease payments from the Alano Club. Meter revenue within the VPD has been deposited to the Parking Meter Fund (later to become the Parking Fund) since fiscal year 1983-84. Exhibit A demonstrates VPD estimated revenue and appropriations for 1990-91 as included in the 1990-92 Preliminary Budget. APPROVED: kevin B. Northctaft, City Manager cc: Chamber of Commerce General Services Department Viki Copeland, Finance Director 3 PROFORMA 1990-91 VEHICLE PARKING DISTRICT BUDGET (Extracted from 1990-92 Preliminary Budget) Revenue Parking Lot Rental Lot B VPD Lease VPD Lot Permits/Daily VPD Lot Permits/Monthly Validation Stamps Interest (will accrue based on idle funds) $ 14,966 22,990 66,084 7,771 10,985 22,000 Total Revenue $ 144,796 Expenditures Administration (12%) $ 8,871 Salaries/Benefits 23,067 Contract Services 47,000 Materials, Supplies 1,450 Depreciation 2,410 CIP 148, Trash Enclosures CIP 701, Parking Lot Improvements $ 82,798 $ 20,000 6,450 $ 26,450 Total Expenditures $ 109,248 * General City overhead rate calculated by MSI, 1984 subject to change EXHIBIT A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 90 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA,' ADDING SECTION XV TO CHAPTER 2 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE RELATING TO THE BOARD OF PARKING PLACE COMMISSIONERS, AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 84-756. WHEREAS, the Vehicle Parking District was established in 1961 pursuant to the Vehicle Parking District Law of 1943 (Cal- ifornia Streets and Highways Code, Section 31500 et seq.); and WHEREAS, the law requires there be a commission (Streets and Highways Code, Section 31770), appointed by the Mayor and con- firmed by the City Council (Streets and Highways Code, Section 31773), and which shall consist of persons of business experience and ability, property owners, or any other qualified persons (Streets and Highways Code, Section 31776, 31777); and WHEREAS, Commissioners may be removed by a 4/5 vote of the City Council (Streets and Highways Code, Section 31175), and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to re-institute.a separate Board of Parking Place Commissioners, rescinding the effect of Ordinance 84-756, which caused the City Council to be appointed as the. Board; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Article XV is hereby added to Chapter 2 of the Hermosa Beach City Code to read as follows: "ARTICLE XV. BOARD OF PARKING PLACE COMMISSIONERS. Section 2-140. Composition; terms. The Board of Parking Place Commissioners shall consist of 47 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 five (5) members appointed to staggered three (3) year terms. Appointments shall be made pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code, Section 31770 et seq. Two absences from regularly scheduled meetings of any member within one (1) calendar quarter, and/or four (4) absences from regular meetings within one (1) calendar year constitutes grounds for removal. There shall be no distinction between excused and unexcused absences. When this level of absences occurs, the staff liaison shall promptly notify the City Council, the Board and the member. The commissioner may be removed by the four- fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code, Section 31775. Section 2-141. Control of property. Pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 31779, the board of commissioners shall have authority over and control of Lots A, B, and C, and the small lot between the north end of Lot C and 14th Street, in Vehicle Parking District No. 1." SECTION 2. Ordinance No. 84-756 is hereby repealed and all present Parking Place Commissioners (the City Council) are hereby removed from the Board of Parking Place Commissioners. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect thirty days after the date of its adoption. SECTION 4. That prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause 1 2 3 this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly news- paper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. 4 SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and 5 adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of 6 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. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1990. PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 0f.t vo. g CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 90 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING DIVISION 4, ARTICLE IV OF CHAPTER 19 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE RELATING TO PARKING FUNDS. WHEREAS, the City Council desires to re -institute a separate Board of Parking Place Commissioners, and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 85-784 caused the Parking Meter Fund and Vehicle Parking District Fund to be combined into a Parking Fund; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Division 4, Article IV of Chapter 19 of the Her- mosa Beach City Code is replaced in its entirety to read as follows: "DIVISION 4. PARKING RELATED FUNDS Section 19-107.1. Established. There shall be created in the city treasury two (2) funds to be known as the "parking fund" and the "vehicle parking district fund". All parking meter revenues and parking fine and forfei- ture revenues received by the city shall be deposited in the parking fund. All revenues received from parking facilities under the control of the Board of Parking Place Commissioners shall be deposited in the vehicle parking district fund. The Parking Fund, established as of July 1, 1984, shall be divided as provided herein effective July 1, 1990. Section 19-107.2. Expenditures. Monies from the parking fund shall be used for the ad- ministration, operation, maintenance and provision of capital 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 items for the city's parking facilities, other than those under the control of the Board of Parking Place Commissioners, the city's parking permit program and the city's city-wide parking enforcement and collections program. Every ny s rem e . ung sha11 be -transferred -to -the city's gene rat -fu upo -w-r-i .tom h -e -c -i- p -manager . Monies from the vehicle parking district fund shall be used as determined appropriate by the Board of Parking Place Commis- siners, provided that accounting for all funds shall be part of the city's financial system, subject to the same procedures as other city departments, and audited annually with the city's other accounts." SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect thirty days after the date of its adoption. SECTION 3. That 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 news- paper 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. q 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1990. PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY Chapter 8 BOARD OF PARKING PLACE COMMISSIONERS 1770. Appointment. 1770.1 Ordinance providing for appointment, removal, qualifications, terms of office and number of members; powers and duties of board. 1771. Number of members. 1772. Compensation for members. 1775. Appointing authority. 1774. Term of office. 1776. Removal; vote of legislative body. 1776. Qualifications of commissioners. 1777. Ownership or lease of property In district. 1778. Removal; petition of property owners. 1779. Possession and control of property. 1760. Operation and management; regulations. 591 § 31770 Sec :41781. 31782. :41789. 31784. 31784.1 31786. 31786. 31787. 31788. 31789. 31790. 31791. 31792. Fees and charges. Preferential rates for property owners of district. Restrictions and use of parking places. Fees and charges; hearing. Free parking. Employees. Leases or franchises to operators. Leases or franchises; consideration. Leases or franchises; maximum rentals, fees and charges. Leases or franchises; restriction on use. Leases or franchises; terms. Contracts or leases by legislative body or by board. Additional improvements. PARKING Div. 1t Chapter 8 was added by Stats.1951, c. 463, p. 1535,1 9. § 31770. Appointment Immediately upon the acquisition of the parking places pursuant to the petition for the formation of the district, a parking place com- mission shall be appointed. In the discretion of the legislative body, the commission may be appointed at any time prior to such acquisi- tion and after the adoption of the ordinance declaring the district formed. (Added by Stats.1951, c. 463, p. 1535, 4 9.) Derivati..: 81411..1943, c. 971, p. 2873, t 44. Library References Municipal Corporations 41=480. C.J.8. Municipal Corporation, t 38b. Nate. of Decisions 1. Ing 1 Vehicle Parking District Act does not violate constitutional provision prohibiting delrgatioe of soy municipal function to ■ •pedal commission by authorising appoint- ment of board of parking place commis - sinners, since such commleslo.ers are sit .((leers appointed and subject to rens hr, and depriving authority from. Iota governing body and not tb. Legislature City of \Vhitticr v. Itiso. (1944) 151 P 2d 5, 24 C.2d 004, 153 A.L.R. 96& § 31770.1 Ordinance providing for appointment, removal, quali- fications, terms of office and number of members; powers and duties of board At its discretion, the legislative body of any city may, by ordi nance, provide for the appointment, removal, qualifications, terms 01 office and number of members of parking place commissioners fol such city. Such board shall have all of the powers and duties 01 parking place commissioners appointed under this part. Such board so appointed, may be an existing board created by city charter or or- dinance or a new board created by ordinance. Such board may ad for all vehicle parking districts established within the city under this part or for such of the districts as may be specified in the ordinance. (Added by Stats.1957, c. 781, p. 1991, 1 2. Amended by Stats.1959, C. 1702, p. 4107, 4 16; Stats.1965, c. 177, p. 1142, 0 4.) 592 Pt. 1 PARKING DISTRICT LAW OF 18113 § 31773 Historical Nate The 1968 attseadtaest wade provisloa for ouch of the districts a. Nay be .pacified removal of partial place eoOsidoaers. I. the ordinance". The 1006 .sesdm.nt, .t the end of the mediae. added the clause reading: "or for Library References Municipal Corporations 0128 et seq., C.J.S. Municipal Corporations $ 411E et req., 542. 107. § 31771. Number et members I TM eemmisaba e e e wz consist of thaw or fire members. (Amended by Stata.l9e9. e. 487, p. 1096.1 2.) Addams In Mat are Indicated by Isndet1aap d lellons by as eedsk e e e § 31772. Compensation for members Members of the commission shall serve without compensation. (Added by Stats.1951, c. 463, p. 1535, 9 9.) D.rlvallea: See Derivation under 1 31771. Library Reference. Municipal Corporations 4=102(1). C.J.S. Municipal Corporations 1 523 et sego § 31773. Appointing authority In the case of a city, members of the commission shall be ap- pointed by the mayor, subject to confirmation by the legislative body. In the case of a county they shall be appointed by the legislative body. (Added by Stats.1951, c. 463, p.1535, 9 9.) Dertvatloa: flee Derivation under 1 81771. Library R.fora.cee Municipal Corporatloes ey131. C.J.8. Municipal Corporations 474. se Est Cede -)e 593 § 31774 PARKING § 31774. Term of office Div. 1 The commissioners shall hold office for the term of three yesi from the date of their appointment and qualification and until the successors are appointed and qualified, except that rnembe a of ti first board appointed shall classify themselves by lot so that or member holds office for one year, one for two years, and one fc three years, and, in each instance, until a successor has been appolni ed and qualified. (Added by Stats.1951, c. 463, p. 1536, 4 9.) Osrlvatlea: Sc. Derivntion under 1 31771. Library Ref Municipal Corporations 4b149(2). C.J.S. Municipal Co 417. t>~ Corporations If § 31775. Removal; vote of legislative body A commissioner may be removed by a four-fifths vote of the leg Islative body at any time. (Added by Stats.1951, c. 463, p.1536, 9 9.) Oerivaflea: See Derivation ander 1 31771. Library Referoaces Muni, ipnl Corporations 41=s165. C.J.S. Municipal Corporations 11 601 507. § 31776. Quallficatons of commissioners Commissioners shall be persons of business experience and abW ty, to the end that the affairs of the district shall be administered it the interests of the district (Added by Stats.1951, c. 463, p. 1536, 9 9. Amended by Stats.1951, c 697, p. 1914, 9 9.) Historical Mete TI.e 3061 amendment deleted the re- Derivation: Bee D.rivatloa .oder quirement that commissioners shall be in- 31771. Serrated Io tb. district. For additional provisions of 8tats.l05l. c. 9p7, which amended this section, e.e l listorical Note under 1 31530. Library Referea.e. Municipal Corporations 11=+148. C.J.8. Municipal Corporations poradotrr 1 489. 11 473, § 31777. Ownership or lease of property In district A commissioner may be an owner or lessee of property, or an of- ficer, employee, or agent of a corporation owning or leasing property, within the district or, In the case of a commission appointed under 594 1 PARKING DISTRICT LAW OP 1948 § 31779 tion 31865, within one of the districts, or any other qualified per- ,. ddsd by Stats.1951, c. 463, p. 1536, § 9. Amended by Stats.1951, ,9T, p. 1914, f 10; Stats.1965, c. ITT, p. 1143, 6.) HS.t.rl.al Nets • 1961 a..e.dmeat added at the e.d ho oeetlois tins word., "but each soim• loner shall Late the qualifications ified In 8eetion 31771". .s 11105 •menda,eut deleted the prod. 'Bolded I. 1961. For additional provisions of 8tat..1051. e. 097. which amended this sectio., ass 111etoriral Not* under 1 31530. Dsrivatt..: Boo Derlt talon under 1 31771. 31778. Removal; petition of property owners Whenever a petition signed by the owners of more than one-half the area of assessable land within the district requesting the re- vel of a commissioner is filed with the legislative body, it shall inl- diately remove him and appoint a new commissioner. The cornl- sioner removed is ineligible to hold office as a commissioner of district for one year following his removal. To secure the remov- Af a commissioner from a commission appointed under Section 165, the petition shall be signed by the owners of more than one - t of the area of assessable land within each of a majority of the trlcts governed by the commission. ided by Stats.1951, c. 463, p. 1536, 4 9.) *ritual'.: Bee Derivatlo. under 1 31771. (�1r Library Rolsr..o.. As pal Corporations 41=n16o(1). C.3.8. Municipal Corporations I :.10 et 31779. Possession aad control of property 'The board of commissioners shall have possession and complete Irge, supervision and control of all parking places: (a) Acquired, constructed, and paid for, or to be paid for, by es upon land or real property or assessments upon land in the dis- c. (b) Acquired or constructed for the use or benefit of the district I paid for in any other manner. sided by Stats.1951, c. 463, p. 1536, 4 9.) bravado.: Stats.1943, c. 971, p. 2873. l 45; Btata.1945, e. 110. p. 421, f 8.. Cross RN.r....s ,w for Niamey or damage., ... 11 31807. Library Ref.r..o.s ..letpal C.rp.r.tlotw 41=•22L 02.5. Malcipal Corporation. 1960 et po. 595 § 31780 PARKING Div. IS § 31780. Operation and management; regulations The board shall operate, manage, and control the parking places and make and enforce all necessary regulations for their use. (Added by Stats.1951, c. 463, p. 1536, 4 9.) Derivation: 8tats.1043, c. 071, p. 2873, l 45; Stutv.1045, c. 110, p. 421, 1 3. Library Rsl.r..c.s Municipal Corporntions 4=+107. C.J.Y. Municipal Corporations 1 542- f 31781 j 31781. Rees sad charges The board • • • mag fix, regulate, and collect rentals, fees, or charges for the parking of vehicles in parking places under its control, and may provide different rates for different classes of customers or users. (Amended by Stats.1974, c. 426, p. 1082, 44, operative Jan. 1, 1978.) Library Rof.r..e.. 1 31752. Preferential rates for property owners of district The providing of adequate public parking places in cities • • • may_ra�uire the use of assessment districts as authorized by Section 81519. Such districts will be created and will be successful only if i so operated as to serve adequately the property within the district. It is the intent of this part that the owners of real property in an assessment district created pursuant to • • • Section 31519 to provide parking places to solve the parking problems of the district may receive preferential rates, charges, or rentals for themselves, their tenants, and the classes of persona who call upon or do business with them, all to the end that the property which bears the burden and provides a solution for the parking problem shall receive a special benefit. (Amended by Stats.1974, e. 426, p. 1032, 1 46, operative Jan. 1, 1976.) § 31783. Restrictions and use of parking places All parking places acquired and constructed pursuant to this part are public parking places, but the board of commissioners may re- strict or partially restrict their use to owners and tenants of real property In the district, and classes of persona designated by such owners or their tenants, and may establish rates, charges, or rentals for the owners and tenants of such properties and classes of persons 596 FL 1 PARKING DISTRICT LAW OF 943 § 31786 .designated by the owners or tenants whkh differ from and are less than the rates, charges, or rentals charged other persons. (Added by Stats.1951, c. 463, p. 1537, 1 9.) O.dv.tl..: 8tat•.1843, e. 1171, p. 2873.1 45; 81614.1946, e. 110, p. 421, 1 8. Library Refer..... Automobiles 405(3). C.J.B. Motor Vehicles 1 28. § 31784. Fees and charges; bearing Rentals, fees, and charges shall be fixed after public hearing fol- lowing such notice as the board of commissioners prescribes. (Added by Stats.1951, c. 463, p. 1537, 1 1.) Derivation: atnt•.104:1 e. 971, p. 2873, 1 45: 8.t..1946, e. 110. p. 421. 1 3. Library Roforo.csO Automobiles 4=1.12. CJ.8. Motor Vehlt•ke 1 28. § 31784.1 Free parking The board may, If It so desires, operate the parking places, or any thereof, as free public parking places without fee or charge. (Added by Stats.1953, c. 202, p. 1235, 1 5, eff, April 15, 1953.) 31785. Employees The board shall appoint In the same manner as other city em- ployees are selected, such employees as it deems necessary. The number of such employees and their salaries shall be determined by the legislative body unless, by ordinance, which may be adopted or repealed at any time, the power to make such determination Is grant- ed to the board. Any salary or wage so fixed shall In each instance be at least equal to the prevailing salary or wage for the same quality of services rendered to private persons, firms or corporations In the city under similar employment, in case such prevailing salary or wage can be ascertained. (Added by Stats.1951, c. 463, p. 1537, 1 9. Amended by Stats.1961, c. 434, p. 1502, 1 1. ) Historical N.I. TL. .ernw.l ..d third sentence. more Docket's.: 81.1..1043, e. 071. p. 2873. 1 45: 8tats.1945, e. 110, p. 421, 1 3. added i. 1001. Library R.fsrmsees Municipal Corporatlo.. ey214(1). C..1.8. Municipal Corporatloao 1 702 et .eq. § 31786. Leases or franchises to operators In the exercise of Its power to operate, manage, and control paridng places, the board may lease any or all parking places to any person for the sole purpose of the operation of public parking faclll- 597 § 31786 PARKING Div. IS ties on them by such person, or may grant a franchise, or miike a contract with any person for such purpose. (Added by Stats.1951, c. 463, p. 1537, 1 9.) Derivation: 8t.ta.1043, e. 971, p. 2850, 1 45.1, added by 8ti.t•.1049, e. 1502,,8. 2654, 1 12. Library H.f.r..e.s Muokip.l Corporations 4=722. C.J.Y. Municipal Corporatioaa 1 1800. § 31787. Leases or franchises; consideration The consideration to be paid by the operator for any lease or franchise or under any contract may be a fixed sum or a percentage of gross rentals, fees, or charges collected by the operator, or any other consideration. (Added by Stats.1951, c. 463, p. 1537, § 9.) D•rlvati.a: Stau.1913, e. 071, p. 2850, 1 45.1, added by 8int•.1049, c. 1302, i.. 2004. 1 12. § 31788. Leases or franchises; maximum rentals, fees and charges The maximum rentals, fees, and charges to be collected by the operator shall be fixed by the board atter public hearing following such notice as the board prescribes, and shall be recited in the lease or franchise. No higher rentals, fees, or charges shall be collected by the operator without amendment of the lease or franchise agreed to by the board after like public hearing. (Added by Stats.1951, c. 463, p. 1537, § 9.) D.rlvatl..:.8tat•.1943, c. 071, p. 2859, 1 45.1, added by Stnt•.1019. e. 1502, p. 2854, 1 12. Moles of Decisions 1. I. , 1 Statutes providing for acquisition of land by municipalities for use as periling buil:flee dl.cionc • clenr legislative poli.•, requiring governmental control of and charges to •snare that such facilities fulfill • public .sed. City and ('oust, e4 :inn Francisco v. Ilona 00551 279 P.24 '.20, 44 C.2(.152. § 31789. Leases or franchises; restriction on use An operator shall not conduct any business other than that of the operation of public parking facilities on any parking place of the district. (Added by Stata.1951, c. 463, p. 1537, 1 9.) Derivation: 8tats.1943, a 971, p. 2860, 1 45.1, added by 8iot•.1949, e. 1502, p. 11164, 1 12. 598 Pt. 1 PARKING DISTRICT LAW OF 1943 § 31792 § 31790. Leases or fraachbes; terms Any lease or franchise may provide that the use of the parking places shall be restricted, or partially restricted, to owners and ten- ants of real property In the district, and classes of persons designated by them, and may provide for maximum rates, charges, or rentals for such persons which differ from and are less than the maximum rates, charges, or rentals charged other persons. (Added by Stats.1951, c. 463, p. 1537, 4 9.) Derivation: Stnta.1943, c. 071, p. 2850, 1 45.1, added by 9tata.1040, c. 1502, p. 2854, 1 12. 31791. Coatraets or leases by legislative body or by board Tautoo•ised bethlabe the conduct of pigs and the makta; of any acquisition or improvement au—T x� .art the le body may, at any time " • prior to the appointment of a of pair p commissiowrs, anter into a contract or law with any owner or tenant of property la the Jwoposad 1111.0111411;11t district ander which the owner or tenant, for a specified rental or other consideration and for a *stifled period not exceeding 20 years, reserves a reasonable proportion or number of parking spaces in a parking place of the district for the use of the owner or tenant of such property, the employees of the owner or tenant performing services on the property, and the customers of, or other classes of persons designated by, the owner or tenant andmitering the as invitees or commis- sioners, board may make such contracts orrllesse�tmant of a board of parking place (Amended by Stata.1974, e. 426, p. 1092, + 46, operative Jae. 1, 1976) { 91791 Appolataseat of board; additional Improvements After the • • • appointment of the board of parking place commissioners, any • • • improvement of any parking place under its charge shall be made by the board • • • (Amended by Stats.1974, e. 426, p. 1035, 47, operative Jan. 1, 1976.) 4 'a 0' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 84-756 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CONFIRMING THE REMOVAL OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE VEHICLE PARKING PLACE COMMISSIONERS AND CONFIRMING THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF THE MEM- BERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO SERVE AS PARKING PLACE COMMISSIONERS. WHEREAS, the Vehicle Parking District was established in 1961 pursuant to the Vehicle Parking District Law of 1943 (California Streets and Highways Code Section, 31500 et seq.); and, WHEREAS, the law requires there be a commission (Streets and Highways Code, Section 31770), appointed by the Mayor and con- firmed by the City Council (Streets and Highways Code, Section 31773), and which shall consist of persons. of business experience and ability, property owners, or any other qualified persons (Streets and Highways Code, Section 31776, 31777); and, WHEREAS, Commissioners may be removed by a 4/5 vote of the City Council (Streets & Highways Code, Section 31175), NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. All'present Vehicle Parking Place Commissioners are hereby removed.- 'SECTION emoved.'SECTION 2. The Mayor hereby appoints and the City Council hereby confirms the appointment of each City.Council member as a Parking Place Commissioner to fill the unexpired terms of the existing Commissioners as follows: // // // -1- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ATTEST: 25 REMOVED 1. Darrell Greenwald 2. Quentin L. Thelen 3. Chris Bennett 4. Benjamin Wasserman 5. Gerard Delin APPOINTED 1. Gary L. Brutsch 2. George Barks 3. John Cioffi 4. Tony DeBellis 5. Jack Wood TERM EXPIRES April 24, 1986 April 3, 1984 June 30, 1984 April 3, 1986 April 3, 1985 November, 1986 November, 1986 November, 1987 November, 1987 November, 1986 SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its adoption. SECTION 4. That prior to the expiration of fifteen 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, California PASSED, APPROVED a•b ADOPTED th10th day ; ` Y, 1984. RESDENT f the ty Council, and MAYOR of he City of Hermosa Beach, California 26 APPROV D AS TO FOR . 27 28 Gaalc, ✓• ITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 • 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 85-784 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 84-755 RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF A PARKING FUND. THE CITY OF HER"'OSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 19, Article IV, Division 4, of the Code of the City of Hermosa Beach is hereby amended to read as follows: "DIVISION 4. PARKING FUND. SECTION 19-107: PARKING FUND ESTABLISHED. r There shall be created in the City Treasury a fund to be known as the "Parking Fund." The existing Parking Meter Fund and Vehicle Parking District Fund shall be combined with the Parking Fund. All parking meter revenues and parking fine and forfeiture revenues received by the City shall be deposited in this fund. Also all revenues received by the City's Vehicle Parking District shall be deposited in this fund. Special detail accounts for each source of revenue shall be maintained. SECTION 19-107.2: SAME, EXPENDITURES. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, expenditures from this fund shall be made first for the purpose of the opera- tion, maintenance and debt servicing of new public parking facilities within the City. Thereafter, monies from this fund shall be used for the administration, operation, maintenance and provision of capital items for the City's Vehicle Parking District No. 1, the City's city-wide parking permit program and the City's city-wide parking enforcement and collections program. Every year any surplus monies remaining in the fund shall be transferred to the City's General Fund upon written order of the City Manager." SECTION 2. The Parking Fund shall be operable as of July 1, 1984. 1 JUN 111990 Honorable Mayor and City Council Civic Center Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Date Dear Council Members: You will hold a public hearing and vote on reactivation of the Vehicle Parking District fo the downtown on June 12. We support this move to returning control of the V.P.D. to representatives of the downtown business district. The V.P.D., properly run by good, interested business -oriented people could help in many areas. It could provide more and better parking, improved validation and use of lots. It could also encourage clean up efforts and make capital improvements. Please vote for the change in the operation of the V.P.D. Name: (print and sign) ak. Business: Tel #: 20v e ; .-- k,,.,1' 3 t 9ozs4 -4-(„trbs,1sw�. p,„\DL.Ns 32c-`�8a9 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION COAST DRUG 58 Pier Avenue Hermosa Beach, California 90254 June 10, 1990 Roger Creighton, Mayor Robert Essertier Albert Weimans Kathy Midstoke Chuck Sheldon Dear Council Members: (21 3) 372-8435 RECEIVED AN 111990 You will hold a public hearing and vote on reactivation of the Vehicle Parking District for the downtown on June 12th. As merchants in the downtown for 18 years we wholeheartedly shpport the move to return control of the Y.P.D. to representa- tives of the downtown Business District. Furthermore we would like to see a good percentage of the appointed Vehicle Parking District members to be retail merchants who are actively using the lots for their customer parking and employee parking. By kOtU ring control to the downtown business district the downtown merchants will have control of their own parking facilities and be able to provide parking for their customers as their number one priority. Because I am in the middle of the area and participate in the parking lot procedures every day and thus networking with customers, parking lot employees, and fellow merchants, I ffereby apply for a membership on the commission. Sincerely, e ene Fres SUPPLEMENTAL 6 INFORMATION 2111 SELECT IMPRESSIONS INC. 1332 Hermosa Ave. #11 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213) 372-8989 FAX (213) 374-7165 2 Belle Isle Drive Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 (714) 495-4543 FAX (714) 495-0547 17138-D E. Whitaker Drive Aurora, CO 80015 (303) 693-5532 FAX (303) 680-7479 June 7, 1990 Honorable Mayor and City Council Civic Center Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Council Members: RECEIVED JUN11 1990 You are holding a public hearing and handling a voting on reactivation of the Vehicle Parking District for the downtown on June 12. We support the move to return control of the V.P.D. to representatives of the downtown business district. The V.P.D., properly run by good, people could help in many areas. more and better parking, improved of lots. It could also encourage make capital improvements. interested business It could provide validation and use clean up efforts and Please vote for the change in the operation of the V.P.D. in behalf of my business. Cordially, Glenda Sitnek President GS/lm SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 6 June 4, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council June 12, 1990 PUBLIC HEARING ON RECOMMENDED CABLE TELEVISION CONSUMER PROTECTION STANDARDS Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Resolution adopting Cable Television Consumer Protection Standards. Background: At your regularly scheduled meeting of May 8, 1990, the City Council approved the recommendation of the CATV Board, to adopt a Resolution of Intent to adopt Consumer Protection Standards, and set those proposed standards for Public Hearing on June 12, 1990. Subsequently, Council adopted Resolution 90-5359 stating the rules, regulations and standards to be considered for adoption. Analysis: The CATV Consumer Protection Standards as proposed by the CATV Board, are a composite of current existing CATV Consumer Protec- tion Standards from the Cities of Santa Cruz, Beverly Hills, and Los Angeles, which are reflective of the standards currently being practiced within the industry. Although MultiVision Cable TV, Corporation has made a practice of observing the vast majority of the standards before the Council for consideration, the CATV Board desires to establish them formally. Alternatives: 1. Seek additional consumer protection standards for review and consideration. 2. Modify, as necessary, the recommended document. 3. Receive and file this report. CONCUR: `Henry L. at,en, Acting General Services Director Kevin B.'Northcraft, City Manager - 2 Respectfully submitted, Henry L. Staten, Acting Director by Michele D. Tercero, Staff Liaison, CATV 1 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING CONSUMER PROTECTION STANDARDS 4 WHEREAS, the City Council at their regularly scheduled 5 ;meeting of September 27, 1988, approved the recommendation of 6 the CATV Board that a consumer protection ordinance be developed 7 and drafted; 8i 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 16 17 WHEREAS, the City Council, at their regularly scheduled meeting of July 11, 1989, further accepted the recommendation of the Cable TV consultant to implement specific consumer protection standards; WHEREAS, it has become common practice for consumer protection standards to be included as a part of Cable TV Franchises; WHEREAS, Section 7.5-16. Subscriber rules and regulations, subsection (B)(3), provides for a procedure to adopt new rules 18 Mand regulations or standards; 19 i1 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Hermosa Beach to adopt and enforce consumer protection standards for the operation of a Cable TV system; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council does hereby adopt the attached consumer protection standards. - 1 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CONSUMER PROTECTION STANDARDS Section 1. Subscriber complaints and Service Personnel. (1) The grantee shall maintain a local office in the city which shall be open during normal business hours, but in no case less than forty (40) hours per week, and shall include telephone service for the receipt of toll-free telephone calls from subscribers at any time of the day or night. The grantee shall 8 connect a telephone caller to a live personal representative of g the Grantee within two minutes, during regular business and peak 10 viewing hours, Monday through Saturday. In the event the 11 Grantee establishes to the City's satisfaction that the above 12 standard relating to peak viewing hours and/or Saturday's is 13 unnecessary and materially burdensome, the City may, in its sole 14 15 16 17 discretion, waive that requirement in writing. During abnormal events which directly affect five percent (5%) or more of the Grantee's subscriber base in the City, the Grantee shall be excused from compliance with the foregoing requirement, if the 18 Grantee provides to telephone callers during such period, 19 spending connection with a live personal representative, a 20 recorded message. Such recorded message shall be mutually 21 agreed upon in writing by the Grantee and the City prior to is 22 use. The grantee shall notify the subscribers of the procedures 23 for requesting service calls or reporting complaints regarding 24 !the 26 27 28 operation of the cable system. (2) The grantee shall provide sufficient service personnel as reasonably necessary to respond to the service calls and complaints of the subscribers. The Grantee shall maintain a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Q 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 force of technicians capable of responding within twenty-four (24) hours after receipt of a request for repairs relating to a service outage and forty-eight (48) hours excluding Sundays for all other complaint and requests for repair. No charge shall be made to the subscriber for such service or repair except as provided in the Franchise Agreement. Requests from subscribers for repair and maintenance services must be acknowledged by the Grantee within 24 hours. Verification of the problem, and if possible, resolution, must occur within forty-eight (48) hours; and in any event, resolution must occur within one (1) week. Those matters requiring additional maintenance, repair or technical adjustments that are documentable as necessitating an excess of one (1) week to complete, must be finally resolved within fifteen (15) days of the initial complaint. (3) The grantee shall maintain the following records regarding subscriber complaints and substantial system failures: (a) The grantee shall maintain a written record of all complaints received from individual subscribers (other than complaints regarding substantial system failure), which shall show the date and time of the complaint and the name, address and telephone number of the complainant, the information given to the complainant as to how the complaint would be resolved, the action taken to resolve the complaint and the date'and time the complaint was resolved Complaints not resolved within forty-eight (48) hours of receipt shall be listed in a log of ',Delayed Action on Complaintslt which shall give the information above and add the detailed reasons for non -resolution within the 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 forty-eight (48) hour period. Section 2. Customer Service Standards and Procedures (A) Customer Service Criteria. (1) Dwelling units passed by cable and dwelling unit history shall be categorized and filed in computer -compatible form. (2) Customer Service Representatives shall be trained to analyze customer complaints to distinguish between those that are system -related and those that are subscriber equipment -related. (B) Information to Customers. The Grantee shall, at the time service is initiated provide each new customer written information covering: (1) The time allowed to pay outstanding bills. (2) Grounds for termination of service. (3) The steps the Grantee must take before terminating service. (4) That consumers are entitled to receive an estimate of the cost for a "nonstandard installation" should a standard installation not be possible. A consumer may petition the City's Cable Television Franchise Administrator if they believe that the estimate given by the company was unfair, unreasonable ii M, 'land discriminatory. The determination of the City's Franchise 1 •i 2 3 �I ii 4 5 1 with a supervisor, and if none is available, a supervisor shall 6.. 'return the customer's call within one (1) working day. 8 ; (7) Provide complete information to the complainant 9 ;regarding his ability to take his complaint to the Grantor's 10 Administrator may be appealed to the City Council. (5) How the customer can resolve billing disputes. (6) The fact that customers shall have the right to speak 7 11 12 13 14 15 representative if it is not resolved by the Grantee. (C) Billing Practices (1) Billing envelopes shall be individually marked to indicate the date mailed. The metering strip shall include the date on which the bill was delivered to the U.S. Post Office. 16 This postmark date shall constitute proof of the date of 17 18 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 issuance. (2) The Grantee shall provide at least five (5) days written notice prior to discontinuance of service to any subscriber of the Cable System. Where the Grantee has improperly discontinued Cable System service to any such subscriber, it shall provide free reconnection to the Cable System to such subscriber. (3) The Grantee shall afford each subscriber of the Cable System with a three day right of rescission for ordering the.. services of the Cable System; Provide that such right of 1 2 3 4 5 6 ion behalf of the Grantee in the City. rescission may end upon initiation of physical installation of the Cable System equipment on such subscriber's premises. (4) All personnel, agents and representatives of the Grantee, including subcontractors, shall wear photo -identification badges, prominently displayed, when acting 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 (5) The Grantee shall provide significant advance notice in writing to the owner and the resident of any private property within the City prior to entry onto such property whenever the Grantee desires that any of its personnel, agents or representatives should enter such property; provided that the Grantee shall only be required to provide significant advance notice when it reasonable under the circumstances at the time and shall not be required to provide such notice in emergencies. Violation of this Subsection by the Grantee shall not constitute a material breach of this Agreement unless such violation is repeated or willful. r- (6) (6) The Grantee shall provide subscribers of the Cable System, and potential subscribers, with a complete list of serviceofferings, options, prices and credit policies associated with the Cable System. 23 (7) Before providing initial service to each consumer, the 24 1 1; Grantee must advise the consumer, in writing of: 25 ///// 26 1 ///// 27 ///// 28 (a) The method by which the consumer will be notified 1 of any changes in rates, services, and equipment, and company 2 (practices and procedures related to service to consumers; 3 4 , (b) The address and telephone number of the Grantee's 5 office to which complaints and inquiries may be reported and the 6 manner in which complaints will be addressed. Such number and 7 address shall be prominently displayed on the first page of each 8 !monthly bill and identified as such, and shall be listed in the g telephone directories serving the City of Hermosa Beach. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (8) Whenever possible, the Grantee shall notify each subscriber of the Cable System in advance of the expected time of any service visit to such subscriber's premises. Such notification shall specify whether the anticipated service visit will be before or after noon. The Grantee shall accommodate each subscriber of the Cable System with respect to such Subscriber's expressed preference for a morning or afternoon service visit. Violation of this Subsection by the Grantee shall not constitute a material breach of this Agreement unless such violation is repeated or willful. (D) Disputed Bills: (1) In the event of a dispute between the customer and the Grantee regarding the bill, the Grantee shall promptly make such investigation as is required by the particular case and report the results to the customer. In the event the dispute is not resolved to the satisfaction of both parties, the Grantee shall inform the customer of the complaint procedures of the Grantor. If the customer wishes to obtain the benefits of paragraphs (1) 1 and (2) of this subsection, notification of the disputed bill 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 must be given to the Grantee within five (5) days after due date. (2) The customer shall not be required to pay the disputed portion of the bill until the earlier of the following: (a) Resolution of the dispute, (b) Expiration of a fifty-five (55) day period beginning on the date of issuance, provided that the procedures established in subsection (D)(1) above have been followed. (3) Pending resolution of the bill dispute, no termination notices shall be issued for the disputed portions of the bill, nor shall any other collection procedures be initiated for said amount. Any such activity may be interpreted as an attempt to avoid the provisions of these rules and shall constitute violation of the regulations. (E) Referral of Accounts to Collection Agencies. (1) Uncollected accounts may be referred to private collection agencies for appropriate action if the bill has not been paid by the earlier of (a) fifteen (15) days following the date of involuntary termination or (b) the fifty-sixth (56th) day following the date of issuance of the original uncollected amount, provided no notification of billing dispute has been made, or if procedures for resolution of billing disputes have not been followed as required above. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (2) If the account was voluntarily terminated for any ,reason, the account may not be referred to a collection agency luntil at least fifteen (15) days following rendering of the final bill. If notification of a billing dispute is made, all ,collection procedures shall be delayed as required in paragraph (D)(3) above. Referral to collection agent shall then occur no sooner than the fifty-sixth (56th) day following issuance of the original uncollected amount. 9 (F) Refund. 10 11 12 13 14 15 swill not receive it because of his discontinuation of service. 16 17 (G) No person shall be denied cable television services on the 18 basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual 19 preference, age, disability, income or the area in which they (1) When a subscriber voluntarily discontinues service, Grantee shall refund the unused portion of any advance payment after deducting any charges currently due through the end of the present billing period. Unused payment portions shall be the percentage of time for which subscriber has paid for service and 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 live. (H) Maximum practical availability of the services and facilities shall be provided to handicapped persons. At a minimum, the Grantee shall provide, at no additional cost, a remote control device to those subscribers who are paraplegic or quadriplegic. ///// /ill/ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Q 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 II 25 26 27 23 (I) Equipment which is not otherwise readily available shall be provided to facilitate the reception of all basic services for the hearing impaired. In addition, the company must have TDD (or equivalent) equipment at the Grantee's office that will allow hearing impaired consumers to contact the Grantee. SECTION 2. This Resolution shall be in full force from and after its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of June, 1990. PRESIDENT of the City Council and Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: eco. _ a �� CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY June 4, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council June 12, 1990 SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT 88-9 -- HEIGHT MEASUREMENT METHOD AND VIEW BLOCKAGE INTIATED BY CITY COUNCIL PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER REDEFINING THE METHOD OF MEASURING MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN THE R-1 AND R -2B ZONES TO ADDRESS PROBLEMS OF VIEW BLOCKAGE WHERE THESE TWO ZONES ABUT Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the existing height measurement method and existing maximum heights be maintained. Alternatives 1. Use the averaging method of measuring maximum height in the R-1 and the R -2B zones and direct staff to prepare an ordinance for introduction. 2. Direct staff to study reducing the maximum height allowed in the R -2B zone, and/or increasing the maximum height in the R-1 zone, and/or increasing the maximum height allowed only in R-1 zones which abut R -2B and R-2 zones. 3. Reconsider applying the averaging method of measuring height citywide. Background At their meeting of February 27, 1990 the City Council determined not to adopt staff's recommendation to use the averaging method for measuring height and directed the Planning Commission to study using the averaging method for measuring height in only the R-1 and R -2B zones. At their meeting of May 1, 1990 the Planning Commission recommended that no changes be made to the current height measurement method. Please refer to attached Planning Commission staff report for further background. 1 Analysis Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report for the analysis. CONCUR: Kevin B. Northc'aft Michael Schubach Planning Director City Manager Attachments 1. Planning Commission Minutes 5/1/90 2. P.C. Staff Report/Attachments 5/1/90 2 TEXT 88-9 -- SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT TO USE AVERAGING METHOD TO MEASURE HEIGHT IN THE R-1 AND R -2B ZONES Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 25, 1990. Staff suggested that the Planning Commission recommend that the existing height measurement method and existing maximum heights be maintained. Staff suggested several alternatives: (1) Use the averaging method of measuring maximum height in the R-1 and R -2B zones as suggested by the City Council; (2) Reduce the maximum height allowed in the R -2B zone; (3) Increase the maximum height in the R-1 zone, or only in R- 1 zones which abut R -2B and R-2 zones; or (4) Reconsider applying the averaging method of measuring height city-wide. The Planning Commission was directed to study view blockage and methods of height measurement to resolve the view blockage issues described in a height moratorium adopted by City Council on July 26, 1988. After special study and several public hearings beginning in August of 1988, the Planning Commission at their meeting of October 17, 1989, recommended that no changes be made to the current height measurement method and recommended amendments only to Section 1201, "Height of Roof Structures." At their meeting of February 27, 1990, the City Council concurred with the Planning Commission by not changing the height measurement, and they also amended Section 1201, "Height of Roof Structures," and Section 1200, "Height of Buildings on Through Lots." In addition, the City Council referred the issue of height measurement and view blockage back to the Planning Commission to consider using the averaging method for only the R-1 and R -2B zones. The view blockage problem for borderline areas located adjacent to higher density zones is not only limited to the areas defined in the moratorium especially when northerly and southerly views are considered. This problem arises because of the five-foot differential between height limits between the different zones. Staff does not believe an urgency exists to address only the areas previously identified in the moratorium, since the situation exists in several other locations in the City. Staff believes that imposing a different height measurement method based on zoning classifications, although it may alleviate some view blockage problems, has too many negative side effects to be seriously considered. For example, as noted by the Building Director, different height measurement methods would complicate the zoning ordinance, placing a burden on staff, developers, and homeowners. In addition, it could create undesirable and awkward situations where zones with differing methods abut. As another alternative, changing the height limits to eliminate or reduce the differences between zones could possibly be considered. The height limits in Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach show that the differential between zones is not usually as severe as that in Hermosa Beach. Height allowances in Manhattan Beach are: 26 feet in LD zone, 26 and 30 feet in MD zone, and 30 feet in HD zone; in Redondo Beach: 30 feet in LD zone, 30 feet in MD zone, and 38 feet in HD zone; and in Hermosa Beach: 25 feet in LD zone, 30 feet in MD zone, and 35 feet in HD zone. Therefore, an alternative would be to reduce the limit in the R -2B zone to 25 feet for consistency with the R-1 zone, or perhaps to a compromise figure of 27.5 feet. Another option would be to increase the height limit in the neighboring R-1 zones. Staff, however, does not believe it would be appropriate to change height limits at this time. The existing height limits, in most cases, have established a character consistent with the corresponding zone, and resulted in a certain character for neighborhoods and districts. Therefore, a lower height limit would give an unfair advantage to those who built to higher P.C. Minutes 5/1/90 3 limits to the detriment of those planning to build, or a higher limit would impact the views of existing buildings constructed in conformance with existing height limits. Building heights in each land use or zoning category could be studied as part of the Housing Element. Then the possibility of relating height limits to neighborhoods or districts rather than to particular zoning classifications could be explored. Also, the establishment of one height limit for all residential zones could be explored. No resolution was included with this study. A resolution will be prepared in response to the Planning Commission's action for the next meeting. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, explained the averaging method. He stated that during study on the housing element, the issue of neighborhood averaging could also be addressed and considered. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that additional data will be provided during the discussions on the housing element, including information on slopes, sizes of lots, variations in neighborhoods, and what other cities have done. Comm. Rue stated that making changes in one standard would affect an entire project. He therefore felt it would be more appropriate to study this issue in conjunction with the housing element so that an overall picture can be addressed. He noted concern over the lack of available data at this time. Mr. Schubach responded that a great deal of additional data will be presented during the housing element study. Public Hearing opened at 9:57 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Dean Nota, 2467 Myrtle Avenue, Hermosa Beach, architect, addressed the Commission: (1) discussed recent changes which have affected his neighborhood; (2) stated that the staff report is not clear on why this particular issue is being addressed at this time; (3) discussed the pros and cons of having different height measurement methods in various zones; (4) noted that different areas have different needs, and the requirements can be tailored to meet those varying needs; (5) said that the current height requirements are very ambiguous in their definition, and there is no real way to define the actual requirements, especially since the code says something different than the handouts passed out by the Building Department. Mr. Nota went on and: (1) discussed problems which can occur because of the grading; (2) felt that the formula used should be much clearer in order to avoid confusion; (3) discussed the differences between flat and sloping areas in the R-1 zone; (4) discussed lots with a view access; (5) commented on downsloping lots and attendant problems with the 17 -foot setback requirement and parking; (6) stated that, contrary to the staff report, there are already differentials in various areas because of the downzonings which have taken place. Mr. Nota continued and: (1) said that there should be a compromise in the requirements so that buildings can be designed adequately in the R-1 zones; (2) discussed the Commissions' past recommendation to the City Council related to the R-1 zone; (3) favored the averaging method so that view blockage will be prevented. Steve Taylor, 2468 Myrtle Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) supported the averaging method as one of the better alternatives available, stating that it eliminates the view blockage problem better than other methods; (2) noted the importance of the requirements being clear and concise; (3) felt it would be appropriate to study this issue further; (4) said the averaging method is one of the best ways to monitor what is being built and the heights being built to; (5) was pleased that the issue of view blockage is being addressed, and hoped that the method will work. P.C. Minutes 5/1/90 Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted that this is the fourth public hearing being held on this matter; (2) noted that projects of many types are being built all over the City; (3) said that somebody somewhere will oppose any requirement, but noted that the appeal process is available; (4) noted concern over the BBB [bigger, bulkier buildings]; (5) stated that many options are available; (6) noted concern that many months ago a motion was made to direct that concise, coherent handouts be prepared, however, such a handout has not yet been prepared. Steve Peterson, 2416 Myrtle Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the importance of view preservation; (2) said that inventive architectural procedures are available; (3) supported the averaging method, since it is the most effective way to preserve views. Comm. Rue noted that his biggest concern with the averaging method is that it creates bulk on the downhill side of lots and creates a cavernous effect on the streets; however, he agreed that the averaging method reduces view blockage. He stated, though, that he does not want to promote bulky buildings. Mr. Schubach responded that the averaging method may create taller buildings; however, he did not feel that would necessarily create additional bulk, noting that buildings on one side of the street would actually be lower. Comm. Rue noted concern over very tall facades and the cavernous effect they create. He questioned whether there are other ways to approach this issue. Mr. Schubach suggested the possibility of a bulk ordinance, utilizing floor area ratio and lot coverage. He stated that implementation measures will be necessary in the future. He noted. however, that he supports the averaging method. He continued by discussing various options which might be addressed. Dean Nota again addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed buildings along Manhattan Avenue, stating that they are not comparable to R-1 buildings; (2) noted confusion, explaining that he thought the Council was requesting the Commission to again address the R-1 zone, not R-2, R -2B, and R-3; (3) thought that the Council favored the sloping method for R-2 and R-3 zones; (4) suggested that the Commissioners study buildings in Manhattan Beach for further ideas; (5) did not feel that the height limit is a viable means to reduce bulk, stating that he felt the best way to reduce bulk is to use stepped elevations or floor area ratios; (6) noted that another of his pet peeves is the 17 -foot setback requirement, and he continued by describing the problems encountered with this rule. Public Hearing closed at 10:23 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Rue stated that perhaps the averaging method would be the best method. He noted concern, however, that this issue is being addressed apart from the housing element. Comm. Ketz expressed concern with the averaging method, and she also noted concern that the issue is being discussed in isolation. She felt it is important to look at the issue as a whole with the housing element to ascertain what the overall outcome will be and the attendant ramifications. Comm. Moore agreed that these issues should not be addressed in a piecemeal fashion. He felt that the averaging method might be appropriate for the entire city; however, he noted that more clarification is necessary, such as a concise definition of "natural grade." He wanted to ensure that no loopholes are available to allow developers to use different grading. He noted the importance of homeowners knowing what they can do with their property. He stated that it is necessary to have visual materials and diagrams so that the Commission can visualize the various areas of the City. P.C. Minutes 5/1/90 C Comm. Peirce felt that the height should be addressed as only one portion of the overall bulk reducing and floor area issues. He did not feel it is appropriate to discuss this matter alone. Churn. Inge11 concurred, and stated that it would be appropriate to have additional materials for study. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to receive and file. Comm. Rue noted that staffs recommendation is to not change the current height measurement method. MOTION WITHDRAWN by Comm. Peirce as maker. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation to not change the current height measurement method; but rather to study the issue in conjunction with other building standards, including floor area, open space, 17 -foot setback, and other setbacks. AYES: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Inge11 NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 6 P.C. Minutes 5/1/90 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission April 25, 1990 Regular Meeting of May 1, 1990 SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT 88-9 -- HEIGHT MEASUREMENT METHOD AND VIEW BLOCKAGE REFERRED BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION BY CITY COUNCIL PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER REDEFINING THE METHOD OF MEASURING MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN THE R-1 AND R -2B ZONES TO ADDRESS PROBLEMS OF VIEW BLOCKAGE WHERE THESE TWO ZONES ABUT Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the existing height measurement method and existing maximum heights be maintained. Alternatives 1. Use the averaging method of measuring maximum height in the R-1 and the R -2B zones as suggested by the City Council. 2. Reduce the maximum height allowed in the R -2B zone. 3. Increase the maximum height in the R-1 zone, or only in R-1 zones which abut R -2B and R-2 zones. 4. Reconsider applying the averaging method of measuring height citywide. Background The Planning Commission was directed to study view blockage and methods of height measurement to resolve the view blockage issues described in a height moratorium adopted by City Council on July 26, 1988. After special study and several public hearings beginning in August of 1988, the Planning Commission at their meeting of October 17, 1989, recommended that no changes be made to the current height measurement method, and recommended amendments only to Section 1201, Height of Roof Structures. At their meeting of February 27, 1990 the City Council concurred with the Planning Commission by not changing the height measurement, and they also amended Section 1201, Height of Roof Structures, and Section 1200, Height of Buildings on Through lots. In addition the City Council referred the issue of height measurement and view blockage back to the Planning Commission to consider using the averaging method for only the R-1 and R -2B zones. HEIGHT MORATORIUM On July 26, 1988, the City Council adopted a moratorium to limit the height to 25 -feet for structures in the R-2 zones located adjacent to and west of R-1 zones. This originally came about because of concern about view obstruction from property owners east of Myrtle Avenue who had been downzoned from R-2 to R-1 while west of Myrtle remained R-2. The R-2 areas along the east side of Hermosa Avenue were also included in this moratorium because of concern about R-1 properties immediately to the east. The City Council eventually rezoned the R-2 area west of Myrtle Avenue from R-2 to R-1 on January 10, 1989. On June 27, 1989, the City Council extended the moratorium for an additional year, and included R -2B areas located east of Pacific Coast Highway in the moratorium. The moratorium will expire on June 27, 1990. Analysis The view blockage problem for borderline areas located adjacent to higher density zones is not only limited to the areas defined in the moratorium, especially when northerly and southerly views are considered. This problem arises because of the 5 -foot differential between height limits between the different zones. Staff does not believe an urgency exists to address only the areas previously identified in the moratorium, since the situation exists in several other locations in the city. Staff has previously attempted to address this problem by proposing the averaging method city wide. It was felt that this was the only approach, using existing maximum height requirements, to retain views in an equitable manner for the maximum number of properties in the city. Staff believes that imposing a different height measurement method based on zoning classifications, although it may alleviate some view blockage problems, has too many negative side effects to be seriously considered. For example, as noted by the Building Director, different height measurement methods would complicate the zoning ordinance, placing a burden on staff, developers, and homeowners (refer to attached memo). In addition, it could create undesirable and awkward situations where zones with differing methods abut. As another alternative, changing the height limits to eliminate or reduce the differences between zones could possibly be considered. The height limits in Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach, summarized as follows, show that the differential between zones is not usually as severe as that in Hermosa Beach. Manhattan Beach LD zones MD zones HD zones 26' 26' & 30' 30' (depending on district) Redondo Beach 30' 30' 38' Hermosa Beach 25' 30' 35' Therefore, an alternative would be to reduce the limit in the R -2B zone to 25 feet for consistency with the R-1 zone, or perhaps to a compromise figure of 27.5 feet. Another option would be to increase the height limit in the neighboring R-1 zones. Staff, however, does not believe it would be appropriate to change height limits at this time. The existing height limits, in most cases, have established a character consistent with the corresponding zone, and resulted in a certain character for neighborhoods and districts. Therefore a lower height limit would give an unfair advantage to those who built to higher limits to the detriment of those planning to build, or a higher limit would impact the views of existing buildings constructed in conformance with existing height limits. Building heights in each land use or zoning category could be studied as part of the Housing Element. Then the possibility of relating height limits to neighborhoods or districts rather than to particular zoning classifications could be explored. Also, the establishment of one height limit for all residential zones could be explored. Please note that no resolution was included with this study. A resolution will be prepared in response to the Planning Commission's action for the next meeting. CONCUR: /-- ,/ / Michael Schubach Planning Director Attachments: Ken Robertson 6 Associate Planner 1. Memo from Building Director, William Grove 2. City Council Minutes 2/27/90 3. Planning Commission Minutes 4. Interim Ordinance 89-995 5. Ordinance 90-1024 t/pcsrheig BACKGROUND. MATERIAL CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Ken Robertson, Associate Planner FROM: William Grove, Director of Building & Safety RE: Height Measurement Method DATE: April 24, 1990 It is my understanding that, pursuant to City Council direction, the Planning Commission will consider the possibility of using the "averaging" method for height measurement in R-1 and R -2B zones. I feel strongly that two different methods of measuring height for zoning purposes will lead to confusion for staff, homeowners and builders alike. I already receive complaints that the zoning regulations are complicated and difficult to understand. Two height measurement methods will only exacerbate this condition. I supported the proposed change to the "averaging" method when proposed for zones city wide. I still feel that this method is the only way to improve view retention while treating all properties equitably. Other view protection ordinances used in Torrance or Palos Verdes Estates do not lend themselves to our community due to our dense development and prevailing small lot size. As an alternate to changing the height measurement method, it may be appropriate to examine the allowable heights in those zones instead. (i) (j) Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered, notin tileobjection of Essertier. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving condi, onal use permit for alcoholic beverages at hotel located at 2515 Pacific Coast Highway. Memorandum from Tanning Director`Michael Schubach dated February 20, 1 90. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5345, ntitled, "A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISS ON'S DECISION .TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT 2515t.PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY "HERMOSA BEACH HOTEL," LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 2,/TRACT 33744." Motion Essertier, s cond Sheldon. So ordered, noting the objection of Mids kke and W -mans. Recommendation to authorize s- e of ladder truck. Memo- randum from Public Safety `Qi'ector Steve Wisniewski dat- ed February 21, 1990. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. (a) ORDINANCE NO. 90-1Q,3 - AN 0DINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE WITH RESPECT TO HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONES. For adoption. Action: To Adhpt_ Ordinance No. 90-10`23. Motion Sheldo , second Creighton. So or ered. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSIQN. Items (h) and (i) were discussed at this time but are list -d in order for clarity. 4. W•ITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC - None The Mee ing recessed at 8:10 P.M. The feting reconvened at 8:18 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 5. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT RE. HEIGHT MEASUREMENT METHOD AND ROOF MOUNTED STRUCTURES, WITH ORDINANCE FOR INTRO- DUCTION. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated February 20, 1990. A staff report was presented by Director Schubach. The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak were: Minutes 2-27-90 Dean Nota - 2467 Myrtle Avenue Jeff Rue - Planning Commission member Jim Sullivan - 1051 Eighth Street Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place Jerry Compton - 200 Pier Avenue Jim Housling - 934 Seventh Street The Public Hearing was closed. The Mayor requested Jerry Compton to submit a formula for measuring height on any portion of the property and submit to the City Manager for review by staff. Action: To maintain the height measuring method pres- ently used by the City to establish height of buildings, and send back to staff for Planning Commission to study averaging method for measuring heights in R-1 and R -2B, then set for public hearing. Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. Proposed Amendment: To add, with the exception of development in the R-1 Zone, where there is abutting 30' developments to the west. Motion Wiemans, rejected by maker of motion. Substitute Motion: To drop the request to have Planning Commission come back with results of the study rec;arding R-1 and R -2B. Motion Essertier, died for lack of second AYES: Essertier, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton NOES: Midstokke Further Action: To accept the Staff recommendations by adopting Section 2, " Amend Article 12, Section 1201. Height of Roof Structures: "Commercial and Manufacturing zones: The follow- ing elements may be constructed above the height limit provided they do not exceed the height limit by more than eight (8) feet and cover no more than 5% of the total roof area. Where the height of the element is governed by a uniform building code standard, the element may exceed the height limit only by the minimum amount necessary to comply with the uniform building code standards. a. Elevator housing; b. Stairways; c. Tanks; d. Ventilating fans; e. Parapet fire walls; f. Towers; g. Chim- neys; h. Flues; i. Vents; j. Smokestacks; k. Wire- less masts; 1. Similar structures as determined by the Planning Commission. No structure exceeding the height limit shall result in additional floor area." "Residential zones: Residential uses may have chimneys, vents and flues exceed the height limit -/�-- Minutes 2-27-90 C only to the extent required to meet the uniform building code requirements." "For the height standards for antennas, satellite dishes and similar structures refer to Section 1227 of this ordinance." and adopting Section 3, "Amend Article 12, by eliminating Section 1200, Height of Buildings on Through Lots." Motion Essertier, second Creighton. So ordered. Further Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 90-1024 with the following amendments: To delete from the title, "maintain the height measuring method used by the City to establish the heights of buildings". Deletion of sub- paragraph A and B, line 8 through 10. Deletion of Section 1: page 1, line 26 through 28; page 2, line 1 through 28; page 3, line 1 and 2. Deletion of Sections 4 and 7. Section 2 through Section 8 will be moved up one number. Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered. Final Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 90-1024,. entitled, HAN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING EXCEPTIONS TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED FOR ROOF MOUNTED STRUCTURES, AND ELIMINATION OF SECTION 1200.H Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered. AYES: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton NOES: None Tlise'"-Meeting recessed at 9:50 P.M. The Me ng reconvened at 10:00 P.M. HEARINGS 6. REVIEW AN b DOPTION OF PRIORITIZED CITY GOALS FOR THE NEXT ONE TO THREE YEAR PERIOD. Memorandum from Person- nel Director Robes- t Blackwood dated� February 19, 1990. Supplemental memo rem Councilmember Midstokke, dated February 27, 1990. A staff report was pres Y Director Blackwood. Action: o adopt the following list of goals th the -sugge ions of Councilmember Midstokke with the ee eep- tio of the first paragraph under number 18, whi r-fers to the skateboard park: Minutes 2-27-90 TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING VIEW BLOCKAGE AND HEIGHT MEASUREMENT METHOD AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 11, 1989. Staff recommended that the proposed resolution be adopted to amend the definition of height and the measurement method to the "averaging" method. At the February 21, 1989, meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a revised text amendment using the current height measurement method rather than the proposed "averaging" method to make the definition of height more precise and the procedure more clear. Staff continues to recommend the averaging method, however, because of its clear advantage in minimizing view blockage and in simplicity of measurement. Staff requested the Planning Commission to consider its analysis which responds to the Commissioners' concerns about the averaging method. Staff recognized that the Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council to focus efforts on refining the current method. However, prior to taking on that effort, the averaging method will be forwarded to the City Council for final consideration. At the February meeting, the Planning Commission had strong reservations about changing the height measurement method to Manhattan Beach's averaging method. Although the Planning Commission seemed to agree that view blockage would be reduced by a new method, there was concern that using the averaging method would encourage more bulky buildings, flatter roofs, and less diversity of architectural design. Other concerns noted during public testimony included that the averaging method does not work well on steeper slopes. Staff prepared additional diagrams showing the building envelopes under each method assuming different slopes to address the issues of bulkiness, flat roofs, and -diversity, and to show the importance of the rule limiting height to 20 percent above the height limit. As one can see, because of the 20 percent rule, the averaging method would not necessarily result in flatter roofs, and on the steeper lots could result in multi-level roofs. Also, while the apparent bulkiness of structures may be greater on the upside of a street, with up to a 20 percent higher building face, the lower side of the street would have a much less bulky appearance, and in the steeper areas the reduction of bulk from the street could be as much as 100 percent. On the balance, the averaging method could actually reduce the overall appearance of bulk and would encourage diversity in the bulk from the upside and the downside of a street. Staff also included diagrams addressing different slopes affecting standard sideways sloping lots. The clear advantage to the averaging method would be to lessen view blockage in areas of steeper slopes. Also, staff felt that contrary to making buildings bulkier and less diverse, it would encourage more diversity in how the bulk is placed on the lot, increasing the diversity along a series of lots or along a street. Also, it is doubtful that the P.C. Minutes 10/17/89 proposed method would make roof designs any flatter than they are under the current method. The current propensity for flat roofs, whether flat across the whole lot or stepped, is due primarily to high land costs forcing builders and lot owners to maximize square footage and thereby pushing buildings to the edge of the envelope, and also to currently favored architectural styles. In order to address the issue of flat roofs, if it is perceived to be a serious problem, staff believes that could be addressed in the review of designs prior to approving a conditional use permit for condominiums or by establishing a design review procedure. The proposed ordinance, as stated in the study submitted to the Planning Commission in November, is similar to the method that is used in Manhattan Beach with success and which was used in Hermosa Beach until 1973. Although the method to determine the height limit under the averaging method seems complicated, it is the only calculation necessary and its result is a fixed vertical elevation that can be easily measured and checked in the field both during and after construction. The difficulty with the current method is that the top elevation varies across the horizontal plane (the height limit being a function of horizontal location), meaning that the height has to be measured at several locations to verify compliance. The Building Director has indicated that the current method is difficult to apply, particularly to buildings with multi-level roofs. The measurement becomes extremely difficult to verify when the project includes significant regrading of the slope. It is becoming even more of a problem since most new projects are built precisely to maximum height levels. Staff has modified the proposed method regarding the rule limiting height to a maximum of 20 percent above the height limit for any point on the lot.. The modified proposal establishes a fixed limit at 20 percent above the height limit measured from the low corner point for the first one fourth of the building nearer the low point. This modification was worked out with the Building Director to address a problem with the previous language which limited the height to 20 percent above the height limit from finished grade at any point on the lot. This would have created the same difficulties and problems with measurement for situations on some steeper lots as we currently have with all situations. In addition, an amendment to Section 1201 which allows roof mounted. equipment to exceed the height limit is also being recommended. Currently the ordinance does not state standards as to the maximum height or size of structures which exceed the height limit. It also allows for structures such as parapet walls which need not exceed the height limit since there are alternative methods and/or locations for such structures. The elimination of Section 1200 which allows exceptions to the height requirement on through lots is .also being recommended. This section applying to through lots states "...the height of a building on such a lot may be measured from the sidewalk level of the street on which the building- fronts..." making it possible for a through lot which fronts on a higher street to have a different height standard. Staff does not believe that through lots should be treated differently for the height calculation under the current proposed methods. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ingell, stated that many lots along both sides of Loma Drive would be involved, approximately 50 to 75. He continued by stating that in some cases this method cannot be used on the very steep lots. /S' P.C. Minutes 10/17/89 Comm. Inge11 asked whether a clause could be added to provide for variances in the cases involving very steep lots. Mr. Schubach noted that an attempt is being made to provide for views and eliminate view blockages; however, he noted that there is no view ordinance at this time in the City. He continued by explaining the view ordinances in effect in other cities. Mr. Schubach stated that staff believes the proposed method would help to lower development on downsides of slopes and therefore improve the views to the units on the upsides of the slopes. Public Hearing opened at 8:41 P.M. by Comm. Ingell. Jim Sullivan, 1051 8th Street: (1) stated that he had submitted a letter and diagram showing the plans he has for his house; (2) continued by discussing his specific plans in relation to the staff proposal; (3) explained that one side of 8th Street is R-1 and the other is R -2B, thereby having a height of 2.5 feet on one side and 30 feet on the other side; (4) stated that the proposed method is easier to figure out; (5) strongly supported the staff recommendation; (6) did not feel that flat roofs are a function of the height measurement method, but rather the personal taste of an owner and current architectural styles. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place: (1) asked for clarification on comments which were made at the previous hearing on this matter; (2) stated that Manhattan Beach has a height limit of 30 feet; (3) asked about the proposal to use the Manhattan Beach algorithm, and he explained how that particular algorithm is used in comparison to the method used in Hermosa Beach; (4) asked what staff means when saying that the Manhattan Beach method is "similar" to the Hermosa Beach .method; (5) discussed the base heights and what would be allowed; (6) discussed the height limit in Manhattan Beach, stating that almost all of their structures are a full three stories. Mr. Longacre continued: (1) questioned what would be accomplished by changing the height measurement method; (2) noted that there has not been an overwhelming desire from the public to change the method; (3) questioned why this is coming back with virtually no changes from the previous time it was heard; (4) discussed the issue of granting variances for certain cases while retaining the current method of measurement; (5) stated that builders in Manhattan Beach are building mainly large boxes with flat roofs and cautioned that the same thing could happen in Hermosa Beach. Mr. Longacre went on: (1) he asked that additional copies of the staff materials be placed in the lobby, noting that people sometimes walk off with the only copy; (2) he discussed the fact that the height limit on the commercial corridor is actually 53 feet, not 45, because of the structures allowed on rooftops; (3) he noted concern that buildings could potentially be 62 feet high with an additional 20 percent allowance; (4) he discussed the height limit in the downtown area, stating that the potential height could reach 43 feet; (5) he stated that the ordinance would not significantly affect the downtown area but would greatly impact the commercial corridor and residential areas; (6) he stated that the most important fact is that this text amendment does not really have anything to do with view blockages, stating that that is a myth; (7) he stated that this issue relates to the method of calculating the height of a building; (8) he noted concern over potentially larger buildings being put up in the City; (9) he stressed that even though Manhattan has a height limit of 30 feet, their buildings are much larger than those in Hermosa where the height limit is 35 feet; (10) he cautioned that buildings could be much larger if Manhattan Beach's algorithm is used. -/6- P.C. Minutes 10/17/89 Mr. Longacre continued: (1) he referred to this text amendment as the "BBB" (bigger, bulkier buildings text amendment); (2) he passed out copies of examples of height measurement he had prepared and continued by discussing them in detail with the Commission. Comm. Peirce wanted to ensure that staff is interpreting the method of measurement as the Commission previously discussed as the current rule: that one takes a perpendicular stick; moves it all over the property; wherever the top of the stick is, a plane is drawn so that the plane matches the contour of the land below; and the plane is always so many feet (25, 30, or 3.5 feet) above the existing topology. Mr. Schubach agreed and stated that a parallelogram would then be created. Comm. Peirce disagreed, stating that if the lot is concave or convex, the building can either be settled down or lifted up on the hill. Comm. Peirce stressed that he wanted to ensure that staff is interpreting this issue properly. He stated that there is no problem if the lot in question is flat; however, if it is curved, one would expect to see another curved plane above the height limit above the plane. Mr. Schubach, noting that the Building Director was not present, explained that the Building Department does the measuring. Comm. Peirce stressed that the Commission specifically told the Building Department not to use the method they had been using; that the stick method over the land is the exact method the Planning Commission wanted to be used. He stressed that city staff must be made aware of this fact. Comm. Peirce stated that it is necessary to warp the plane on top of the land in order to obtain the correct measurement; if that is not done, the correct procedure is not being followed. Mr. Schubach thought that the Building Department is measuring the correct way. Mr. Longacre continued: (1) he stated that if an incorrect method of measurement has been used for a long time, it has become a de facto law, and to change it now would be to essentially change what has become a common law; (2) he continued by giving examples of measuring. Comm. Peirce stated, then, that it is necessary to further study this issue. Mr. Longacre went on: (1) he continued by discussing the diagrams he had prepared; (2) he discussed the various methods of measuring height and the outcome in terms of what could be built; (3) talked about the method used in Manhattan Beach; (4) stated that under the new proposal, one would take the midpoint of a structure and that would become the height of the building, and some part of the face of the building can exceed 20 percent above the envelope of where it would be otherwise; (5) he continued by discussing the second page he prepared in relation to what would be possible at, the St. Michael's site; (6) he could see no reason to change the algorithm, stating that a change would benefit only businesses and condos; (7) he noted that there is no public outcry to change the method; (8) he urged that the method be left as is, or that it be studied again and brought back before the full Commission. P.C. Minutes 10/17/89 Comm. Peirce read aloud from Section 208 of the zoning code, Page 4.56: "Building height means a vertical distance measured from the existing grade of a lot adjacent to the exterior walls from any portion of the building site covered by the building to the uppermost point of the roof, not including the building code required parapet fire wall. When the grade has been lowered, said vertical distance shall be measured from the finished grade." He stated that this method is very clear in the code, and if the Building Department is not using this method, he wants to know why. Mr. Schubach stated that the wording "existing grade" has been a real problem. Comm. Peirce stated that the wording is a different problem. If they are creating a parallelogram, the measuring is being done incorrectly. He stated that the definition in the code is very clear. Mr. Schubach stated that the wording "existing grade" has been changed to "natural grade" in an attempt to alleviate problems. He could not say for certain how the Building Department is measuring, stating that he would have to again check with them. Mr. Sullivan again addressed the Commission and explained how his architect measured his lot. He said that the method being discussed by Comm. Peirce is the method used by his architect; however, he questioned whether it is in the best interest to use that method. He noted concern over protecting views in the City. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach: (1) discussed the height method currently being used, and stated that he agrees with the comments made by Mr. Longacre; (2) noted that the method has been used for approximately ten years; (3) stated that the old interpretation differs from that offered by Comm. Peirce; (4) explained how the measurement is now being done in relation to the plane ofthe lot; (.5) stated that the method being used now actually creates more bulk; (6) said that the proposed method is very simple to use to figure maximum height; (7) said that the current language is very difficult to work with in terms of actually figuring the height; (8) said that the method used by Manhattan Beach is very simple, but it allows more bulk; (9) said that if the current method is retained, clients will be happy, but he questioned whether it is in the best interests of the City; (10) felt it is important that the current method be clarified, and that a handout be put together to pass out at the counter. Mr. Compton went on: (1) he discussed sloping lots and stated that even if .one remains within the plane the building can still be too high; (2) he stated that many architects from other cities are confused over the method used by this city; (3) he did not feel that the staff recommendation is the best answer. Mr. Schubach stated that staff does not feel bulk should be controlled via a height ordinance. He stated that other reports will be presented which address the issue of bulk. He stressed that this is a height issue, not one of bulk, which is meant to address the issue of view protection. He stated that the ordinance is very difficult to interpret and the Building Department has therefore used its own interpretation in order to clarify the issue. Mr. Compton continued: (1) he noted that the Building Department must use an easy method; (2) he stated that what the Building Department is doing is not necessarily unreasonable; (3) he questioned whether what is being proposed is actually what the City desires. P.C. Minutes 10/17/89 Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street: (1) discussed past methods used by the City in measuring height; (2) gave examples of tall buildings which were built under the past methods; (3) commented on 8th Street and tall buildings on that street; (4) noted concern over the issue of the St. Michael's site and the possible height which could be allowed there; (.5) noted concern over bulky buildings without adequate parking which would add to the traffic problems; (6) noted concern over roof structures being allowed in addition to the maximum height requirements, stating that everything should be included in the overall height limit; (7) urged the Commission to carefully study the issue of the St. Michael's and the proposed parking and height; (8) asked why an additional eight feet should be allowed on roofs. Mr. Schubach clarified that this ordinance will not affect the St. Michael's site, explaining that that will be a specific plan area. He gave some background information and history on parking in relation to senior citizen housing. He stressed that adequate parking will be required for any project at the St. Michael's site. Mr. Longacre again addressed the Commission: (1) he stated that only one half of the St. Michael's site is a specific plan area, and the other half is R-3; (2) he stated that a project there will actually be R-3 building standards with no limits. Mr. Schubach stated that the St. Michael's project will b -e brought back at a future date. Public Hearing closed at 9:31 P.M. by Comm. Ingell. Comm. Peirce stated that the current method is the correct method; however, he suggested that it be clarified. He believed that both height and bulk can be controlled by the height law. He noted that experts have testified that buildings will be larger and bulkier under the proposed amendment, and he felt that would be. wrong. He stated that this current method has been used for approximately ten years, and it should continue to be used. Comm. Peirce agreed that certain rooftop items should be prohibited in residential zones. He said that the only things which should be allowed to project in commercial or residential areas are chimneys, flues, and vents. If those items cannot fit within the requirements, they should not be allowed to intrude on the views of others. Comm. Ketz stated that her opinion has not changed on this matter since the last time it was heard. She did not agree with the proposed method of height measurement, stating that it would encourage more bulk. Even though the existing method may have some problems, she felt it is preferable to the alternative. She agreed that items on roofs should not be allowed to go over the height limit. Comm. Ingell stated that he has trouble believing that the proposal would allow additional bulk.. He stated that the face of one side of a building could be larger; however, the bulk would not be greatly increased. Comm. Ingell stated that there should be enforcement in regard to what should be allowed on tops of buildings. Comm. Ingell stated that more information is necessary on these issues. He questioned whether this issue should come back before a full Commission. Comm. Peirce stated that this issue has been studied by the Commission several times. He therefore felt it would be appropriate to take action at this time. P.C. Minutes 10/17/89 MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-17, and direct staff to rewrite the findings based on the sentiments of the Commission; to eliminate Item No. 1 and all parts of the resolution dealing with that issue; further, to eliminate Item A, Item B, and Item C. (Item D to remain as is.). Also, that staff be directed to write a summary of the Commission's consensus on the height of a building being at the top; amend Item 2 to state that the only three roof items allowed to project above the height limit in the residential zone are chimneys, flues, and vents. Comm. Peirce felt that if items cannot be built into building height requirements, those items should be removed. He also stated he would like to receive from the Building Department a copy of the proposed handout so that it can be approved by the Planning Commission. Comm. Peirce, in response to a request from Comm. Inge11, clarified his motion: To change Section 1201 of the code to eliminate everything except flues, vents, and smokestacks in all zones and to limit them to no more than eight feet and cover no more than five percent of the total roof area. (Under Item 2, everything would be eliminated except Items G, H, and I.) Mr. Schubach stated that the reference to satellite dishes will remain; however, satellite dishes are covered under a different section of the ordinance. He noted that those items are covered under FCC regulations. Mr. Compton asked to speak on the issue of roof structures. MOTION withdrawn by Comm. Peirce. Public Hearing reopened at 9:39 P.M. by Comm. Inge11. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue: (1) stated that many things are now allowed to exceed the height limit; (2) suggested that the Commission keep an open mind as to what can remain on the roof; (3) noted concern over elevator shafts, stating that elevator shafts on large buildings are a very small portion of the building; (4) explained that traction elevators need an area which is higher than the roof, approximately 12 feet above the floor of the building in order to use the elevator; (5) stated that requiring elevator shafts to remain within the height limit would impact the elevator shaft placement and create problems in design. Mr. Compton, in response to comments from Comm. Peirce, explained that traction elevators have pulleys which are above the car in the elevator tower, and they must be above where the car runs in order to make it function properly. He stated that approximately twelve to fourteen feet is necessary from the face of the floor up to the roof. He stated that hydraulic elevators can be lower; however, they are much slower and can go only. to three or four stories. He continued by discussing the various aspects of elevators and stated that they are quite technical. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street: (1) stated that high speed elevators are not necessary for buildings which cannot be more than three stories; (2) felt that nobody would be hurt by having to walk up a story. Mr. Longacre asked for clarification on what action is being taken tonight. Public Hearing closed at 9:45 P.M. by Comm. Ingell. P.C. Minutes 10/17/89 C Comm. Peirce agreed that hydraulic elevators are quite slow and could limit a developer's ability to sell a building if there was no elevator and he could not have the full 45 -foot height limit. He did not think the elevator requirement is necessary for the residential zone; however, he suggested that a number be added which would accommodate a pulley -type elevator in the commercial zone. Comm. Ketz stated that elevators will probably only be in commercial zones; however, she was at a loss as to what number should be used. Comm. Peirce stated that he has studied this matter in depth; therefore, he felt comfortable making a decision at this time. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-17 with the following amendments: To modify Section 1201 relating to the height of roof structures to allow only chimneys, flues, and vents which shall be no more than eight feet high or cover more than five percent of the total of the roof area; and to have a maximum height limit for elevators of four feet above the height limit, necessary only to cover the mechanism on top of the elevator. Elevator housings shall be allowed only in commercial zones, not residential. (Comm. Peirce stated that everything else on Page 13 is correct.) AYES: Comms. Ketz, Peirce NOES: Comm. Ingell ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comms. Moore, Rue MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to direct staff to obtain a coherent, cogent handout from the Building Department based on the current zoning which can be handed out to people and which can be understood by the layman. Said handout should have as many drawings as necessary to clearly convey the message to people. The Planning Commission shall have final approval of the handout to ensure that it adequately conveys the intent of the Commission on the issue of height measurement. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comms. Moore, Rue ��` P.C. Minutes 10/17/89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 • 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 89-995 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO EXTEND ORDINANCE NO. 88-949• ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN THE R-2 AND R -2B ZONES THAT EXCEED TWENTY-FIVE FEET IN HEIGHT AND ARE BORDERED GENERALLY ON THE EAST SIDE BY R-1 ZONES . (Emergency) WHEREAS, the height limits for R-2 and R -2B and R-1 zones are thirty, thirty, and twenty-five feet, respectively;. WHEREAS, the differences in ,these height limits can cause view blockages in R-1 zones that generally border on R-2 zones; WHEREAS, the view blockages caused by the .close proximity between R-2 and R-1 zones can cause a loss of ocean views which thereby lowers the quality of life and prevents full enjoyment of coastal resources; WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach are currently studying the steps necessary to protect views while preserving quality of life for all persons; WHEREAS, allowing construction of residences in the R-2 and R -2B zones above the height limit for R-1 would defeat the purpose of the study in allowing view blockage to occur; WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 88-949 was adopted by the City Council of Hermosa Beach on July 26, 1988 whereupon it prohibited for a period of forty-five (45) days the issuance of Building Permits in the R-2 zone, including the locations described in Exhibit "A (1-4)" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, that increased the height of a residence which exceeded the height allowed in R-1 (25 feet); WHEREAS, the City Council finds that other areas within the City exist that have differences in height limits between R-2, -22- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 • 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C cORDINANCE NO. 89-995 R -2B, and R-1 and expressly make those areas part_ of this extension as shown in Exhibit "A (1-4)" which is attached hereto; WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65858(a) provides. for an urgency measure extension of (10) months, fifteen (15) days and a second extension of one year upon adoption by a four-fifths (4/5) vote following notice pursuant to Government Code Section 65090 and a public hearing; WHEREAS, Government Code Section 36937 allows this extending .ordinance to take immediate effect for the preservation of public. peace, health and safety, and upon a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council; . NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance No. 88-949 be extended and shall be amended to include all areas as shown in Exhibit A (1-4) an additional one year pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(a). Section 2. The Planning Commission continue to study what steps are necessary to take to protect views while preserving quality of life for all persons. Section 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36927, this ordinance is designed to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Hermosa Beach and becomes effective immediately upon adoption by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council. Section 4. This ordinance shall not apply to any projects that have a completed building permit package on file with the City prior to June 27, 1989. Said package must include a completed building permit application form, completed conceptual plans (plot plan, floor plan, elevation plan and similar plans), 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C CINANCE NO. 89-995 and a lot survey. Projects that have submitted a completed building permit package must pursue their application in a diligent manner and must be issued a building permit within six months of the effective date of this ordinance. Section 5. That' the City Clerk certifyto the passage and adoption of the ordinance, enter the same in the book of original ordinances of saidcity, and 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. Section 6. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause the ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 27th day of June, 1989. 1/7/ ) I, PRE ENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Her osa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK 0(tett-L c>210 CITY ATTORNEY T/ordcc620 • • EXHIBIT A-1 -1) co TENTH ELEVE — or TNANCE NO. 89-995 FIFTEENTH • M ( 51_21 _ s • FOURTEENTH 1 PL. 0 v. THIRTEENTH 1#, 0' 7.) oJ • C(e- 'NANCE NO. 89-995 E(HIBJT A-2 /1/ FIRST ST. Or'NANCE NO. 89-995 EXHIBfl A-3 27 . OrTNANCE NO. 89-995 EXHIBIT fl -4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE 90-1024 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING EXCEPTIONS TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED FOR ROOF -MOUNTED STRUCTURES, AND ELIMINATION OF SECTION 1200. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on February 27, 1990, to receive oral and written testimony, and made the following Findings: A. The exception to the maximum height for the roof top equipment is broad and general; B. Roof top equipment can result in view blockage ; C. The exception provided for in Section 1200 allowing the height to be measured from sidewalk level on through lots fronting on the sidewalk besides being unclear and inconsistent with the proposed amendments gives an unfair advantage to through lots which downslope from the sidewalk, which could result in view blockage; D. Amending these sections of the zoning ordinance is consistent with the General Plan and is in the best interest of the citizens of Hermosa Beach. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby amend the text of the zoning ordinance as follows: SECTION 1. Amend Article 12, Section 1201. Height of Roof Structures: "Commercial and Manufacturing zones: The following elements may be constructed above the height limit provided they do not exceed the height limit by more than eight (8) feet and cover no more than 5% of the total roof area. Where the height of the element is governed by a uniform building code standard, the element may exceed the height limit only by the minimum amount necessary to comply with the uniform building code standards. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 a. Elevator housing b. Stairways c. Tanks d. Ventilating fans e. Parapet fire walls f. Towers g. Chimneys h. Flues i. Vents Smokestacks J. k. Wireless masts 12 II 1. Similar structures as determined by the Planning Commission 13 14 II No structure exceeding the height limit shall result in additional floor area." 15 "Residential zones: Residential uses may have chimneys, vents and flues exceed the height limit only to the extent 16 required to meet the uniform building code requirements." 17 "For the height standards for antennas, satellite dishes, and similar structures refer to Section 1227 of this ordinance." 18 SECTION 2. 19 20 SECTION 3. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 SECTION 4. 28 Amend Article 12, by eliminating Section 1200. Height of Buildings on Through Lots This ordinance shall not apply to any projects that have a completed building permit package on file with the City prior to February 27, 1990. Said package must include a completed building permit application form, completed conceptual plans (plot plan, floor plan, elevation plan and similar plans), and a lot survey. Projects that have submitted a completed building permit package must pursue their application in a diligent manner and must be issued a building permit within six months of the effective date of this ordinance. Significant projects involving more than 10,000 square feet of floor area shall be allowed one (1) year from the effective date of this ordinance to obtain building permits. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. 1 2 3 SECTION 5. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk,shall'cause the ordinance to be published in the'Er Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach. 4 SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in 5 the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption 6 thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. 7 8 9 PASSEDAPPROVED, and ADOPTED th's 13th day of March 1990. 10 II PRES 'DEN of the '-City 'C• ncil and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa :each, Californi.. 11 12 13 14 15 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK 16 II CITY ATTORNEY t/persheig 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Honorable Mayor and Members of the' Hermosa Beach City Council May 15, 1990 City Council Meeting of June 12, 1990 PRESENTATION OF NEEDS ASSESSMENT BY MULTIVISION CABLE TV AS REQUESTED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council accept the attached Public Access Presentation, and refer to the Cable TV Board for review and recommendation, as part of their final work, to close out their original mission. Background: At your regularly scheduled meeting of March 13, 1990, the City Council, in response to notification by staff that a breach of the Transfer Agreement between the City and MultiVision had occurred regarding the Six months progress review, requested from MultiVision, a written report. That written report to include: 1) Cable TV operator to conduct a needs assessment; 2) CATV operator to provide an Action Plan, describing what they intend to do with regard to Public Access, based on the needs assessment; 3) MultiVision to provide an Implementation Plan for addressing the needs assessed. i.e. What has been done/ What is being done? When will it be done?, etc. MultiVision to prepare a written report based on the above, to be submitted to the City Council within sixty (60) days of the March 13, 1990 meeting. MultiVision's response was initially scheduled for the May 8th meeting, per request by MultiVision. It was instead placed on the May 22nd agenda, but not received until June 5th. Analysis: One of the primary concerns expressed by members of the CATV Board, has been a lack of public access afforded the subscribers of MultiVision Cable TV, Corporation. The CATV Board specifically addressed this concern, as a part of their subscriber survey, conducted in 1988. At that time, according to the survey results, "[a]lmost half of the respondents are interested in locally produced television programming, and 39 percent would take advantage of the opportunity to create programs themselves if the opportunity was available." 1 As a results of the subscriber survey, and further, on recommendation of Communications Support Corporation, the consulting firm hired to do an audit and analysis of the franchise held by MulitVision, the consultant recommended that a needs assessment be conducted at the expense of the operator. Council took action upon those recommendations, and requested the aforementioned report. Attached for your review, is a report from MultiVision, in response to Council's direction. Upon reading the report there are questions that need to be addressed so that council will be able to assess this report's true value. The Cable T.V. Board being a very good source of information and knowledge, could as part of their final efforts assessthe value of this report and offer any comments, suggestions and needs for improvement. Alternatives: 1. Refer to staff for review and recommendation. 2. Refer back to MultiVision for further documentation and enumeration. 3. Initiate proceedings for breach of contract. 4. Receive and file. en rr L. St -ten, ALting General Services Director Kevin B. Northeraft, City Manager - 2 Respectfully submitted, Henry L. Staten, Acting General Services Director By « GIt1Qf (C7 7 Michele D. Tercero, Staff Liaison, CATV MultiVision May 31, 1990 Mr. Kevin Northcraft City Manager CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 Re: Public Access Ascertainment Dear Kevin: The following information is provided in response to your May 22 letter. MultiVision strongly disagrees that it has not met the commitment which we made to the City on March 13 to provide a public access ascertainment within 60 days. Please be apprised of the following facts and background information in this regard: March 13: April 16: April 24: April 30: May 7: Council requested a public access ascertainment be completed and presented to the City within 60 days (due May 12th) to further determine access needs and interests in the City. Chantal Hargis called the City to request time on the May 8 agenda to present the completed ascertainment, and to present our franchise fee payment to the Council. We were told that the City "would pencil in" these agenda items and would advise us if there was any change. Our Hermosa Beach office received a call from the City that the May 8 Council agenda would not permit our presentation of the franchise fee check or ascertainment as the agenda was already too lengthy, apparently related to an oil drilling issue. The message indicated that these items were rescheduled to May 22. We sent a letter to the City (copy attached) confirming the items for the May 22 Council agenda. The City called and left a message that it now wished immediate delivery of the franchise fee check. We responded to this request although we preferred to have made this important payment in the public forum of the Council meeting. No mention was made of the ascertainment, nor of not allowing us to present it as scheduled May 22. MultiVision Cable TV 3041 Miraloma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806 714 632-9222 PAGE TWO May 14: The City called our office and requested the ascertainment be delivered to the City no later than noon on May 16, instead of presenting it on the May 22 agenda. We advised that we would much prefer that this important item be presented at the May 22 public meeting as originally agreed. Perhaps there is a point we are missing here, but we are at a loss to understand why the City will not allow us to present this important document in a public forum as we agreed to on March 13. As you know, we have been allowed to make such presentations on cable issues at many previous Council meetings. Again, acceding to the City's request and to attempt to maintain goodwill, the ascertainment is being hand delivered to the City. MultiVision must, however, go on record at this time, that this represents a clear change in our understanding. We believe that the public access ascertainment is an issue important enough to all residents to justify a public presentation of a document our staff has worked on many long hours. May we formally now request that an oral presentation be made on the next available Council agenda? We must also take exception to the assumption that our existing public access capabilities must be improved as soon as possible. We believe this determination has not yet been made and can only be considered after the City and its constituents have completed a detailed review of the ascertainment prepared for this purpose. We would be pleased to discuss any of the above with you at your convenience. Sincerely, Jo n'T. �M erritt Vice'President Cal•'fornia Division A agent for M.L. Media Partners L.P. JTM:sls cc: City Council City of Manhattan Beach MultiVision April 30, 1990 Mr. Kevin Northcraft City Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Kevin, Thank you for granting MultiVision the time cc the May 22 City Council agenda to present our first quarter 1990 franchise fee payment and the public access ascertainment due to the City May 13. As you know, MultiVision wishes to meet its commitment to the May 13th deadline, which represents sixty days from the last Council meeting at which this report was requested. Also, we believe our franchise agreement requires .payment of tra,zL:hise fees within thirty days after the end of the first quarte_, which would be April 30th. Should there be any possibility c;f ap- pearing on an earlier Council agenda, we would certainly appreciate that opportunity. As partners with the City of Hermosa Beach, we believe it important to present franchise fee payments in this public forum and of course presentation of the public ac::;zs;; ascertainment is an issue which a number of residents hava expressed interest in, again suggesting the importanc:s of Council presentation for this item. Many thanks for your help. Sincerely, ohn T. Merritt Vice President California Division JTM:sls cc: City Treasurer Gary Brutsch City Attorney Charles Vose City Clerk Elaine Doerfling Michele Tercero City Council MultiVision Cable TV 1529 Valley Drive .Hertnosa Belch, CA 90254 213 3133423 PUBLIC ACCESS PRESENTATION Prepared By: MultiVision Cable TV Hermosa Beach May 1990 CONTENTS Community Ascertainment Survey 3 Ascertained Community Issues 5 General Programming Suggestions 6 Public Access Recommendations 7 MultiVision's TV 3 Local Programming 9 Local Program Schedule 12 Public Service Announcements/Community Bulletin Board 13 Access Rules, Definitions, and Eligibility 14 i Public Access Class Overview 23 Public Access Handbook 31 Future Program Plans 55 Future Access Classes 57 COMMUNITY ASCERTAINMENT SURVEY In an effort to help determine what type of programming and public access MultiVision Cable Television subscribers and viewers would like to see and have on our Public Access channel (Channel 3), a community ascertainment survey was mailed to 80 community leaders in the Hermosa/Manhattan area. The list of names was gathered from both cities' Chamber of Commerce resource guides and various other sources. The list included members of City government and the directors of local community and non- profit organizations that serve Hermosa and Manhattan Beach. Additionally, surveys were given to all current members of our Public Access class and local program producers. Our local production department for Channel 3 took a "man -on -the -street" poll to determine what cable viewers would like to see on channel 3. The survey was made as simple as possible and contained only three questions that specifically asked for programming suggestions. Return postage for the surveys was provided by MultiVision. Approximately two weeks after the surveys were mailed, Patty King - Public Access Coordinator for MultiVision's Hermosa Beach production department called those individuals on the mailing list who had not yet responded. Given the option to complete the survey by phone, most were understandably reluctant to do so and said they would return the forms as soon as possible. 3 The following results from the survey are based on the responses we did receive. The lists of ascertained community concerns and programming suggestions are taken directly from the surveys. The list of ascertained community issues is listed in descending order. 4 ASCERTAINED COMMUNITY ISSUES The following is a list of the top ten (10) ascertained issues of concern to the community: 1. ECONOMY/GROWTH - including overdevelopment, density/open space, commercial revitalization. 2. YOUTH/FAMILY - including teen and family support groups dealing with drugs/alcoholism, sexual/physical abuse, and cable TV for children. 3. CRIME - including how police deal with rape victims and the mentally ill, crime awareness and prevention. 4. ENVIRONMENT - including pollution, trash/recycling. 5. HEALTH - including AIDS, health education, fitness, the mentally ill, health care costs. 6. DRUGS/ALCOHOL - including awareness/prevention, rehabilitation. 7. HOUSING - including housing developments, cost of housing. 8. ENTERTAINMENT - including programs based on comedy, arts and culture, music, theater, local events. 9. TRANSPORTATION - including traffic and parking. 10. EDUCATION - including health and environmental education, local history. Also mentioned were (in descending order): GOVERNMENT - including local politics, election coverage, civic meetings. SENIORS - including local services available to seniors. VETERANS - including local services available to veterans. 5 PROGRAMMING SUGGESTIONS Based on the surveys, the following program suggestions were offered. They are in no particular order: *Programming produced by and for children based on education. *Programming featuring coverage of local organizations and the services they provide. *Coverage of community events. *Coverage of local sporting events, including high school games. *Programming that profiles community leaders and community concerns. *Nature/environmental programs focusing on local parks and recreation activities, beach activities, wildlife preservation. *Programming focusing on local police issues, activities, and services. 6 PUBLIC ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS We asked those on our ascertainment list and current public access class members what they feel MultiVision should offer the community by way of public access. The following is a breakdown of the response received: *More information about what Public Access is. *A systematic/audited public access application process. *More channels designated for public access/more public access time. *Improved equipment MultiVision is responding to these requests. We have information about public access classes and applications available for anyone interested in our lobby. Applications are taken on a first come, first serve basis, however, every person we received a public access class application from was invited to our class. We initially had over 30 people signed up, over 30 attended the first session, and we have now completed the class with a core of 15 - 20 members. In the future, all community members we receive applications from will be welcome to attend classes as well. MultiVision currently offers community members access to Channel 3 on a first come, first serve basis either as participants on one of our existing programs or producers of their own. 7 Public access time is limited to studio/equipment availability and again, is handled on a first come, first serve basis. Finally, we are in the process of purchasing equipment for use by public access members as well as for our locally originated productions. Public access classes are available to all community members who live or work in Hermosa/Manhattan. Classes are advertised at least one month in advance of the start of the sessions on our community bulletin board. Applications are always available in our lobby, and classes are scheduled once we have a minimum of 10 members. Special classes can be scheduled for groups and non-profit organizations who wish to produce future programs to air on channel 3. Prior to the start of our next session, the production department of MultiVision in Hermosa Beach will air a produced promo with information about classes and how to enroll. 8 PUBLIC ACCESS MULTIVISION'S TV 3 LOCAL PROGRAMMING MultiVision currently offers a variety of programming on Channel 3. Many of the programs listed below meet the requests of the community based on our survey. They are as follows: OCEAN VIEWS - This is a 30 minute, bi-monthly program featuring "man -on -the -street" interviews discussing questions of local interest. Recent programs have covered the environment and local cable programming. When possible, this show also includes interviews with community members who are involved in events and/or organizations related to the program's topic. Our first show featured brief interviews with Linda Nutting, one of the coordinators of Manhattan Beach school's "Adopt A Beach" program and Evelyn Roland, Program Specialist, who developed an environmental education program for the Manhattan Beach schools. Ocean Views airs Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at 6:00 P.M. PACIFIC OUTLOOK - This is a 30 minute, bi-monthly program hosted by Patty King, Public Access Coordinator for MultiVision, Hermosa Beach, which features interviews with individuals and organizations who have upcoming events or campaigns. Recently covered were "Dolphin Day" which featured an interview with Jill Kirby, a local environmental activist regarding tuna boycotts and Susan Johnson, Local Marketing Coordinator for the Municipal Area Express (MAX) Commuter Bus System. Pacific Outlook airs Tuesdays and Thursdays at 6:30 P.M. GOOD EVENING SOUTH BAY - This is a 30 minute, weekly program hosted by Jane Arnett, Public Access Producer, which features interviews with City officials and leaders of local community organizations. Recent segments have featured interviews with John Atkinson, MultiVision Production Manager regarding the changes at MultiVision in Hermosa, Joe Stecklein, Director of Parks and Recreation for the City of Manhattan Beach, David Ludwig, Contracts Manager for the City of Manhattan Beach regarding recycling, Carol Belser from the City of Hermosa Beach regarding Spring Break activities, Patty King, MultiVision's Public Access Coordinator regarding the public access opportunities available at MultiVision, and Patty Sivileri, developer of a "Pocket Breathalyzer" regarding drinking and driving. Good Evening South Bay airs Tuesdays and Thursdays at 6:30 p.m. 9 BEACH BEAT - This is a 30 minute, bi-monthly program hosted by Mike Carruthers, Reserve Officer, with the Manhattan Beach Police Department along with Manhattan Beach Police Department Crime Prevention Officer Andy Harrod and Officer Tom Thompson from the Hermosa Beach Police Department. The show profiles recent crimes in the area and includes interviews about crime prevention and awareness. Recent programs have included discussions with Dave Olsen from Steve's Lock & Safe regarding home security and Art Mandelbaum, an Earthquake Preparedness Specialist. Beach Beat airs Mondays and Wednesdays at 7:30 P.M. MANHATTAN BEACH YESTERDAYS - This 30 minute, bi-monthly program hosted by Keith Robinson, President of the Manhattan Beach Historical Society, focusing on educating the community about the history of the South Bay, community landmarks, and historical events. Manhattan Beach Yesterdays airs Thursdays at 6:00 P.M. MANHATTAN BEACH CHAMBER CHAT - This is a monthly program hosted by Jeffrey Fire, President of the Manhattan Beach Chamber of Commerce that presents local business owners and the services that their company provides to the community through interviews with the business owners/chamber members. Also, Chamber events are highlighted. Manhattan Beach Chamber Chat airs Tuesdays at 6:00 P.M. SOUTH BAY'S HOME VIDEO SHOWCASE - This is a 30 minute, bi-monthly program hosted by John Atkinson, Production Manager of MultiVision's Hermosa Beach Production Department which provides entertainment through community involvement. Based on "America's Funniest Home Videos" viewers are asked to send in their home videos for use on the show. However, unlike the network show, the videos do not have to be funny or even clever; simply something they would like to put on the air. SOUND WAVES - This is a 30 minute, bi-monthly program which features performances of local bands and musicians for entertainment. Our first show kicked off with the "Late Night Express Band" and we currently have more than a dozen groups waiting to appear on the show. Sound Waves airs Mondays and Fridays at 8:00 P.M. BURGIE - This is a 30 minute, weekly comedy/variety program hosted by Robert Benz, Public Access Producer. Burgie airs Fridays at 7:30 P.M. 10 In addition to these programs, Channel 3 regularly airs public access programs provided to us that reflect community interests. They are: ART ON VIDEO - A weekly, hour long presentation of the Manhattan Beach Public Arts Program which profiles famous artists and their works. MINDSIGHT - This is a 30 minute, weekly program which features educational/motivational speakers. WEEK IN REVIEW - This hour long weekly program presents news about world politics and events of the preceding week. FOCUS VIDEO MAGAZINE - This 30 minute monthly magazine show presents segments about issues of regional concerns, such as water conservation. BRUIN TALK - This 30 minute weekly program focuses on college sports and interviews with athletes from UCLA. HOPE CHAPEL - This is a 60 minute religious program provided by Hope Chapel in Hermosa Beach. Besides these regularly scheduled programs, MultiVision's TV 3 provides coverage of all Hermosa and Manhattan Beach City Council meetings, Planning Commission meetings and any special meetings which arise. MultiVision interrupts regularly scheduled programming to air special meetings. 11 LOCAL PROGRAM SCHEDULE Listed below is a sample schedule of weekly programs aired. Monday: 5:00 - Water Conservation Special 6:00 - Best of Wave Watch 6:30 - Good Evening South Bay 7:00 - Focus Video Magazine 7:30 - Beach Beat 8:00 - Art on Video Tuesday: 5:00 - Best of Wave Watch 5:30 - Navy News 6:00 - Manhattan Beach Chamber Chat 6:30 - Good Evening South Bay 7:00 - Hermosa Beach Planning Commission (LIVE) Wednesday: 5:00 - Best of Wave Watch 5:30 - Beach Beat 6:00 - Mindsight 6:30 - Manhattan Beach ZORP & City Council Thursday: 5:00 - Best of Wave Watch 5:30 - Manhattan Beach Yesterdays 6:00 - Manhattan Beach Chamber of Commerce Special Friday: 5:00 - Best of Wave Watch 5:30 - Poor Walter's Almanac 6:00 - Ocean Views 6:30 - Good Evening South Bay 7:00 - Home Video Showcase 7:30 - Burgie 8:00 - Sound Waves 8:30 - Rock n' Roll L.A. 12 PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNITY BULLETIN BOARD In addition to the programs produced and aired on Channel 3, we include video Public Service Announcements between program segments. Any non-profit community organization is invited to submit video PSA's for air. Our community bulletin board regularly contains information about upcoming community events and community services. These character generation PSA's can be seen anytime, we are not airing videotaped or live programs. Any non-profit community organization or civic group is invited to submit information for air. 13 ACCESS OPERATING RULES A. PURPOSE OF ACCESS & ELIGIBILITY The FCC's access rules were adopted to provide an outlet for community expression. Each of the four kinds of access service is intended to foster the development of a particular kind of community expression. Accordingly, the use of each kind of access is restricted to individuals, groups and organizations whose use will promote the type of community expression contemplated for that service. Public Access is intended to offer a practical opportunity for local interests to participate in community dialogue on a non-commercial basis. Accordingly, Public Access is made available, upon requests submitted in accordance with these access operating rules, to: a. Private citizens who are residents of, or who conduct business or other operations in, the community in which the cable system is located. b. Private organizations and groups which are located in or which serve the interests of the system's community. Education Access is intended for use by local educational authorities for transmission of instruction programming and other education purposes. Accordingly, Education Access is made available, upon requests submitted in accordance with these access operating rules, to: a. Educational institutions and authorities located in the cable system's community. b. State educational authorities and agencies. c. Officials or representatives of the above. The purpose of the use must be transmission of instructual programming or to further other education purposes. Local Government Access is intended to make cable available for use by local governments. Accordingly, Local Government Access is made available, upon request, to: a. Local government bodies and agencies (other than educational) located in the cable system's community_, - for use in connection with their official govern- ment activities. 14 b. State and Federal government bodies and agencies (other than educational) - for use in connection with their official government activities that affect the interests of the cable system's community. c. Officials and representatives of the above for use in their official government activities. This includes State and Federal legislators who represent the district in which the cable system is located. However, use of local government access for political advertising or to promote or oppose a candidate for public office is not a permissible Government Access use. If use of cable for these purposes is desired, the applicant must request Leased Access on a paid basis. Leased Access is a commercial service which is made available on a first-come, non discriminatory basis to any individual, group or organization which complies with the cable system's access operating rules. B. PUBLIC ACCESS OPERATING RULES 1. Availability. MultiVision will provide community access on a first-come, non-discriminatory basis. MultiVision, however, reserves the right to limit the amount of time granted any one party in order to ensure that all users have access opportunity. Use limitations will be imposed only in those situations where demand exceeds availability. 2. Access Requests. Requests for use of public access time must be made on the "Access Time Request & Agreement" form. If the user desires to use any cable system equipment other than on the system's premises, it must complete the "Access Equipment Request Agreement" form. Upon checking out equipment, the "Access Equipment Receipt & Agreement" must be signed. 3. Program Content Control. MultiVision will not exercise any control over program content with the following exceptions: a. A participant in community access cablecasting may not present any advertisement of or information concerning any lottery, gift enterprise, or similar scheme, offering chance, or any list of the prizes drawn or awarded by means of any such lottery, gift enterprise, or scheme, whether said list contains any part or all of such prizes. 15 This prohibition does not apply to advertisements or information concerning State conducted lotteries where the cable system is located in the state or in an adjacent state which also conducts a lottery. b. A participant in access cablecasting may not present obscene or indecent material. 1. System management may pre-screen or take other appropriate steps to ensure that obscene or indecent material is not cablecast. Such steps may include, but are not limited to, requesting that the offending portions be deleted or refusing to allow the program on the system. 2. In order to minimize exposure to children of programs which, in system management's judgement, are not suitable for viewing by children (even though not obscene or indecent), the system reserves the right to schedule such programs at times when children normally will not be viewers. c. A participant may not present any advertising designed to promote the sale of commercial products or services, including advertising by or on the behalf of candidates for public office. 4. Equipment. Equipment is available for the production and presentation of public access programming (excluding automated services). The equipment will include at least one color camera and will enable to the user to videotape record remote programs and to edit them. Information on the specific equipment available may be obtained from system management. If use of equipment is desired other than on the cable system's premises and under the system's control, an "Access Equipment Receipt & Agreement" form must be signed for all equipment removed from the system's premises. 5. Equipment Charges. There will be no equipment charge. However, a deposit will be required when the equipment is checked out. This deposit will be refunded when the equipment is returned undamaged. If the equipment is not returned or is damaged, all or part of the deposit will be retained by the cable system. 16 The amount of the deposit will be fixed by system management, taking into consideration (a) the value of the equipment received, (b) whether the user is financially responsible if the equipment should not be returned in good condition, and (c) the past record of the user in caring for equipment. In no event will the amount of the deposit be less than $150 nor more than the replacement cost of the equipment. 6. Equipment Repairs. If any equipment loaned to the access user is damaged or becomes inoperable or out of adjustment, the access user must not attempt to repair or readjust the equipment. The equipment must be returned to the cable system which will make the necessary adjustments. 7. Workshops. Periodically MultiVision will conduct workshops on how to use and care for the equipment. Announcements will be made as to the date and time. The workshops last approximately 15 hours and must be successfully completed before any individual is eligible to use the equipment. As a prerequisite to taking the course, each individual will be required to furnish his business and home addresses and telephone numbers and to furnish satisfactory identification. 8. Equipment Damage/Responsibility. a. The individual or group checking out the equipment will bear all costs if the euipment is loss or damaged. b. MultiVision may refuse to loan equipment to individuals or groups which have in the past misused the equipment, failed to return it on time, or in any other way abused the privilege. 9. Channel Charges. MultiVision will not charge for channel use. 10. Studio Charges. MultiVision will not charge for studio production. 11. Cablecastinq Identification. MultiVision will identify the type of cablecasting service being presented (origination or access cablecasting) and the person or group presenting the program. 17 12. Public Record. MultiVision will maintain a copy of the Access Equipment Request & Agreement for in its public inspection file pursuant to FCC requirement that the name and address of all persons requesting access time be included in the file. The record is open for public inspection and will be maintained in the file for 2 years. 13. Legal Responsibility and Indemnification. It is the user's sole responsibility to obtain any license or other permission that may be required from owners of copyrights or property rights in program material with respect to the transmission on the cable system of material furnished by the user to the system or produced by the user for transmission on the system. See the representation and indemnity provisions of the attached "Access Time Request & Agreement". 18 C. EDUCATION ACCESS OPERATING RULES 1. Access Requests. Requests for education access use must be made on the "Access Time Request & Agreement" form. 2. Program Content Control. MultiVision will not exercise any control over program content with the following exceptions: a. A participant in educational access cablecasting may not present any advertisement of or information concerning any lottery, gift enterprise, or similar scheme, offering chance, or any list of the prizes drawn or awarded by means of any such lottery, gift enterprise, or scheme, whether said list contains any part or all of such prizes. This prohibition does not apply to advertisements or information concerning State -conducted lotteries where the cable system is located in the state or in adjacent state which also conducts a lottery. b. A participant may not present obscene or indecent material. 1. System management may pre-screen or take other appropriate steps to ensure that obscene or indecent material is not cablecast. Such steps may include but are not limited to, requesting that the offending portion be deleted or refusing to allow the program on the screen. 2. In order to minimize expose to children of programs which, in system management's judgement, are not suitable for viewing by children (even though not obscene or indecent), the system reserves the right to schedule such programs at times when children normally will not be viewers. c. A participant may not present any advertising material designed to promote the sale of commercial products or services, including advertising by or on behalf of candidates for public office. 3. Channel Charge. MultiVision will not charge for channel time. 4. Cablecasting Identification. MultiVision will identify the type of cablecasting service being presented (origination or access cablecasting) and the person or group presenting the program. 5. Public Record. MultiVision will maintain a copy of the Access Equipment Request & Agreement form in its public inspection file pursuant to FCC requirement that the name and address of all persons requesting access time be included in the file. The record is open for public inspection and will be maintained in the file for 2 years. 6. Legal Responsibility and Indemnification. It is the user's sole responsibility to obtain any license or other permission that may be required from owners of copyrights or property rights in program material with respect to the transmission on the cable system of material furnished by the user to the system or produced by the user for transmission on the system. D. LEASED ACCESS OPERATING RULES 1. Availability. MultiVision will offer portions of its nonbroadcast bandwidth for leased access services on a first-come, non-discriminatory basis. MultiVision, however, reserves the right to limit the amount of time granted any one party in order to ensure that all users have an opportunity for leased access. Use limitations will be imposed only in those situations where demand for access exceeds availability. Lease access channel time will be offered with the express understanding that the user may be displaced if the channel is required for its specially designated purpose (public, education, or government access). 2. Access Requests. Requests for Leased Access use must be made on the "Commercial Use of Cable Channel Agreement" form. Upon acceptance of a request for leased access, the cable system will enter into an appropriate contract or lease with the lessee, covering the details of the transaction. 20 3. Program Content Control. MultiVision will not exercise any control over program content with the following exceptions: a. A participant in leased access cablecasting may not present any advertisement of or information concerning any lottery, gift enterprise, or similar scheme, offering prizes dependent in whole or in part upon lot or chance, or any list of the prizes drawn or awarded by means of any such lottery, gift enterprise or scheme, whether said list contains any part or all of such prizes. this prohibition does not apply to advertisements or information concerning State conducted lotteries where the cable system is located in the state or in an adjacent state which also conducts a lottery. b. A participant may not present obscene or indecent material. 1. System management may pre-screen or take other appropriate steps to ensure that obscene or indecent material is not cablecast. Such steps may include, but are not limited to, requesting that the offending portion be deleted or refusing to allow the program on the system. 2. In order to minimize exposure to children of programs which, in system management's judgement, are not suitable for viewing by children (even though not obscene or indecent), the system reserves the right to schedule such programs at times when children normally will not be viewers. 4. Charges. MultiVision will charge for equipment, personnel, channel time, and studio use. Rates are available upon request from system management. 5. Cablecasting Identification. MultiVision will identify the type of cablecasting service being presented (origination or access cablecasting) and the person, group or firm presenting the program. 21 6. Sponsor Identification. The Leased Access user must comply with the FCC's sponsor identification rules (See 5.76.221 of the Cable Rules). MultiVision will furnish the user with copies of the pertinent rules and will exercise reasonable diligence to make sure that all commercial leased access material is properly identified. MultiVision reserves the right to refuse to transmit leased access material if the rules are not complied with. PRODUCTION REGULATIONS A Summary of Important Procedures The following requirements MUST be satisfied before any production will be attempted. There will be NO EXCEPTIONS to these procedures. 1. If a user verifies a date for a production, there must be a preproduction meeting before any production is attempted. 2. A written proposal must be submitted including information about program length, content, etc. 3. If any costs are involved, 50% of the total cost is due and payable at the time of verification. 4. If any cost are involved, the balance is due and payable in full on the day the production is completed. 5. All tapes submitted for cablecasting should be delivered 72 hours (3 working days) prior to air date. 6. All payments for cablecasting should be made 48 hours (2 working days) prior to air date. 22 GENERAL ACCESS INFORMATION A. Any person may use Public Access, whether or not they have had previous television experience. Applicants must be 18 years of age or accompanied by an adult. There is no charge for Public Access. B. Anything may be done, provided that it does not violate FCC regulation; (no obscenity; no promotion of lottery; no promotion for a political candidate; or for a product or service). C. All Access producers must produce at least 1 remote production and be in possession of a valid Access Users card before they will be permitted to use the MultiVision studio. The producer is responsible for providing crew for studio productions. The crew is expected to have a basic understanding of their crew position, but are not required to have an Access Users card. D. Scheduling will be done on a first-come, first - serve basis. Hermosa and Manhattan Beach citizens and organizations will be given priority in cases of scheduling conflicts. E. All requests for production time must be accompanied by a written proposal which contains the following information: 1) Name of person(s) or organization requesting production time; 2) Nature of program (subject and format); 3) Exact beginning and ending time (length); 4) Exact date of production. F. Training sessions will be scheduled periodically by MultiVision. G. Promotion, publicity, advertising, etc. for access programs will be the responsibility of the user. 23 I. STUDIO 1. It will be the responsibility of the Public Access user to control the people present at any given time. Public Access production guests are restricted to the Green room area, and shall not go into any other area of the building without prior approval and escort by a MultiVision representative. 2. No food or drink is to be consumed in the studio or adjacent areas, with the exception of beverages used on a set during production. Alcoholic beverages are prohibited. 3. Under no circumstances are Public Access users to make unauthorized phone calls on company telephones. 4. Studio schedules will vary, so taping sessions must be scheduled with the Local Public Access Coordinator in advance. 5. When the studio is used for productions where the producer's intent is for profit, compensation, advertisement, promotion or any form of personal gain, a reasonable fee will be assessed for studio operational costs. 6. A member of the Local Origination staff will engineer and be present during all Access Studio Productions. II. PORTABLE FACILITIES 1. Portapaks are available for use on Public Access projects. Videotape (3/4") for production of programs outside of the studio will be provided by MultiVision Cable T.V. 2. Programs recorded on portapaks must be edited on VCR's with edit capabilities. "Edits" done on portapaks are not acceptable for cablecast. Unless a program is recorded continuously and uninterrupted, it will be necessary to have the tape edited. 3. The individual or group checking out the equipment will bear all costs if the equipment must be repaired or replaced due to damage, theft, or abuse. 24 4. MultiVision may refuse to loan equipment to anyone who has, in the past, misused equipment, failed to return equipment on time, or in any other way abused the privilege. 5. There will be training sessions scheduled periodically by MultiVision. (Dates and times may vary according to schedules at MultiVision.) These sessions will be for the purpose of familiarizing prospective users with general video principles and operating procedures. Under no circumstances will any equipment be checked out unless a prospective user has completed the training session. Applications for enrollment in training sessions and production proposal forms will be available upon request. III. EDITING FACILITIES 1. Editing and post -production will be done a first-come, first -serve basis. Due to time and personnel limitations, editing will be performed primarily to correct technical errors and make tapes acceptable for cablecast. IV. PUBLIC ACCESS COMMITTEES 1. We encourage the formation of Public Access committees with respect to the various access channels available. (Public, Government, Religious, Educational). The purpose of these committees is to develop programming and production, and assist residents in becoming self-reliant and self sufficient in access programming. 2. The committees would consist of qualified, volunteer representatives of each respective group (i.e. Public Access committee, Government Access committee, etc.) who have completed the MultiVision training session on access equipment. It is recommended that the committees meet at least once per month. 3. The Local Origination staff will be available to train, advise and assist the various committees with programming, productions, and training. 25 V. PUBLIC ACCESS SPONSORSHIP 1. Public Access sponsorship credit may be given PBS style, utilizing the following format: a. Total credit may not exceed 15 seconds. b. Time must be placed at the end of the program. c. Visuals may consist of one or two slides, camera cards, or character generator graphics. d. Visuals may include name, address and/or telephone number of sponsor(s). e. Audio may be vocal or musical. f. Audio may state information presented as visual, but must contain the following lead announcement: "The preceding Public Access program has been presented through the assistance of..." g. Slogans or further description of sponsor's business or function cannot be permitted. VI. CABLECASTING OF PROGRAMS 1. MultiVision cannot and will not guarantee any user a "regular time slot". Due to fluctuation in the demand for the use of Public Access cablecasting time, it is not always possible to provide all users a time slot every week. MultiVision will make every attempt to allocate some kind of regular schedule. Programs will be cablecast only once unless the schedule permits additional airing. The Public Access Coordinator should be consulted regarding schedules 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. 2. Public Access programs will be cablecast on weekdays with the exception of MultiVision company holidays, or unless otherwise specified and assigned. 3. Every effort will be made to insure that programs are cablecast at the correct time and with an acceptable level of quality. MultiVision cannot be held responsible for any costs for advertising, promotion or other expenditures when a program does not air as scheduled, whether this is due to technical malfunction or any other cause beyond MultiVision's control. We will assign a new time when a program is not aired. 26 4. "Series" type programs will be limited to 3 months (or 13 weeks) in order to facilitate new Public Access users. The "series" user must re -apply for the same or new time slot at the end of the 3 -month or (13 week) series. 5. Programs not produced at MultiVision will be cablecast without charge for the use of the Public Access channel. Tapes will be screened to insure compliance with FCC rules and regulations, and to insure minimal technical quality. All tapes must be 3/4" videocassette format. 6. Outside tapes will be assigned for cablecasting in the same way as MultiVision produced programming. This will occur after the tape has been screened. Programs must be submitted at least (3) working days prior to requested time slot for cablecast. 7. MultiVision will provide all videotape necessary for the production of Public Access programs in the form of 3/4" tape. Access producers may receiver a VHS copy of their program, provided that they supply the 1/2" tape. 3/4" dubs can be made for cablecast elsewhere, but the producer must supply the 3/4" tape(s). The 3/4" master will always remain in MultiVision's possession. Persons who provide videotape programs must make arrangements to pick up the tapes not later that two weeks after they have been cablecast. In the event a tape becomes lost or damaged, MultiVision will be responsible only for the physical cost of the tape. 8. The Public Access user assumes all liability for the use of the copyrighted material within a program. 27 VII. TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR TAPES SUBMITTED FOR CABLECAST ON PUBLIC ACCESS. 1. Tape(s) must be submitted with a run-down sheet which indicates: a) Title page. b) Name(s) of producer(s) of tape. c) Time of tape in minutes and seconds. We recommend programs be no longer than 60 minutes in length. d) Audio should be on channel 2 or both 1 and 2. 2. Tape(s) must have a minimum of 5 seconds of black at the head and black at the end of the program continuing to the end of the tape. 3. Camera edits (portable camera turned on and off) are not acceptable. Tapes of this nature must be electronically edited (on an editing machine). 4. Tapes may have titles and/or credits recorded. To have credits recorded time must be schedule for the Local Origination staff to create your credits in the Local Origination edit bay. 5. Community Access personnel will view tapes for technical quality. The final decision as to technical adequacy will be made by the MultiVision Access Staff. 6. Tape(s) will be cablecast if: a) It meets with above technical standards. b) It is provided no later than three working days prior to cablecast date. 28 PUBLIC ACCESS CLASSES Becoming a Public Access user for MultiVision Cable TV is easy. At least it's easy when you look at the Public Access opportunities in their proper perspective. After attending and participating in just five classes, a citizen of Hermosa or Manhattan Beach can use industrial quality cameras, lights, and microphones. They can operate a standard commercial quality editing system, and they can produce a 3 -camera studio television show that will be aired on the local MultiVision Channel 3. In the first class we explain all the rules, requirements, and restrictions. Public Access participants explain why they are taking the class and what they hope to get out of it. The atmosphere is always fun and relaxed, and the students are encouraged about their community ideas. The second class concentrates on cameras. We go over framing up shots, zooms, pans, tilts, lighting, and all the proper camera procedures in detail. Each student has a chance to operate a camera, set up a lighting kit, and watch their work on a monitor as they go. The editing class is probably the most difficult because editing is the most complicated part of video production. Nevertheless, each student is given hands-on training in the mechanics of a professional editing system. The fourth class is without question the most fun and most enjoyable of all the classes. There are no long boring lectures to sit through. Instead, each student is put behind three different studio cameras, four microphones, mic cable, an audio board, a switcher, and they perform talk shows in front of the cameras. The results of this class are often as entertaining as they are educational, and every student gets to operate every piece of equipment. The last class is a wrap-up of everything that's been taught. Equipment procedures are reviewed, and questions are answered. At the end of the class, students are given a test on all the material and information presented in the class. 29 After the five classes, students are assigned to produce a thirty second PSA. This PSA can be about anything they choose, but must contain proper elements discussed in the class. Equipment is issued free of charge on a first come, first serve basis. The 15 hours of class, lectures and video workshop, provides students with a lot of information to follow. On the first day of class, however, handbooks are issued to each student which include Public Access rules and procedures, cameras, lighting and editing information, and everything discussed in the class. Students may keep the books and are asked to refer to them whenever operating the equipment. When the PSA is completed the students are on their own. They can schedule studio time, check out cameras and lights, or just stop in to edit a special project. Access members must provide their own crew, their own guests, and MultiVision will put their show on the air. Public Access is an excellent opportunity for anyone interested in getting some television experience or anyone who just has something to say about their city or the way it's being run. MultiVision invites all Hermosa and Manhattan residents to participate in this great opportunity for television production on a local level. And Hermosa/Manhattan Beach citizens can look to Channel 3 for some exciting, educational, and entertaining local programming. 30 PUBLIC ACCESS HANDBOOK MultiVision Cable TV COMMUNITY ACCESS AND YOU! Public Access is a unique concept of communication that allows YOU to use the medium of television to communicate your ideas to a broad spectrum of the Hermosa/Manhattan communities. As a cable system operator, MultiVision supports and encourages Public Access usage in its cable systems. Channel 3, your public access channel, is part of the basic service received by all cable subscribers in the cities of Hermosa and Manhattan Beach. Today, MultiVision Cable is in the homes of over 18,000 residents. Reading this guide and adhering to the procedures and guidelines outlined herein is the first step in becoming a Public Access Producer. 32 TYPES OF COMMUNITY ACCESS Community access is comprised of three types of programming: Public Access, Leased Access, and Local Origination. All productions must be done in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local cablecast guidelines. All community access users are responsible and liable for any claim, loss, damage, or expense arising out of or caused by any material transmitted for the access user on the cable system. Two Basic Guidelines are: 1. No Libelous, slanderous or illegal material. 2. No obscene or indecent material. Strict adherence to these guidelines are the responsibility of the community producer. Any violation of these guidelines may result in the termination of the users privileges. 33 PUBLIC ACCESS Public Access is intended to offer an opportunity for local interests to participate in community dialogue on a non- commercial basis. Accordingly, public access is made available upon request to private citizens who reside in or conduct business in the Cities of Hermosa or Manhattan Beach. Public Access is also available to private organizations and groups which are located in or service the interests of these communities. All public access users will receive a detailed list of access guidelines. When these guidelines are met, there will be no charge for equipment usage or cablecast time. Public access programs must be non-commercial. This means no direct advertising of any service or product. However, sponsorship credit may be given PBS style. 1. Total credit time may not exceed 15 seconds. 2. Credit must be placed at the end of the program. 3. Visuals may include the name, address, or telephone number of the sponsor(s). Videotape will be provided for all access productions. Programs produced at MultiVision, under public access, become the possession of MultiVision Cable. 34 All public access programs must end with the appropriate ID tag, which will be supplied by MultiVision. The ID will consist of the following information: "this Public Access program has been presented through the assistance of MultiVision Cable TV". All program masters will remain at MultiVision. One VHS copy can be made of your access program. 3/4" dubs will only be made for cablecasting at other local cable systems. Any tape exchanges will be handled by the program producer. Tapes for 3/4" dubs will be supplied by the program producer, and not by MultiVision. LEASED ACCESS Leased Access is a commercial service which is made available on a first come, non-discriminatory basis to any individual, group, or organization which complies with MultiVision's access operating rules. Programs may have commercial content, and may be produced at MultiVision, or elsewhere. MultiVision will charge for equipment, personnel, channel time, and studio use. Rate and channel number are available on request. 35 LOCAL ORIGINATION This is a community oriented program produced by the MultiVision Local Origination Staff. Volunteers and public access producers often assist on these productions. 36 PRODUCTION VOLUNTEERS Production volunteers are people who are interested in video production and are available to help with studio productions or mobile van shoots. Production volunteers should have successfully completed the access class, but it is not required. Being a volunteer allows one to become directly involved in varied productions and provides valuable experience. 37 USE OF PRODUCTION FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT All Public Access facilities and equipment are to be used solely for the purpose of producing Public Access programming for cablecast on the MultiVision Public Access Channel. USER RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Community producers, crew members, or on -air talent cannot in any way, present themselves as being employees or representatives of MultiVision Cable TV. 2. The MultiVision name or logo cannot be used on any printed material or videotape used to promote or otherwise publicize access programs except with specific written permission of MultiVision. 3. Advance permission must be granted before any news media personnel or organizations will be allowed to photograph or videotape MultiVision facilities or personnel. USE OF FACILITIES/EQUIPMENT: Non-profit organizations may use facilities and equipment when: * The producer and all crew members hold current certifications. * The non-profit organization's office is located within the franchise communities. Individuals may use the facilities and equipment when: * The producer and all crew members hold current certifications. * At least half of the crew members are residents of Hermosa or Manhattan Beach. 38 CERTIFICATION Certification is awarded at the discretion of the instructor based on the following requirements: 1. You must attend all instructional classes. 2. You must be tested on use of studio equipment and procedures. 3. You must produce a project program or Public Service Announcement at least :30 in length. For the project, you must submit a script or storyboard. Groups may participate in one project. The project must be done with remote equipment and edited. *NO STUDIO SHOOTS FOR THE FIRST PROJECT* FACILITIES/EQUIPMENT RESERVATION: Facilities and equipment are reserved on a first come, first serve basis to be arranged with the Public Access Coordinator. 1. Only certified access users may reserve studio time or portable equipment. 2. Only 1 portapak will be checked out to an individual. Equipment may be kept for 24 hours. Equipment checked out on Friday may be kept over the weekend and returned Monday morning by 10:00 a.m. 3. Failure to return equipment on time or in good working condition may result in access privileges being suspended. Repair and/or replacement of equipment due to damage or loss will be charged to the person who signs the equipment check- out form. 4. Studio time may be reserved for a maximum of 3 hours at a time. 5. A deposit of $150 (no cash or credit cards) is required when equipment is checked out to be held until equipment is returned. Deposits will be refunded after the equipment is returned in good working order. 39 CHANNEL USE Any type of programming content is permitted on the Public Access channel provided it meets the legal considerations outlined below: 1. Program content must not violate any federal, state, or local laws including but not limited to those relating to slander, copyright, indecency, or obscenity. 2. Programs are to be strictly non-commercial in nature. No endorsements for any products or services, nor solicitation for monetary donations or contributions will be allowed. 3. Programs may not endorse declared political candidates running for office. TECHNICAL GUIDELINES: 1. A content disclaimer is required at the beginning and the end of every program submitted for playback. Programs submitted without the disclaimer will not be scheduled. The disclaimer should be worded as follows: "VIEWS AND OPINIONS EXPRESSED ON THE FOLLOWING (PRECEDING) PROGRAM DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THOSE OF MULTIVISION CABLE TV, ITS MANAGEMENT, OR STAFF. THE PRODUCERS OF THE PROGRAM ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS CONTENT". 2. Programs must be submitted on 3/4 inch videotape cassette. 3. Program audio must be stable throughout the program. Audio must be of sufficient level to be audible during playback. Video must have uninterrupted control track and stable tracking. 4. Every program must be preceded by a standard leader that includes color bars, slate, and countdown. Specific requirements for this leader may be obtained from the Public Access Coordinator. 40 PROGRAM SCHEDULING: 1. Programs are scheduled on a first come, first serve basis. Only programs meeting the Technical and Content guidelines will be scheduled on the channel. 2. Programs produced by residents or non-profit organizations from the franchise communities have first priority when channel time is scheduled. 3. Programming from outside the franchise area is accepted when the following requirements are met: *Playback must be requested by a franchise resident or non- profit organization. *Identification of the sponsoring individual or organization must be included at the beginning of the program. *The MultiVision staff will not duplicate programs to be aired. Duplication from the master is the responsibility of the requestor. MultiVision will not provide stock tape for duplication of any program. 4. New programs must be delivered to the access coordinator at least one week prior to the scheduled air date. Return envelope with postage must be included with tapes that are mailed or other pick up arrangements must be made at the time of delivery. Tapes not claimed within 60 days after. air date will be considered abandoned and become the property of MultiVision. 41 5. Request for channel time for new programs or series must be made at least two weeks prior to the 1st requested air date. The requestor must fill out and sign a "Request for Cablecast" form before the program or series will be scheduled. 6. Every effort will be made to safeguard tapes submitted for playback. However, MultiVision will not be responsible for loss or damage to programs. 42 NOW LET'S GET STARTED! If you have fulfilled the necessary requirements outlined in this handbook, and elsewhere, you are on your way to becoming a community producer for MultiVision Cable TV. Our staff will give you the guidance necessary to insure that your production will be the best possible; one that will entertain and inform the entire communities of Hermosa and Manhattan Beach. 43 THE CAMERA The camera is the single most important part of television production equipment. It is important that you understand the basic function and operation of the television camera. All other TV production equipment and production techniques are directly determined by what the camera can do and the capability and versatility of the camera operator. Parts of the Camera The standard television camera consists of three main parts: 1. The lens, which selects a certain field of view or shot, and also has the zoom and focus controls. 2. The camera itself including the pick-up tubes and internal optical system, which converts the image into electrical signals. 3. The viewfinder, which shows the image that the camera is "seeing". All television cameras, whether big studio models or small portable models, work on the same principle: the conversion of an optical image into electrical signals that creates the video signal which can then be recorded on videotape or broadcasted to you on your TV set. Camera Set -Up When operating a camera, you should go through some basic steps before, during and after each production: 1. Determine the location of the camera, and set up the tripod. Adjust the tripod height and make sure the tripod head is level. 2. Take the camera out of its case and mount on the tripod. Make sure the camera is mounted properly and securely. 3. Power up the camera using batteries or A/C power and let the camera warm up for ten minutes while the camera is in color bars. 4. When you are ready to begin shooting, remove the lens caps, and select the proper filter, check the iris setting. 5. If you need to leave the camera always lock down the tilt lever. Never leave a camera unlocked! 6. After the production, put the camera in color bars, cap the lens, put it in the "cap" filter and make sure the iris is closed. Power down the camera and return it to its case. 44 CAMERA HANDLING The movement and positioning of a video camera is an art in itself. It is essential to a good video production that all camera movement be done as smoothly and artistically as possible. To accomplish this, a video cameraman must first be completely familiar with the four basic camera movements, consisting of panning, tilting, trucking, and dollying. Panning can be defined as movement of the camera in a horizontal plane. In other words, the camera swings left or right while the base of the tripod of the camera remains stationary. A pan is used to illustrate to the viewer the relative size of the area, to follow action from one location to another, and also to indicate the amount of distance between two subjects in a scene. Tilting is a camera movement which is executed in a vertical plane. When tilting, the camera tripod again remains stationary while the camera is moved vertically either upward or downward. A tilt is used to obtain a lower or higher angle within a scene, to show the relative height of an object such as a tall building, or to focus on a very low level such as a shot looking down into a canyon. 45 A third type of camera movement known as trucking, requires that the cameraman physically moves the camera to the left or right. This, or course, can only be accomplished if the camera is mounted on a moveable pedestal. A truck shot is much more difficult to execute smoothly than a panshot because of the difficulties in moving on an uneven studio floor or under adverse conditions. Also, the cameraman must be aware of the problems of running over camera cables which tend to get in the way of a truck shot. A truck movement is usually used to indicate the motion from left to right. Physically moving the camera and tripod closer to (forward) or further away (backward) from a subject is known as dollying. Dollying in is extremely effective in giving the viewer the impression that he or she is entering the scene as the camera moves in for a closer shot. This is very appropriate at the beginning of a production, following a wide shot of the scene. Of course, the opposite is also true concerning dollying back which can be used to signify the end of a production. These techniques are all very effective but can easily be overdone. They should never be used without a definite purpose. Zooming in or out is not a camera movement. It's a lens adjustment that brings the image closer or farther away. It can be used to help frame a shot or expose certain elements of a scene. 46 REMOTE PRODUCTION 1. Preproduction Planning: A. What are you going to shoot? Plan the type of footageyouu want, use a script and storyboard. B. Where are you going to shoot? Are you familiar with the location, know the available lighting and the power sources. Troubleshoot the location to find out if there are any special problems. C. What kind of equipment will you need? Battery or A/C power, extension cords, lighting kit, microphones, connectors and adapters, cables, monitor, and anything you might forget. 2. Know the camera and how to operate it. A. Camera controls and connectors B. Setting up the Camera C. Shooting tips 3. Know the tape deck. A. How to record, connectors, adapters and cables. B. Monitoring the recording. 4. Insure the safety of the equipment and yourself. 47 REMOTE FIELD PRODUCTION Preparing for the shoot (remote survey). 1. Whenever possible, you should check out your location before you go out with the camera and crew. Here are some things to look for: 2. Check the quality of available light. If outside, what will be the angle of the sun when you shoot? Check for potential shadow problems. If inside, will available light be enough or will you need to have extra lights? 3. Check the available AC power for lights, camera, VTR, and any other equipment. Most normal circuits can handle no more than 15 amps or 1500 watts. How many different circuits are available? Know where the circuit breakers are located. Do you need 3 -prong plugs or extension cords? 4. Determine where you will set up the camera. What angles will you shoot from? With a tripod or not? What is the background going to look like? 5. Determine how you will light your set. How many lights? Where will you place them? What about other light sources? It is not advisable to mix fluorescent light with other light. Make sure there will be enough light to get a good picture. 6. Check the audio situation. If you are outside, what is the traffic noise like? What about wind noise? Watch out for airplanes and helicopters when recording. If you are inside, what are the acoustics of the room? Will there be distracting noise from office machines or household appliances? Are there any other people around (restaurants, etc.) or heavy construction? 7. Crowd control. If you are in a public place, will you need to monitor and re-route people around the shooting area? Be aware of curiosity seekers, keep them quiet and out of the way. 8. Unloading and loading of equipment. Where can you park? How will you transport the equipment? Never leave equipment unattended. 9. Determine the number of crew people you will need. 10. Determine the number of microphones needed. Where will you place the microphones, with the talent? on a stand? 11. If you are not using AC, how long will you be taping? How many batteries will you need? How may video cassettes will you need? 48 THE SHOOT 1. Make sure you have obtained all the necessary permits and permission for the location you have chosen. Don't wait until shooting time. 2. When you start shooting, allow at least 5 seconds from the time you roll the tape to the point where you want to use the footage you're shooting. 10 seconds is even better. Allow the same margin when the shot is finished, this will make editing easier. 3. If you have enough assistants in the field, have someone keep an ongoing log of what you're shooting, the type of shot, and the take. 4. Always shoot longer than what you think you'll need when you are shooting cutaways. Try to have some good static shots and establishing shots for cutaways. 5. NEVER point the camera at the sun, bright lights or reflective objects. This will seriously harm the camera. 6. Never keep the VTR in pause for long periods (more than 5 minutes). If you are not going to shoot for a while, stop the deck. 7. Be very gentle with the camera. Do not bang or drop the camera. Do not leave the camera unattended, especially in a situation where there are a lot of people. 8. Make sure the lights are secure. The light stands are not very sturdy and may have to be taped or weighted down. 9. Label all your tapes on both the cassette and the case. 10. Be careful of all camera cables. Don't step on them, or put anything on top of them. Multi -pin cables have several wires and the connections may come loose with careless handling. 11. Disconnect cables by the connector, not by pulling on the cord. 12. Don't force any connectors. You could bend or break a pin. Everything is designed to fit easily. If it doesn't, something is not lined up properly. Check the connections closely. 13. Whenever you leave a camera standing on a tripod, make sure it is securely locked down. Before you leave jiggle it to make sure it isn't going anywhere. 49 14. Keep full notes and descriptions of any malfunction you may encounter. The more detail you provide, the easier it will be for the engineer to repair. If something is not working for you, don't try to fix it in the field, you could damage something. 15. Slate each of your shots as much as possible, either verbally on the tape, on a slate card, or in your notes. 16. Never leave any piece of equipment unattended. It could be the last time you see it, and the last time you produce an access program. CAMERA DO's and DON'Ts 1. Never point the camera at the sun, a bright light, or a bright reflection. 2. Always cap the camera when it is not in use. 3. Avoid moisture, dust, caustic chemicals. In particular, protect the front of the lens, it has a special coating. 4. Don't hold or store the camera nose up or nose down. 5. Don't step on cables. Disconnect cables by pulling on the connector, not the cord itself. 6. Don't force anything. Equipment won't make allowances for your frustration. It will just break! 7. Lock the camera down WHENEVER you take you hands off, if it is on a tripod. 8. Make sure the camera is physically stable and safe, whether it's on a tripod, your shoulder or a table. 9. When your battery runs low -- stop shooting. 10. Don't try to make your own repairs. There are no "user serviceable parts" inside. 50 LIGHTING NOTES The television screen is two dimensional, so light from more than one angle is needed to provide an illusion of the separation between picture elements. A remote crew usually goes out with minimal lighting equipment - two, maybe three lights. Because the camera is extremely sensitive, it is hoped that even for interior shots the existing light will be enough. Sometimes just to be sure, the crew unpacks a couple of lights and plants one on each side of the camera to make faces nice and bright. This guarantees a dull, flat picture, accented by the washed out and featureless look of the subjects who end up nearest the lights. An electronic camera on automatic iris will expose for the brightest large area in the picture. This exposure will affect the entire picture, not just the bright area. The more intense the bright area, the less detail will be visible in shadow areas. Instead of putting your two lights next to the camera, try the approaches shown in the sketches. Include bounce light, mis- focus to decrease light modeling from sides. Be sure, however, that one of the light sources isn't too close to a subject; you might even move the subject a little to avoid overexposing that subject. Reducing the lens opening to compensate for the over - lighted item copes with that problem just fine, but all the other items in the picture now are very dark. Do not add more light to these suddenly dark areas; instead, reduce the light on the bright area. The eye of the viewer is always attracted to the brightest area in a picture (compositional elements of lighting). In an interview or group shot the faces are the important part of the communication; and they should be a little brighter than the background, but not so bright that we cannot see the location. Avoid day lighted windows, murals or neon signs as part of the background. Shooting against open sky (outdoor or through windows) has a tendency to make your subject somewhat dim on the screen. For daylight exteriors, the use of auxiliary light is also helpful in balancing the highlight and shadow areas, but outdoors, we have a different set of conditions. The footcandles involved are tremendously variable. From bright sun at the beach to heavy overcast between two buildings, and everything in between is a constant challenge to our ingenuity. 51 We must use the sun where it is and where it will move to while we are shooting. If direct sun hits any part a face in a close- up, we will need more light than is regularly carried on remotes in order to bring out detail in shadow areas. Look for large reflectors to help you. The large expanse of sand and the haze in the air near the water results in the luminous picture everyone gets at the beach. In a blacktop parking lot, things become much harsher. Look for a camera position near a white building to use as a reflector, or a big white truck. Do not use sunlit buildings or open as the background for a close-up. Foliage or shades areas will allow the face to retain dominance. If you have lights or reflector panels, position the subject in a shaded area. The open sky or hazy sun will provide a gentle rim light, and your reflectors or lights can fill the faces. Keep lighting angles very simple. Always stand in for the subject before shooting: your meter may tell you all is well, when actually no one can stand on the mark without severe squinting or even panic. What about night time? Indoors it makes little difference, but out-of-doors, we have lost the sun/sky combination as our main source and we have a whole new project. As a starter we can follow the techniques proposed in figures we have shown, but using enough wattage, and setting it very carefully, to provide even distribution. Another consideration is background. A total black background does no special harm except that it does nothing to establish where you are -- so why go? The black background also tends to be dull and encourages video "noise" on less than ideally adjusted receivers. Much is gained by selecting a background with some interesting, but not distracting, highlights - or by providing this video "information" with a spotlight across foliage or architectural detail. Just remember that you are working with tremendous size, and you must choose to accent a doorway or shrub, unless you are carrying several Brute arcs and generators. Position your people close enough to the background to allow your accent light adequate coverage. 52 PRODUCER'S NAME: PROGRAM PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION (IF ANY): ADDRESS: CITY: HOME PHONE: OTHER PHONE: DO YOU HAVE A CURRENT ACCESS USER CARD? TENTATIVE PROGRAM TITLE: " FORMAT (CHECK IF APPLICABLE): INFORMATION: Commentary, Interview, Documentary, Consumer and Health Issues. ENTERTAINMENT: Music, Dance Comedy, Drama, Variety, Poetry, Arts. EVENTS: Festivals, Sports, Parades, Meetings, Seminars, Dedications. PROGRAM RUNNING TIME: LANGUAGE OF PROGRAM (IF OTHER THAN ENGLISH) PROGRAM WILL BE VIDEOTAPED: IN STUDIO ON LOCATION DESCRIBE PROGRAM CONTENT: WHO WILL BE APPEARING IN THIS PROGRAM: 53 PROGRAM PROPOSAL LIST THE DATE, TIMES AND PLACES YOU REQUEST TO VIDEOTAPE: APPROXIMATE DATE EQUIPMENT WILL BE CHECKED OUT: LIST THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PERSONS USING THE EQUIPMENT: NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR SAFE -KEEPING AND PROPER OPERATION OF EQUIPMENT: PHONE # APPROXIMATE PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: NOTES: PRODUCER'S SIGNATURE; DATE: PUBLIC ACCESS COORDINATOR: DATE: 54 FUTURE PROGRAM PLANS We are continually working to improve and expand our program offerings to reflect the community's interests and concerns. Some of our immediate plans include a segment of Pacific Outlook promoting the launch of the Hermosa Beach Farmer's Market. We are working on both in -studio and remote coverage of this program with the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce at the request of Mayor Roger Creighton; developing a program with the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce highlighting area businesses and their services; developing a live, call-in program focusing on local political issues and other community concerns. Aside from this, our production department is working on a bi-monthly magazine entertainment show that will highlight events and activities in the South Bay. The show call "Pacific Coast Happenings" will present the unique qualities of living and working in the Hermosa/Manhattan area shot entirely on location. Additionally, several members of our public access class have plans to produce their own programs. While we cannot be sure that their intentions will result in on-going programs, some of the ideas are as follows: *An MTV -like, entertainment/variety show featuring local acts as well as some well known mainstream performers. *A sports -talk, call in show with professional athletes as well as local, high school athletes as guests. 55 *A program dealing with relationships featuring call-in's and advice offered from professional counselors working in the community. *A cooking show focusing on healthy eating habits. *A game show with in -studio contestants. *A program for children that will provide good role models.' *A program based on motivation/success planning. *Children's entertainment based on education. 56 FUTURE ACCESS CLASSES MultiVision's production department plans to offer Public Access courses as often as requested when there are a minimum of 10 participants per class. We are also planning a special Public Access class for children this summer which will provide information about how a television studio operates and will culminate with a studio production produced by the class participants. As a result of this survey, we feel we are now better able to focus our existing programs on the interests of the community and develop programming that is both informative and entertaining. Also, as issues change, we will strive to keep up with those changes and reflect that in our programming. Community ascertainment will be done on a regular basis (10 per month) so that we may continue to provide relevant local programming and public access that serves the needs of the community. 57 May 15, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of the -Hermosa Beach City Council June 12, 1990 PRESENTATION OF NEEDS ASSESSMENT BY MULTIVISION CABLE TV AS REQUESTED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council accept the attached Public Access Presentation, and refer to the Cable TV Board for review and recommendation, as part of their final work, to close out their original mission. Background: At your regularly scheduled meeting of March 13, 1990, the City Council, in response to notification by staff that a breach of the Transfer Agreement between the City and MultiVision had occurred regarding the Six months progress review, requested from MultiVision, a written report. That written report to include: 1) Cable TV operator to conduct a needs assessment; 2) CATV operator to provide an Action Plan, describing what they intend to do with regard to Public Access, based on the needs assessment; 3) MultiVision to provide an Implementation Plan for addressing the needs assessed. i.e. What has been done/ What is being done? When will it be done?, etc. MultiVision to prepare a written report based on the above, to be submitted to the City Council within sixty (60) days of the March 13, 1990 meeting. MultiVision's response was initially scheduled for the May 8th meeting, per request by MultiVision. It was instead placed on the May 22nd agenda, but not received until June 5th. Analysis: One of the primary concerns expressed by members of the CATV Board, has been a lack of public access afforded the subscribers of MultiVision Cable TV, Corporation. The CATV Board specifically addressed this concern, as a part of their subscriber survey, conducted in 1988. At that time, according to the survey results, "[a]lmost half of the respondents are interested in locally produced television programming, and 39 percent would take advantage of the opportunity to create programs themselves if the opportunity was available." 1 As a results of the subscriber survey, and further, on recommendation of Communications Support Corporation, the consulting firm hired to do an audit and analysis of the franchise held by MulitVision, the consultant recommended that a needs assessment be conducted at the expense of the operator. Council took action upon those recommendations, and requested the aforementioned report. Attached for your review, is a report from MultiVision, in response to Council's direction. Upon reading the report there are questions that need to be addressed so that council will be able to assess this report's true value. The Cable T.V. Board being a very good source of information and knowledge, could as part of their final efforts assesrthe value of this report and offer any comments, suggestions and needs for improvement. Alternatives: 1. Refer to staff for review and recommendation. 2. Refer back to MultiVision for further documentation and enumeration. 3. Initiate proceedings for breach of contract. 4. Receive and file. en ry L St ten, Acting General Services Director 'Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager - 2 Respectfully submitted, Henry L. Staten, Acting General Services Director i By ��;��a�!7 Michele D. Tercero, Staff Liaison, CATV MultiVision May 31, 1990 Mr. Kevin Northcraft City Manager CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 Re: Public Access Ascertainment Dear Kevin: The following information is provided in response to your May 22 letter. MultiVision strongly disagrees that it has not met the commitment which we made to the City on March 13 to provide a public access ascertainment within 60 days. Please be apprised of the following facts and background information in this regard: March 13: April 16: April 24: April 30: May 7: Council requested a public access ascertainment be completed and presented to the City within 60 days (due May 12th) to further determine access needs and interests in the City. Chantal Hargis called the City to request time on the May 8 agenda to present the completed ascertainment, and to present our franchise fee payment to the Council. We were told that the City "would pencil in" these agenda items and would advise us if there was any change. Our Hermosa Beach office received a call from the City that the May 8 Council agenda would not permit our presentation of the franchise fee check or ascertainment as the agenda was already too lengthy, apparently related to an oil drilling issue. The message indicated that these items were rescheduled to May 22. We sent a letter to the City (copy attached) confirming the items for the May 22 Council agenda. The City called and left a message that it now wished immediate delivery of the franchise fee check. We responded to this request although we preferred to have made this important payment in the public forum of the Council meeting. No mention was made of the ascertainment, nor of not allowing us to present it as scheduled May 22. MultiVision Cable TV 3041 Miraloma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806 714 632-9222 PAGE TWO May 14: The City called our office and requested the ascertainment be delivered to the City no later than noon on May 16, instead of presenting it on the May 22 agenda. We advised that we would much prefer that this important item be presented at the May 22 public meeting as originally agreed. Perhaps there is a point we are missing here, but we are at a loss to understand why the City will not allow us to present this important document in a public forum as we agreed to on March 13. As you know, we have been allowed to make such presentations on cable issues at many previous Council meetings. Again, acceding to the City's request and to attempt to maintain goodwill, the ascertainment is being hand delivered to the City. MultiVision must, however, go on record at this time, that this represents a clear change in our understanding. We believe that the public access ascertainment is an issue important enough to all residents to justify a public presentation of a document our staff has worked on many long hours. May we formally now request that an oral presentation be made on the next available Council agenda? We must also take exception to the assumption that our existing public access capabilities must be improved as soon as possible. We believe this determination has not yet been made and can only be considered after the City and its constituents have completed a detailed review of the ascertainment prepared for this purpose. We would be pleased to discuss any of the above with you at your convenience. Sincerely, John 17,. 'Merritt Vice -/President Cal'fornia Division A agent for M.L. Media Partners L.P. JTM:sls cc: City Council City of Manhattan Beach MultiVisian April 30, 1990 Mr. Kevin Northcraft City Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Kevin, Thank you for granting MultiVision the time cn the May 22 City Council agenda to present our first quarter i.90 franchise fee payment and the public access ascertainment due to the City May 13. As you know, MultiVision wishes to meet its commitment to the May 13th deadline, which represents sixty days from the last Council meeting at which this report was requested. Also, we believe our franchise agreement requires .payment of franchise fees within thirty days after the end of the first quarter, which would be April 30th. Should there be any possibility cf ap- pearing on an earlier Council agenda, we would certainly appreciate that opportunity. As partners with the City of Hermosa Beach, we believe it important to present franchise fee payments ':ii this public forum and of course presentation of the public acczss ascertainment is an issue which a number of residents flava expressed interest in, again suggesting the importance of Council presentation for this item. Many thanks for your help. Sincerely, ' ohn T. Merritt Vice President California Division JTM:sls Cc: City Treasurer Gary Brutsch City Attorney Charles Vose City Clerk Elaine Doerfling Michele Tercero City Council MultiVision Cable TV 1529.Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 213 3183423 PUBLIC ACCESS PRESENTATION Prepared By: MultiVision Cable TV Hermosa Beach May 1990 4, - CONTENTS Community Ascertainment Survey 3 Ascertained Community Issues 5 General Programming Suggestions 6 Public Access Recommendations 7 MultiVision's TV 3 Local Programming 9 Local Program Schedule 12 Public Service Announcements/Community Bulletin Board 13 Access Rules, Definitions, and Eligibility 14 Public Access Class Overview 23 Public Access Handbook 31 Future Program Plans 55 Future Access Classes 57 COMMUNITY ASCERTAINMENT SURVEY In an effort to help determine what type of programming and public access MultiVision Cable Television subscribers and viewers would like to see and have on our Public Access channel (Channel 3), a community ascertainment survey was mailed to 80 community leaders in the Hermosa/Manhattan area. The list of names was gathered from both cities' Chamber of Commerce resource guides and various other sources. The list included members of City government and the directors of local community and non- profit organizations that serve Hermosa and Manhattan Beach. Additionally, surveys were given to all current members of our Public Access class and local program producers. Our local production department for Channel 3 took a "man -on -the -street" poll to determine what cable viewers would like to see on channel 3. The survey was made as simple as possible and contained only three questions that specifically asked for programming suggestions. Return postage for the surveys was provided by MultiVision. Approximately two weeks after the surveys were mailed, Patty King - Public Access Coordinator for MultiVision's Hermosa Beach production department called those individuals on the mailing list who had not yet responded. Given the option to complete the survey by phone, most were understandably reluctant to do so and said they would return the forms as soon as possible. 3 The following results from the survey are based on the responses we did receive. The lists of ascertained community concerns and programming suggestions are taken directly from the surveys. The list of ascertained community issues is listed in descending order. ASCERTAINED COMMUNITY ISSUES The following is a list of the top ten (10) ascertained issues of concern to the community: 1. ECONOMY/GROWTH - including overdevelopment, density/open space, commercial revitalization. 2. YOUTH/FAMILY - including teen and family support groups dealing with drugs/alcoholism, sexual/physical abuse, and cable TV for children. 3. CRIME - including how police deal with rape victims and the mentally ill, crime awareness and prevention. 4. ENVIRONMENT - including pollution, trash/recycling. 5. HEALTH - including AIDS, health education, fitness, the mentally ill, health care costs. 6. DRUGS/ALCOHOL - including awareness/prevention, rehabilitation. 7. HOUSING - including housing developments, cost of housing. 8. ENTERTAINMENT - including programs based on comedy, arts and culture, music, theater, local events. 9. TRANSPORTATION - including traffic and parking. 10. EDUCATION - including health and environmental education, local history. Also mentioned were (in descending order): GOVERNMENT - including local politics, election coverage, civic meetings. SENIORS - including local services available to seniors. VETERANS - including local services available to veterans. 5 4 PROGRAMMING SUGGESTIONS Based on the surveys, the following program suggestions were offered. They are in no particular order: *Programming produced by and for children based on education. *Programming featuring coverage of local organizations and the services they provide. *Coverage of community events. *Coverage of local sporting events, including high school games. *Programming that profiles community leaders and community concerns. *Nature/environmental programs focusing on local parks and recreation activities, beach activities, wildlife preservation. *Programming focusing on local police issues, activities, and services. PUBLIC ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS We asked those on our ascertainment list and current public access class members what they feel MultiVision should offer the community by way of public access. The following is a breakdown of the response received: *More information about what Public Access is. *A systematic/audited public access application process. *More channels designated for public access/more public access time. *Improved equipment MultiVision is responding to these requests. We have information about public access classes and applications available for anyone interested in our lobby. Applications are taken on a first come, first serve basis, however, every person we received a public access class application from was invited to our class. We initially had over 30 people signed up, over 30 attended the first session, and we have now completed the class with a core of 15 - 20 members. In the future, all community members we receive applications from will be welcome to attend classes as well. MultiVision currently offers community members access to Channel 3 on a first come, first serve basis either as participants on one of our existing programs or producers of their own. 7 Public access time is limited to studio/equipment availability and again, is handled on a first come, first serve basis. Finally, we are in the process of purchasing equipment for use by public access members as well as for our locally originated productions. Public access classes are available to all community members who live or work in Hermosa/Manhattan. Classes are advertised at least one month in advance of the start of the sessions on our community bulletin board. Applications are always available in our lobby, and classes are scheduled once we have a minimum of 10 members. Special classes can be scheduled for groups and non-profit organizations who wish to produce future programs to air on channel 3. Prior to the start of our next session, the production department of MultiVision in Hermosa Beach will air a produced promo with information about classes and how to enroll. 8 11. PUBLIC ACCESS MULTIVISION'S TV 3 LOCAL PROGRAMMING MultiVision currently offers a variety of programming on Channel 3. Many of the programs listed below meet the requests of the community based on our survey. They are as follows: OCEAN VIEWS - This is a 30 minute, bi-monthly program featuring "man -on -the -street" interviews discussing questions of local interest. Recent programs have covered the environment and local cable programming. When possible, this show also includes interviews with community members who are involved in events and/or organizations related to the program's topic. Our first show featured brief interviews with Linda Nutting, one of the coordinators of Manhattan Beach school's "Adopt A Beach" program and Evelyn Roland, Program Specialist, who developed an environmental education program for the Manhattan Beach schools. Ocean Views airs Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at 6:00 P.M. PACIFIC OUTLOOK - This is a 30 minute, bi-monthly program hosted by Patty King, Public Access Coordinator for MultiVision, Hermosa Beach, which features interviews with individuals and organizations who have upcoming events or campaigns. Recently covered were "Dolphin Day" which featured an interview with Jill Kirby, a local environmental activist regarding tuna boycotts and Susan Johnson, Local Marketing Coordinator for the Municipal Area Express (MAX) Commuter Bus System. Pacific Outlook airs Tuesdays and Thursdays at 6:30 P.M. GOOD EVENING SOUTH BAY - This is a 30 minute, weekly program hosted by Jane Arnett, Public Access Producer, which features interviews with City officials and leaders of local community organizations. Recent segments have featured interviews with John Atkinson, MultiVision Production Manager regarding the changes at MultiVision in Hermosa, Joe Stecklein, Director of Parks and Recreation for the City of Manhattan Beach, David Ludwig, Contracts Manager for the City of Manhattan Beach regarding recycling, Carol Belser from the City of Hermosa Beach regarding Spring Break activities, Patty King, MultiVision's Public Access Coordinator regarding the public access opportunities available at MultiVision, and Patty Sivileri, developer of a "Pocket Breathalyzer" regarding drinking and driving. Good Evening South Bay airs Tuesdays and Thursdays at 6:30 p.m. 9 a• BEACH BEAT - This is a 30 minute, bi-monthly program hosted by Mike Carruthers, Reserve Officer, with the Manhattan Beach Police Department along with Manhattan Beach Police Department Crime Prevention Officer Andy Harrod and Officer Tom Thompson from the Hermosa Beach Police Department. The show profiles recent crimes in the area and includes interviews about crime prevention and awareness. Recent programs have included discussions with Dave Olsen from Steve's Lock & Safe regarding home security and Art Mandelbaum, an Earthquake Preparedness Specialist. Beach Beat airs Mondays and Wednesdays at 7:30 P.M. MANHATTAN BEACH YESTERDAYS - This 30 minute, bi-monthly program hosted by Keith Robinson, President of the Manhattan Beach Historical Society, focusing on educating the community about the history of the South Bay, community landmarks, and historical events. Manhattan Beach Yesterdays airs Thursdays at 6:00 P.M. MANHATTAN BEACH CHAMBER CHAT - This is a monthly program hosted by Jeffrey Fire, President of the Manhattan Beach Chamber of Commerce that presents local business owners and the services that their company provides to the community through interviews with the business owners/chamber members. Also, Chamber events are highlighted. Manhattan Beach Chamber Chat airs Tuesdays at 6:00 P.M. SOUTH BAY'S HOME VIDEO SHOWCASE - This is a 30 minute, bi-monthly program hosted by John Atkinson, Production Manager of MultiVision's Hermosa Beach Production Department which provides entertainment through community involvement. Based on "America's Funniest Home Videos" viewers are asked to send in their home videos for use on the show. However, unlike the network show, the videos do not have to be funny or even clever; simply something they would like to put on the air. SOUND WAVES - This is a 30 minute, bi-monthly program which features performances of local bands and musicians for entertainment. Our first show kicked off with the "Late Night Express Band" and we currently have more than a dozen groups waiting to appear on the show. Sound Waves airs Mondays and Fridays at 8:00 P.M. BURGIE - This is a 30 minute, weekly comedy/variety program hosted by Robert Benz, Public Access Producer. Burgie airs Fridays at 7:30 P.M. 10 In addition to these programs, Channel 3 regularly airs public access programs provided to us that reflect community interests. They are: ART ON VIDEO - A weekly, hour long presentation of the Manhattan Beach Public Arts Program which profiles famous artists and their works. MINDSIGHT - This is a 30 minute, weekly program which features educational/motivational speakers. WEEK IN REVIEW - This hour long weekly program presents news about world politics and events of the preceding week. FOCUS VIDEO MAGAZINE - This 30 minute monthly magazine show presents segments about issues of regional concerns, such as water conservation. BRUIN TALK - This 30 minute weekly program focuses on college sports and interviews with athletes from UCLA. HOPE CHAPEL - This is a 60 minute religious program provided by Hope Chapel in Hermosa Beach. Besides these regularly scheduled programs, MultiVision's TV 3 provides coverage of all Hermosa and Manhattan Beach City Council meetings, Planning Commission meetings and any special meetings which arise. MultiVision interrupts regularly scheduled programming to air special meetings. 11 4 • LOCAL PROGRAM SCHEDULE Listed below is a sample schedule of weekly programs aired. Monday: 5:00 - Water Conservation Special 6:00 - Best of Wave Watch 6:30 - Good Evening South Bay 7:00 - Focus Video Magazine 7:30 - Beach Beat 8:00 - Art on Video Tuesday: 5:00 - Best of Wave Watch 5:30 - Navy News 6:00 - Manhattan Beach Chamber Chat 6:30 - Good Evening South Bay 7:00 - Hermosa Beach Planning Commission (LIVE) Wednesday: 5:00 - Best of Wave Watch 5:30 - Beach Beat 6:00 - Mindsight 6:30 - Manhattan Beach ZORP & City Council Thursday: 5:00 - Best of Wave Watch 5:30 - Manhattan Beach Yesterdays 6:00 - Manhattan Beach Chamber of Commerce Special Friday: 5:00 - Best of Wave Watch 5:30 - Poor Walter's Almanac 6:00 - Ocean Views 6:30 - Good Evening South Bay 7:00 - Home Video Showcase 7:30 - Burgie 8:00 - Sound Waves 8:30 - Rock n' Roll L.A. PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNITY BULLETIN BOARD In addition to the programs produced and aired on Channel 3, we include video Public Service Announcements between program segments. Any non-profit community organization is invited to submit video PSA's for air. Our community bulletin board regularly contains information about upcoming community events and community services. These character generation PSA's can be seen anytime, we are not airing videotaped or live programs. Any non-profit community organization or civic group is invited to submit information for air. 13 ACCESS OPERATING RULES A. PURPOSE OF ACCESS & ELIGIBILITY The FCC's access rules were adopted to provide an outlet for community expression. Each of the four kinds of access service is intended to foster the development of a particular kind of community expression. Accordingly, the use of each kind of access is restricted to individuals, groups and organizations whose use will promote the type of community expression contemplated for that service. Public Access is intended to offer a practical opportunity for local interests to participate in community dialogue on a non-commercial basis. Accordingly, Public Access is made available, upon requests submitted in accordance with these access operating rules, to: a. Private citizens who are residents of, or who conduct business or other operations in, the community in which the cable system is located. b. Private organizations and groups which are located in or which serve the interests of the system's community. Education Access is intended for use by local educational authorities for transmission of instruction programming and other education purposes. Accordingly, Education Access is made available, upon requests submitted in accordance with these access operating rules, to: a. Educational institutions and authorities located in the cable system's community. b. State educational authorities and agencies. c. Officials or representatives of the above. The purpose of the use must be transmission of instructual programming or to further other education purposes. Local Government Access is intended to make cable available for use by local governments. Accordingly, Local Government Access is made available, upon request, to: a. Local government bodies and agencies (other than educational) located in the cable system's community. - for use in connection with their official govern- ment activities. • • b. State and Federal government bodies and agencies (other than educational) - for use in connection with their official government activities that affect the interests of the cable system's community. c. Officials and representatives of the above for use in their official government activities. This includes State and Federal legislators who represent the district in which the cable system is located. However, use of local government access for political advertising or to promote or oppose a candidate for public office is not a permissible Government Access use. If use of cable for these purposes is desired, the applicant must request Leased Access on a paid basis. Leased Access is a commercial service which is made available on a first-come, non discriminatory basis to any individual, group or organization which complies with the cable system's access operating rules. B. PUBLIC ACCESS OPERATING RULES 1. Availability. MultiVision will provide community access on a first-come, non-discriminatory basis. -- MultiVision, however, reserves the right to limit the amount of time granted any one party in order to ensure that all users have access opportunity. Use limitations will be imposed only in those situations where demand exceeds availability. 2. Access Requests. Requests for use of public access time must be made on the "Access Time Request & Agreement" form. If the user desires to use any cable system equipment other than on the system's premises, it must complete the "Access Equipment Request Agreement" form. Upon checking out equipment, the "Access Equipment Receipt & Agreement" must be signed. 3. Program Content Control. MultiVision will not exercise any control over program content with the following exceptions: a. A participant in community access cablecasting may not present any advertisement of or information concerning any lottery, gift enterprise, or similar scheme, offering chance, or any list of the prizes drawn or awarded by means of any such lottery, gift enterprise, or scheme, whether said list contains any part or all of such prizes. 15 This prohibition does not apply to advertisements or information concerning State conducted lotteries where the cable system is located in the state or in an adjacent state which also conducts a lottery. b. A participant in access cablecasting may not present obscene or indecent material. 1. System management may pre-screen or take other appropriate steps to ensure that obscene or indecent material is not cablecast. Such steps may include, but are not limited to, requesting that the offending portions be deleted or refusing to allow the program on the system. 2. In order to minimize exposure to children of programs which, in system management's judgement, are not suitable for viewing by children (even though not obscene or indecent), the system reserves the right to schedule such programs at times when children normally will not be viewers. c. A participant may not present any advertising designed to promote the sale of commercial products or services, including advertising by or on the behalf of candidates for public office. 4. Equipment. Equipment is available for the production and presentation of public access programming (excluding automated services). The equipment will include at least one color camera and will enable to the user to videotape record remote programs and to edit them. Information on the specific equipment available may be obtained from system management. If use of equipment is desired other than on the cable system's premises and under the system's control, an "Access Equipment Receipt & Agreement" form must be signed for all equipment removed from the system's premises. 5. Equipment Charges. There will be no equipment charge. However, a deposit will be required when the equipment is checked out. This deposit will be refunded when the equipment is returned undamaged. If the equipment is not returned or is damaged, all or part of the deposit will be retained by the cable system. The amount of the deposit will be fixed by system management, taking into consideration (a) the value of the equipment received, (b) whether the user is financially responsible if the equipment should not be returned in good condition, and (c) the past record of the user in caring for equipment. In no event will the amount of the deposit be less than $150 nor more than the replacement cost of the equipment. 6. Equipment Repairs. If any equipment loaned to the access user is damaged or becomes inoperable or out of adjustment, the access user must not attempt to repair or readjust the equipment. The equipment must be returned to the cable system which will make the necessary adjustments. 7. Workshops. Periodically MultiVision will conduct workshops on how to use and care for the equipment. Announcements will be made as to the date and time. The workshops last approximately 15 hours and must be successfully completed before any individual is eligible to use the equipment. As a prerequisite to taking the course, each individual will be required to furnish his business and home addresses and telephone numbers and to furnish satisfactory identification. 8. Equipment Damage/Responsibility. a. The individual or group checking out the equipment will bear all costs if the euipment is loss or damaged. b. MultiVision may refuse to loan equipment to individuals or groups which have in the past misused the equipment, failed to return it on time, or in any other way abused the privilege. 9. Channel Charges. MultiVision will not charge for channel use. 10. Studio Charges. MultiVision will not charge for studio production. 11. Cablecastinq Identification. MultiVision will identify the type of cablecasting service being presented (origination or access cablecasting) and the person or group presenting the program. 17 12. Public Record. MultiVision will maintain a copy of the Access Equipment Request & Agreement for in its public inspection file pursuant to FCC requirement that the name and address of all persons requesting access time be included in the file. The record is open for public inspection and will be maintained in the file for 2 years. 13. Legal Responsibility and Indemnification. It is the user's sole responsibility to obtain any license or other permission that may be required from owners of copyrights or property rights in program material with respect to the transmission on the cable system of material furnished by the user to the system or produced by the user for transmission on the system. See the representation and indemnity provisions of the attached "Access Time Request & Agreement". C. EDUCATION ACCESS OPERATING RULES 1. Access Requests. Requests for education access use must be made on the "Access Time Request & Agreement" form. 2. Program Content Control. MultiVision will not exercise any control over program content with the following exceptions: a. A participant in educational access cablecasting may not present any advertisement of or information concerning any lottery, gift enterprise, or similar scheme, offering chance, or any list of the prizes drawn or awarded by means of any such lottery, gift enterprise, or scheme, whether said list contains any part or all of such prizes. This prohibition does not apply to advertisements or information concerning State -conducted lotteries where the cable system is located in the state or in adjacent state which also conducts a lottery. b. A participant may not present obscene or indecent material. 1. System management may pre-screen or take other appropriate steps to ensure that obscene or indecent material is not cablecast. Such steps may include but are not limited to, requesting that the offending portion be deleted or refusing to allow the program on the screen. 2. In order to minimize expose to children of programs which, in system management's judgement, are not suitable for viewing by children (even though not obscene or indecent), the system reserves the right to schedule such programs at times when children normally will not be viewers. c. A participant may not present any advertising material designed to promote the sale of commercial products or services, including advertising by or on behalf of candidates for public office. 3. Channel Charge. MultiVision will not charge for channel time. 4. Cablecastinq Identification. MultiVision will identify the type of cablecasting service being presented (origination or access cablecasting) and the person or group presenting the program. 5. Public Record. MultiVision will maintain a copy of the Access Equipment Request & Agreement form in its public inspection file pursuant to FCC requirement that the name and address of all persons requesting access time be included in the file. The record is open for public inspection and will be maintained in the file for 2 years. 6. Legal Responsibility and Indemnification. It is the user's sole responsibility to obtain any license or other permission that may be required from owners of copyrights or property rights in program material with respect to the transmission on the cable system of material furnished by the user to the system or produced by the user for transmission on the system. D. LEASED ACCESS OPERATING RULES 1. Availability. MultiVision will offer portions of its nonbroadcast bandwidth for leased access services on a first-come, non-discriminatory basis. MultiVision, however, reserves the right to limit the amount of time granted any one party in order to ensure that all users have an opportunity for leased access. Use limitations will be imposed only in those situations where demand for access exceeds availability. Lease access channel time will be offered with the express understanding that the user may be displaced if the channel is required for its specially designated purpose (public, education, or government access). 2. Access Requests. Requests for Leased Access use must be made on the "Commercial Use of Cable Channel Agreement" form. Upon acceptance of a request for leased access, the cable system will enter into an appropriate contract or lease with the lessee, covering the details of the transaction. 3. Program Content Control. MultiVision will not exercise any control over program content with the following exceptions: a. A participant in leased access cablecasting may not present any advertisement of or information concerning any lottery, gift enterprise, or similar scheme, offering prizes dependent in whole or in part upon lot or chance, or any list of the prizes drawn or awarded by means of any such lottery, gift enterprise or scheme, whether said list contains any part or all of such prizes. this prohibition does not apply to advertisements or information concerning State conducted lotteries where the cable system is located in the state or in an adjacent state which also conducts a lottery. b. A participant may not present obscene or indecent material. 1. System management may pre-screen or take other appropriate steps to ensure that obscene or indecent material is not cablecast. Such steps may include, but are not limited to, requesting that the offending portion be deleted or refusing to allow the program on the system. 2. In order to minimize exposure to children of programs which, in system management's judgement, are not suitable for viewing by children (even though not obscene or indecent), the system reserves the right to schedule such programs at times when children normally will not be viewers. 4. Charges. MultiVision will charge for equipment, personnel, channel time, and studio use. Rates are available upon request from system management. 5. Cablecastinq Identification. MultiVision will identify the type of cablecasting service being presented (origination or access cablecasting) and the person, group or firm presenting the program. 21 6. Sponsor Identification. The Leased Access user must comply with the FCC's sponsor identification rules (See S.76.221 of the Cable Rules). MultiVision will furnish the user with copies of the pertinent rules and will exercise reasonable diligence to make sure that all commercial leased access material is properly identified. MultiVision reserves the right to refuse to transmit leased access material if the rules are not complied with. PRODUCTION REGULATIONS A Summary of Important Procedures The following requirements MUST be satisfied before any production will be attempted. There will be NO EXCEPTIONS to these procedures. 1. If a user verifies a date for a production, there must be a preproduction meeting before any production is attempted. 2. A written proposal must be submitted including information about program length, content, etc. 3. If any costs are involved, 50% of the total cost is due and payable at the time of verification. 4. If any cost are involved, the balance is due and payable in full on the day the production is completed. 5. All tapes submitted for cablecasting should be delivered 72 hours (3 working days) prior to air date. 6. All payments for cablecasting should be made 48 hours (2 working days) prior to air date. GENERAL ACCESS INFORMATION A. Any person may use Public Access, whether or not they have had previous television experience. Applicants must be 18 years of age or accompanied by an adult. There is no charge for Public Access. B. Anything may be done, provided that it does not violate FCC regulation; (no obscenity; no promotion of lottery; no promotion for a political candidate; or for a product or service). C. All Access producers must produce at least 1 remote production and be in possession of a valid Access Users card before they will be permitted to use the MultiVision studio. The producer is responsible for providing crew for studio productions. The crew is expected to have a basic understanding of their crew position, but are not required to have an Access Users card. D. Scheduling will be done on a first-come, first - serve basis. Hermosa and Manhattan Beach citizens and organizations will be given priority in cases of scheduling conflicts. E. All requests for production time must be accompanied by a written proposal which contains the following information: 1) Name of person(s) or organization requesting production time; 2) Nature of program (subject and format); 3) Exact beginning and ending time (length); 4) Exact date of production. F. Training sessions will be scheduled periodically by MultiVision. G. Promotion, publicity, advertising, etc. for access programs will be the responsibility of the user. 23 I. STUDIO 1. It will be the responsibility of the Public Access user to control the people present at any given time. Public Access production guests are restricted to the Green room area, and shall not go into any other area of the building without prior approval and escort by a MultiVision representative. 2. No food or drink is to be consumed in the studio or adjacent areas, with the exception of beverages used on a set during production. Alcoholic beverages are prohibited. 3. Under no circumstances are Public Access users to make unauthorized phone calls on company telephones. 4. Studio schedules will vary, so taping sessions must be scheduled with the Local Public Access Coordinator in advance. 5. When the studio is used for productions where the producer's intent is for profit, compensation, advertisement, promotion or any form of personal gain, a reasonable fee will be assessed for studio operational costs. 6. A member of the Local Origination staff will engineer and be present during all Access Studio Productions. II. PORTABLE FACILITIES 1. Portapaks are available for use on Public Access projects. Videotape (3/4") for production of programs outside of the studio will be provided by MultiVision Cable T.V. 2. Programs recorded on portapaks must be edited on VCR's with edit capabilities. "Edits" done on portapaks are not acceptable for cablecast. Unless a program is recorded continuously and uninterrupted, it will be necessary to have the tape edited. 3. The individual or group checking out the equipment will bear all costs if the equipment must be repaired or replaced due to damage, theft, or abuse. 24 4. MultiVision may refuse to loan equipment to anyone who has, in the past, misused equipment, failed to return equipment on time, or in any other way abused the privilege. 5. There will be training sessions scheduled periodically by MultiVision. (Dates and times may vary according to schedules at MultiVision.) These sessions will be for the purpose of familiarizing prospective users with general video principles and operating procedures. Under no circumstances will any equipment be checked out unless a prospective user has completed the training session. Applications for enrollment in training sessions and production proposal forms will be available upon request. III. EDITING FACILITIES 1. Editing and post -production will be done a first-come, first -serve basis. Due to time and personnel limitations, editing will be performed primarily to correct technical errors and make tapes acceptable for cablecast. IV. PUBLIC ACCESS COMMITTEES 1. We encourage the formation of Public Access committees with respect to the various access channels available. (Public, Government, Religious, Educational). The purpose of these committees is to develop programming and production, and assist residents in becoming self-reliant and self sufficient in access programming. 2. The committees would consist of qualified, volunteer representatives of each respective group (i.e. Public Access committee, Government Access committee, etc.) who have completed the MultiVision training session on access equipment. It is recommended that the committees meet at least once per month. 3. The Local Origination staff will 'be available to train, advise and assist the various committees with programming, productions, and training. 25 • V. PUBLIC ACCESS SPONSORSHIP 1. Public Access sponsorship credit may be given PBS style, utilizing the following format: a. Total credit may not exceed 15 seconds. b. Time must be placed at the end of the program. c. Visuals may consist of one or two slides, camera cards, or character generator graphics. d. Visuals may include name, address and/or telephone number of sponsor(s). e. Audio may be vocal or musical. f. Audio may state information presented as visual, but must contain the following lead announcement: "The preceding Public Access program has been presented through the assistance of..." g. Slogans or further description of sponsor's business or function cannot be permitted. VI. CABLECASTING OF PROGRAMS 1. MultiVision cannot and will not guarantee any user a "regular time slot". Due to fluctuation in the demand for the use of Public Access cablecasting time, it is not always possible to provide all users a time slot every week. MultiVision will make every attempt to allocate some kind of regular schedule. Programs will be cablecast only once unless the schedule permits additional airing. The Public Access . Coordinator should be consulted regarding schedules 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. 2. Public Access programs will be cablecast on weekdays with the exception of MultiVision company holidays, or unless otherwise specified and assigned. 3. Every effort will be made to insure that programs are cablecast at the correct time and with an acceptable level of quality. MultiVision cannot be held responsible for any costs for advertising, promotion or other expenditures when a program does not air as scheduled, whether this is due to technical malfunction or any other cause beyond MultiVision's control. We will assign a new time when a program is not aired. 26 4. "Series" type programs will be limited to 3 months (or 13 weeks) in order to facilitate new Public Access users. The "series" user must re -apply for the same or new time slot at the end of the 3 -month or (13 week) series. 5. Programs not produced at MultiVision will be cablecast without charge for the use of the Public Access channel. Tapes will be screened to insure compliance with FCC rules and regulations, and to insure minimal technical quality. All tapes must be 3/4" videocassette format. 6. Outside tapes will be assigned for cablecasting in the same way as MultiVision produced programming. This will occur after the tape has been screened. Programs must be submitted at least (3) working days prior to requested time slot for cablecast. 7. MultiVision will provide all videotape necessary for the production of Public Access programs in the form of 3/4" tape. Access producers may receiver a VHS copy of their program, provided that they supply the 1/2" tape. 3/4" dubs can be made for cablecast elsewhere, but the producer must supply the 3/4" tape(s). The 3/4" master will always remain in MultiVision's possession. Persons who provide videotape programs must make arrangements to pick up the tapes not later that two weeks after they have been cablecast. In the event a tape becomes lost or damaged, MultiVision will be responsible only for the physical cost of the tape. 8. The Public Access user assumes all liability for the use of the copyrighted material within a program. 27 • VII. TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR TAPES SUBMITTED FOR CABLECAST ON PUBLIC ACCESS. 1. Tape(s) must be submitted with a run-down sheet which indicates: a) Title page. b) Name(s) of producer(s) of tape. c) Time of tape in minutes and seconds. We recommend programs be no longer than 60 minutes in length. d) Audio should be on channel 2 or both 1 and 2. 2. Tape(s) must have a minimum of 5 seconds of black at the head and black at the end of the program continuing to the end of the tape. 3. Camera edits (portable camera turned on and off) are not acceptable. Tapes of this nature must be electronically edited (on an editing machine). 4. Tapes may have titles and/or credits recorded. To have credits recorded time must be schedule for the Local Origination staff to create your credits in the Local Origination edit bay. 5. Community Access personnel will view tapes for technical quality. The final decision as to technical adequacy will be made by the MultiVision Access Staff. 6. Tape(s) will be cablecast if: a) It meets with above technical standards. b) It is provided no later than three working days prior to cablecast date. PUBLIC ACCESS CLASSES Becoming a Public Access user for MultiVision Cable TV is easy. At least it's easy when you look at the Public Access opportunities in their proper perspective. After attending and participating in just five classes, a citizen of Hermosa or Manhattan Beach can use industrial quality cameras, lights, and microphones. They can operate a standard commercial quality editing system, and they can produce a 3 -camera studio television show that will be aired on the local MultiVision Channel 3. In the first class we explain all the rules, requirements, and restrictions. Public Access participants explain why they are taking the class and what they hope to get out of it. The atmosphere is always fun and relaxed, and the students are encouraged about their community ideas. The second class concentrates on cameras. We go over framing up shots, zooms, pans, tilts, lighting, and all the proper camera procedures in detail. Each student has a chance to operate a camera, set up a lighting kit, and watch their work on a monitor as they go. The editing class is probably the most difficult because editing is the most complicated part of video production. Nevertheless, each student is given hands-on training in the mechanics of a professional editing system. The fourth class is without question the most fun and most enjoyable of all the classes. There are no long boring lectures to sit through. Instead, each student is put behind three different studio cameras, four microphones, mic cable, an audio board, a switcher, and they perform talk shows in front of the cameras. The results of this class are often as entertaining as they are educational, and every student gets to operate every piece of equipment. The last class is a wrap-up of everything that's been taught. Equipment procedures are reviewed, and questions are answered. At the end of the class, students are given a test on all the material and information presented in the class. 29 •1 After the five classes, students are assigned to produce a thirty second PSA. This PSA can be about anything they choose, but must contain proper elements discussed in the class. Equipment is issued free of charge on a first come, first serve basis. The 15 hours of class, lectures and video workshop, provides students with a lot of information to follow. On the first day of class, however, handbooks are issued to each student which include Public Access rules and procedures, cameras, lighting and editing information, and everything discussed in the class. Students may keep the books and are asked to refer to them whenever operating the equipment. When the PSA is completed the students are on their own. They can schedule studio time, check out cameras and lights, or just stop in to edit a special project. Access members must provide their own crew, their own guests, and MultiVision will put their show on the air. Public Access is an excellent opportunity for anyone interested in getting some television experience or anyone who just has something to say about their city or the way it's being run. MultiVision invites all Hermosa and Manhattan residents to participate in this great opportunity for television production on a local level. And Hermosa/Manhattan Beach citizens can look to Channel 3 for some exciting, educational, and entertaining local programming. PUBLIC ACCESS HANDBOOK MultiVision Cable TV S COMMUNITY ACCESS AND YOU! Public Access is a unique concept of communication that allows YOU to use the medium of television to communicate your ideas to a broad spectrum of the Hermosa/Manhattan communities. As a cable system operator, MultiVision supports and encourages Public Access usage in its cable systems. Channel 3, your public access channel, is part of the basic service received by all cable subscribers in the cities of Hermosa and Manhattan Beach. Today, MultiVision Cable is in the homes of over 18,000 residents. Reading this guide and adhering to the procedures and guidelines outlined herein is the first step in becoming a Public Access Producer. 32 TYPES OF COMMUNITY ACCESS Community access is comprised of three types of programming: Public Access, Leased Access, and Local Origination. All productions must be done in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local cablecast guidelines. All community access users are responsible and liable for any claim, loss, damage, or expense arising out of or caused by any material transmitted for the access user on the cable system. Two Basic Guidelines are: 1. No Libelous, slanderous or illegal material. 2. No obscene or indecent material. Strict adherence to these guidelines are the responsibility of the community producer. Any violation of these guidelines may result in the termination of the users privileges. 33 J PUBLIC ACCESS Public Access is intended to offer an opportunity for local interests to participate in community dialogue on a non- commercial basis. Accordingly, public access is made available upon request to private citizens who reside in or conduct business in the Cities of Hermosa or Manhattan Beach. Public Access is also available to private organizations and groups which are located in or service the interests of these communities. All public access users will receive a detailed -list of access guidelines. When these guidelines are met, there will be no charge for equipment usage or cablecast time. Public access programs must be non-commercial. This means no direct advertising of any service or product. However, sponsorship credit may be given PBS style. 1. Total credit time may not exceed 15 seconds. 2. Credit must be placed at the end of the program. 3. Visuals may include the name, address, or telephone number of the sponsor(s). Videotape will be provided for all access productions. Programs produced at MultiVision, under public access, become the possession of MultiVision Cable. 34 4 All public access programs must end with the appropriate ID tag, which will be supplied by MultiVision. The ID will consist of the following information: "this Public Access program has been presented through the assistance of MultiVision Cable TV". All program masters will remain at MultiVision. One VHS copy can be made of your access program. 3/4" dubs will only be made for cablecasting at other local cable systems. Any tape exchanges will be handled by the program producer. Tapes for 3/4" dubs will be supplied by the program producer, and not by MultiVision. LEASED ACCESS Leased Access is a commercial service which is made available on a first come, non-discriminatory basis to any individual, group, or organization which complies with MultiVision's access operating rules. Programs may have commercial content, and may be produced at MultiVision, or elsewhere. MultiVision will charge for equipment, personnel, channel time, and studio use. Rate and channel number are available on request. 35 LOCAL ORIGINATION This is a community oriented program produced by the MultiVision Local Origination Staff. Volunteers and public access producers often assist on these productions. 36 • PRODUCTION VOLUNTEERS Production volunteers are people who are interested in video production and are available to help with studio productions or mobile van shoots. Production volunteers should have successfully completed the access class, but it is not required. Being a volunteer allows one to become directly involved in varied productions and provides valuable experience. USE OF PRODUCTION FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT All Public Access facilities and equipment are to be used solely for the purpose of producing Public Access programming for cablecast on the MultiVision Public Access Channel. USER RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Community producers, crew members, or on -air talent cannot in any way, present themselves as being employees or representatives of MultiVision Cable TV. 2. The MultiVision name or logo cannot be used on any printed material or videotape used to promote or otherwise publicize access programs except with specific written permission of MultiVision. 3. Advance permission must be granted before any news media personnel or organizations will be allowed to photograph or videotape MultiVision facilities or personnel. USE OF FACILITIES/EQUIPMENT: Non-profit organizations may use facilities and equipment when: * The producer and all crew members hold current certifications. * The non-profit organization's office is located within the franchise communities. Individuals may use the facilities and equipment when: * The producer and all crew members hold current certifications. * At least half of the crew members are residents of Hermosa or Manhattan Beach. 38 CERTIFICATION Certification is awarded at the discretion of the instructor based on the following requirements: 1. You must attend all instructional classes. 2. You must be tested on use of studio equipment and procedures. 3. You must produce a project program or Public Service Announcement at least :30 in length. For the project, you must submit a script or storyboard. Groups may participate in one project. The project must be done with remote equipment and edited. *NO STUDIO SHOOTS FOR THE FIRST PROJECT* FACILITIES/EQUIPMENT RESERVATION: Facilities and equipment are reserved on a first come, first serve basis to be arranged with the Public Access Coordinator. 1. Only certified access users may reserve studio time or portable equipment. 2. Only 1 portapak will be checked out to an individual. Equipment may be kept for 24 hours. Equipment checked out on Friday may be kept over the weekend and returned Monday morning by 10:00 a.m. 3. Failure to return equipment on time or in good working condition may result in access privileges being suspended. Repair and/or replacement of equipment due to damage or loss will be charged to the person who signs the equipment check- out form. 4. Studio time may be reserved for a maximum of 3 hours at a time. 5. A deposit of $150 (no cash or credit cards) is required when equipment is checked out to be held until equipment is returned. Deposits will be refunded after the equipment is returned in good working order. 39 CHANNEL USE Any type of programming content is permitted on the Public Access channel provided it meets the legal considerations outlined below: 1. Program content must not violate any federal, state, or local laws including but not limited to those relating to slander, copyright, indecency, or obscenity. 2. Programs are to be strictly non-commercial in nature. No endorsements for any products or services, nor solicitation for monetary donations or contributions will be allowed. 3. Programs may not endorse declared political candidates running for office. TECHNICAL GUIDELINES: 1. A content disclaimer is required at the beginning and the end of every program submitted for playback. Programs submitted without the disclaimer will not be scheduled. The disclaimer should be worded as follows: "VIEWS AND OPINIONS EXPRESSED ON THE FOLLOWING (PRECEDING) PROGRAM DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THOSE OF MULTIVISION CABLE TV, ITS MANAGEMENT, OR STAFF. THE PRODUCERS OF THE PROGRAM ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS CONTENT". 2. Programs must be submitted on 3/4 inch videotape cassette. 3. Program audio must be stable throughout the program. Audio must be of sufficient level to be audible during playback. Video must have uninterrupted control track and stable tracking. 4. Every program must be preceded by a standard leader that includes color bars, slate, and countdown. Specific requirements for this leader may be obtained from the Public Access Coordinator. 40 PROGRAM SCHEDULING: 1. Programs are scheduled on a first come, first serve basis. Only programs meeting the Technical and Content guidelines will be scheduled on the channel. 2. Programs produced by residents or non-profit organizations from the franchise communities have first priority when channel time is scheduled. 3. Programming from outside the franchise area is accepted when the following requirements are met: *Playback must be requested by a franchise resident or non- profit organization. *Identification of the sponsoring individual or organization must be included at the beginning of the program. *The MultiVision staff will not duplicate programs to be aired. Duplication from the master is the responsibility of the requestor. MultiVision will not provide Stock tape for duplication of any program. 4. New programs must be delivered to the access coordinator at least one week prior to the scheduled air date. Return envelope with postage must be included with tapes that are mailed or other pick up arrangements must be made at the time of delivery. Tapes not claimed within 60 days after.. air date will be considered abandoned and become the property of MultiVision. 41 5. Request for channel time for new programs or series must be made at least two weeks prior to the 1st requested air date. The requestor must fill out and sign a "Request for Cablecast" form before the program or series will be scheduled. 6. Every effort will be made to safeguard tapes submitted for playback. However, MultiVision will not be responsible for loss or damage to programs. 42 u NOW LET'S GET STARTED! If you have fulfilled the necessary requirements outlined in this handbook, and elsewhere, you are on your way to becoming a community producer for MultiVision Cable TV. Our staff will give you the guidance necessary to insure that your production will be the best possible; one that will entertain and inform the entire communities of Hermosa and Manhattan Beach. 43 THE CAMERA The camera is the single most important part of television production equipment. It is important that you understand the basic function and operation of the television camera. All other TV production equipment and production techniques are directly determined by what the camera can do and the capability and versatility of the camera operator. Parts of the Camera The standard television camera consists of three main parts: 1. The lens, which selects a certain field of view or shot, and also has the zoom and focus controls. 2. The camera itself including the pick-up tubes and internal optical system, which converts the image into electrical signals. 3. The viewfinder, which shows the image that the camera is "seeing". All television cameras, whether big studio models or small portable models, work on the same principle: the conversion of an optical image into electrical signals that creates the video signal which can then be recorded on videotape or broadcasted to you on your TV set. Camera Set -Up When operating a camera, you should go through some basic steps before, during and after each production: 1. Determine the location of the camera, and set up the tripod. Adjust the tripod height and make sure the tripod head is level. 2. Take the camera out of its case and mount on the tripod. Make sure the camera is mounted properly and securely. 3. Power up the camera using batteries or A/C power and let the camera warm up for ten minutes while the camera is in color bars. 4. When you are ready to begin shooting, remove the lens caps, and select the proper filter, check the iris setting. 5. If you need to leave the camera always lock down the tilt lever. Never leave a camera unlocked! 6. After the production, put the camera in color bars, cap the lens, put it in the "cap" filter and make sure the iris is closed. Power down the camera and return it to its case. 44 CAMERA HANDLING The movement and positioning of a video camera is an art in itself. It is essential to a good video production that all camera movement be done as smoothly and artistically as possible. To accomplish this, a video cameraman must first be completely familiar with the four basic camera movements, consisting of panning, tilting, trucking, and dollying. Panning can be defined as movement of the camera in a horizontal plane. In other words, the camera swings left or right while the base of the tripod of the camera remains stationary. A pan is used to illustrate to the viewer the relative size of the area, to follow action from one location to another, and also to indicate the amount of distance between two subjects in a scene. Tilting is a camera movement which is executed in a vertical plane. When tilting, the camera tripod again remains stationary while the camera is moved vertically either upward or downward. A tilt is used to obtain a lower or higher angle within a scene, to show the relative height of an object such as a tall building, or to focus on a very low level such as a shot looking down into a canyon. 45 A third type of camera movement known as trucking, requires that the cameraman physically moves the camera to the left or right. This, or course, can only be accomplished if the camera is mounted on a moveable pedestal. A truck shot is much more difficult to execute smoothly than a panshot because of the difficulties in moving on an uneven studio floor or under adverse conditions. Also, the cameraman must be aware of the problems of running over camera cables which tend to get in the way of a truck shot. A truck movement is usually used to indicate the motion from left to right. Physically moving the camera and tripod closer to (forward) or further away (backward) from a subject is known as dollying. Dollying in is extremely effective in giving the viewer the impression that he or she is entering the scene as the camera moves in for a closer shot. This is very appropriate at the beginning of a production, following a wide shot of the scene. Of course, the opposite is also true concerning dollying back which can be used to signify the end of a production. These techniques are all very effective but can easily be overdone. They should never be used without a definite purpose. Zooming in or out is not a camera movement. It's a lens adjustment that brings the image closer or farther away. It can be used to help frame a shot or expose certain elements of a scene. 46 REMOTE PRODUCTION 1. Preproduction Planning: A. What are you going to shoot? Plan the type of footage you want, use a script and storyboard. B. Where are you going to shoot? Are you familiar with the location, know the available lighting and the power sources. Troubleshoot the location to find out if there are any special problems. C. What kind of equipment will you need? Battery or A/C power, extension cords, lighting kit, microphones, connectors and adapters, cables, monitor, and anything you might forget. 2. Know the camera and how to operate it. A. Camera controls and connectors B. Setting up the Camera C. Shooting tips 3. Know the tape deck. A. How to record, connectors, adapters and cables. B. Monitoring the recording. 4. Insure the safety of the equipment and yourself. 47 REMOTE FIELD PRODUCTION Preparing for the shoot (remote survey). 1. Whenever possible, you should check out you go out with the camera and crew. Here look for: your location before are some things to 2. Check the quality of available light. If outside, what will be the angle of the sun when you shoot? Check for potential shadow problems. If inside, will available light be enough or will you need to have extra lights? 3. Check the available AC power for lights, camera, VTR, and any other equipment. Most normal circuits can handle no more than 15 amps or 1500 watts. How many different circuits are available? Know where the circuit breakers are located. Do you need 3 -prong plugs or extension cords? 4. Determine where you will set up the will you shoot from? With a tripod background going to look like? camera. or not? 5. Determine how you will light your set. How Where will you place them? What about other light is not advisable to mix fluorescent light with other sure there will be enough light to get a good pictur What angles What is the many lights? sources? It light. Make e. 6. Check the audio situation. If you are outside, what is the traffic noise like? What about wind noise? Watch out for airplanes and helicopters when recording. If you are inside, what are the acoustics of the room? Will there be distracting noise from office machines or household appliances? Are there any other people around (restaurants, etc.) or heavy construction? 7. Crowd control. If you are in a public place, will you need to monitor and re-route people around the shooting area? Be aware of curiosity seekers, keep them quiet and out of the way. 8. Unloading and loading of equipment. Where can you park? How will you transport the equipment? Never leave equipment unattended. 9. Determine the number of crew people you will need. 10. Determine the number of microphones needed. Where will you place the microphones, with the talent? on a stand? 11. If you are not using AC, how long will you be taping? How many batteries will you need? How may video cassettes will you need? 48 THE SHOOT 4, 1. Make sure you have obtained all the necessary permits and permission for the location you have chosen. Don't wait until shooting time. 2. When you start shooting, allow at least 5 seconds from the time you roll the tape to the point where you want to use the footage you're shooting. 10 seconds is even better. Allow the same margin when the shot is finished, this will make editing easier. 3. If you have enough assistants in the field, have someone keep an ongoing log of what you're shooting, the type of shot, and the take. 4. Always shoot longer than what you think you'll need when you are shooting cutaways. Try to have some good static shots and establishing shots for cutaways. 5. NEVER point the camera at the sun, bright lights or reflective objects. This will seriously harm the camera. 6. Never keep the VTR in pause for long periods (more than 5 minutes). If you are not going to shoot for a while, stop the deck. 7. Be very gentle with the camera. Do not bang or drop the camera. Do not leave the camera unattended, especially in a situation where there are a lot of people. 8. Make sure the lights are secure. The light stands are not very sturdy and may have to be taped or weighted down. 9. Label all your tapes on both the cassette and the case. 10. Be careful of all camera cables. Don't step on them, or put anything on top of them. Multi -pin cables have several wires and the connections may come loose with careless handling. 11. Disconnect cables by the connector, not by pulling on the cord. 12. Don't force any connectors. You could bend or break a pin. Everything is designed to fit easily. If it doesn't, something is not lined up properly. Check the connections closely. 13. Whenever you leave a camera standing on a tripod, make sure it is securely locked down. Before you leave jiggle it to make sure it isn't going anywhere. 49 14. Keep full notes and descriptions of any malfunction you may encounter. The more detail you provide, the easier it will be for the engineer to repair. If something is not working for you, don't try to fix it in the field, you could damage something. 15. Slate each of your shots as much as possible, either verbally on the tape, on a slate card, or in your notes. 16. Never leave any piece of equipment unattended. It could be the last time you see it, and the last time you produce an access program. CAMERA DO's and DON'Ts 1. Never point the camera at the sun, a bright light, or a bright reflection. 2. Always cap the camera when it is not in use. 3. Avoid moisture, dust, caustic chemicals. In particular, protect the front of the lens, it has a special coating. 4. Don't hold or store the camera nose up or nose down. 5. Don't step on cables. Disconnect cables by pulling on the connector, not the cord itself. 6. Don't force anything. Equipment won't make allowances for your frustration. It will just break! 7. Lock the camera down WHENEVER you take you hands off, if it is on a tripod. 8. Make sure the camera is physically stable and safe, whether it's on a tripod, your shoulder or a table. 9. When your battery runs low stop shooting. 10. Don't try to make your own repairs. There are no "user serviceable parts" inside. 50 LIGHTING NOTES The television screen is two dimensional, so light from more than one angle is needed to provide an illusion of the separation between picture elements. A remote crew usually goes out with minimal lighting equipment - two, maybe three lights. Because the camera is extremely sensitive, it is hoped that even for interior shots the existing light will be enough. Sometimes just to be sure, the crew unpacks a couple of lights and plants one on each side of the camera to make faces nice and bright. This guarantees a dull, flat picture, accented by the washed out and featureless look of the subjects who end up nearest the lights. An electronic camera on automatic iris will expose for the brightest large area in the picture. This exposure will affect the entire picture, not just the bright area. The more intense the bright area, the less detail will be visible in shadow areas. Instead of putting your two lights next to the camera, try the approaches shown in the sketches. Include bounce light, mis- focus to decrease light modeling from sides. Be sure, however, that one of the light sources isn't too close to a subject; you might even move the subject a little to avoid overexposing that subject. Reducing the lens opening to compensate for the over - lighted item copes with that problem just fine, but all the other items in the picture now are very dark. Do not add more light to these suddenly dark areas; instead, reduce the light on the bright area. The eye of the viewer is always attracted to the brightest area in a picture (compositional elements of lighting). In an interview or group shot the faces are the important part of the communication; and they should be a little brighter than the background, but not so bright that we cannot see the location. Avoid day lighted windows, murals or neon signs as part of the background. Shooting against open sky (outdoor or through windows) has a tendency to make your subject somewhat dim on the screen. For daylight exteriors, the use of auxiliary light is also helpful in balancing the highlight and shadow areas, but outdoors, we have a different set of conditions. The footcandles involved are tremendously variable. From bright sun at the beach to heavy overcast between two buildings, and everything in between is a constant challenge to our ingenuity. 51 We must use the sun where it is and where it will move to while we are shooting. If direct sun hits any part a face in a close- up, we will need more light than is regularly carried on remotes in order to bring out detail in shadow areas. Look for large reflectors to help you. The large expanse of sand and the haze in the air near the water results in the luminous picture everyone gets at the beach. In a blacktop parking lot, things become much harsher. Look for a camera position near a white building to use as a reflector, or a big white truck. Do not use sunlit buildings or open as the background for a close-up. Foliage or shades areas will allow the face to retain dominance. If you have lights or reflector panels, position the subject in a shaded area. The open sky or hazy sun will provide a gentle rim light, and your reflectors or lights can fill the faces. Keep lighting angles very simple. Always stand in for the subject before shooting: your meter may tell you all is well, when actually no one can stand on the mark without severe squinting or even panic. What about night time? Indoors it makes little difference, but out-of-doors, we have lost the sun/sky combination as our main source and we have a whole new project. As a starter we can follow the techniques proposed in figures we have shown, but using enough wattage, and setting it very carefully, to provide even distribution. Another consideration is background. A total black background does no special harm except that it does nothing to establish where you are -- so why go? The black background also tends to be dull and encourages video "noise" on less than ideally adjusted receivers. Much is gained by selecting a background with some interesting, but not distracting, highlights - or by providing this video "information" with a spotlight across foliage or architectural detail. Just remember that you are working with tremendous size, and you must choose to accent a doorway or shrub, unless you are carrying several Brute arcs and generators. Position your people close enough to the background to allow your accent light adequate coverage. 52 PRODUCER'S NAME: PROGRAM PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION (IF ANY): ADDRESS: CITY: HOME PHONE: OTHER PHONE: DO YOU HAVE A CURRENT ACCESS USER CARD? TENTATIVE PROGRAM TITLE: " FORMAT (CHECK IF APPLICABLE): INFORMATION: Commentary, Interview, Documentary, Consumer and Health Issues. ENTERTAINMENT: Music, Dance Comedy, Drama, Variety, Poetry, Arts. EVENTS: Festivals, Sports, Parades, Meetings, Seminars, Dedications. PROGRAM RUNNING TIME: LANGUAGE OF PROGRAM (IF OTHER THAN ENGLISH) PROGRAM WILL BE VIDEOTAPED: IN STUDIO ON LOCATION DESCRIBE PROGRAM CONTENT: WHO WILL BE APPEARING IN THIS PROGRAM: 53 PROGRAM PROPOSAL LIST THE DATE, TIMES AND PLACES YOU REQUEST TO VIDEOTAPE: APPROXIMATE DATE EQUIPMENT WILL BE CHECKED OUT: LIST THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PERSONS USING THE EQUIPMENT: NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR SAFE -KEEPING AND PROPER OPERATION OF EQUIPMENT: PHONE # APPROXIMATE PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: NOTES: PRODUCER'S SIGNATURE; DATE: PUBLIC ACCESS COORDINATOR: DATE: 54 FUTURE PROGRAM PLANS We are continually working to improve and expand our program offerings to reflect the community's interests and concerns. Some of our immediate plans include a segment of Pacific Outlook promoting the launch of the Hermosa Beach Farmer's Market. We are working on both in -studio and remote coverage of this program with the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce at the request of Mayor Roger Creighton; developing a program with the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce highlighting area businesses and their services; developing a live, call-in program focusing on local political issues and other community concerns. Aside from this, our production department is working on a bi-monthly magazine entertainment show that will highlight events and activities in the South Bay. The show call "Pacific Coast Happenings" will present the unique qualities of living and working in the Hermosa/Manhattan area shot entirely on location. Additionally, several members of our public access class have plans to produce their own programs. While we cannot be sure that their intentions will result in on-going programs, some of the ideas are as follows: *An MTV -like, entertainment/variety show featuring local acts as well as some well known mainstream performers. *A sports -talk, call in show with professional athletes as well as local, high school athletes as guests. 55 *A program dealing with relationships featuring call-in's and advice offered from professional counselors working in the community. *A cooking show focusing on healthy eating habits. *A game show with in -studio contestants. *A program for children that will provide good role models.' *A program based on motivation/success planning. *Children's entertainment based on education. FUTURE ACCESS CLASSES MultiVision's production department plans to offer Public Access courses as often as requested when there are a minimum of 10 participants per class. We are also planning a special Public Access class for children this summer which will provide information about how a television studio operates and will culminate with a studio production produced by the class participants. As a result of this survey, we feel we are now better able to focus our existing programs on the interests of the community and develop programming that is both informative and entertaining. Also, as issues change, we will strive to keep up with those changes and reflect that in our programming. Community ascertainment will be done on a regular basis (10 per month) so that we may continue to provide relevant local programming and public access that serves the needs of the community. 57 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council SUBJECT: INITIATED BY: PURPOSE: May 30, 1990 Regular Meeting of June 12, 1990 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STAFF TO EXAMINE MEASURES TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AND TO DEVELOP A LIST OF MEASURES TO BE STUDIED IN RELATION TO HERMOSA BEACH Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the continuance of current measures and to allow staff to further investigate suggested options listed in the analysis section of this report, and in the attachments submitted by various departments (Exhibits B and C). Background Under the National Clean Air Act, the Air Quality Management Plan, one of the four plans to be implemented by local governments, was adopted by Southern California Association of Governments in March of 1989 and in August of 1989 by the State. This plan differs from the previous plans, in that, it is not only a long-range study. The Air Quality Management Plan actually states that some progress is to be made with regard to each applicable measure by specific deadlines. Analysis Enforcement: In order to meet the requirements of the AQMP, SCAG has recommended that each city generate a plan to implement AQMP requirements. Due to the size of the City of Hermosa Beach, all measures do not apply and are, therefore, not expected to be implemented. However, "Reasonable further progress" is expected. Attached is a list of measures (Exhibit A) in which the City will be expected to participate. It should be noted that the measures are not optional, but are specific air quality control measures which are a part of a joint -effort program to improve air quality to a level which meets state and federal standards. If measures are not implemented and carried out by local governments, certain penalties may be imposed. Penalties for non-compliance may include the following: 1. Environmental Protection Agency sanctions which restrict grant funding throughout the state. 2. Environmental group Civil lawsuits directed at the city. 3. If a city does not have an Air Quality Element in their 10 General Plan, their sanitation district will not be permitted to expand. Current Programs: Alternate Work Schedules From examining the attached measures, it has been determined that the City is currently exercising a trip reduction plan. Work trips have been reduced by one of the most important measures, the City's Alternate Work Schedule. The City is currently operating on the 4-10, 9-80 and 12-3 work week. Alternate work schedules are part of the District's plan to reduce air pollution. Rideshare & Transit Incentives In addition, Hermosa Beach has joined in with other cities in an effort to reduce traffic by providing a commuter bus service called MAX. This bus provides transportation services to South Bay commuters bound for the El Segundo employment center. Although the city is not currently involved in a ridesharing program, staff is examining Commuter Computer for future ridesharing programs. Traffic Flow Improvements Synchronized signals on Pacific Coast Highway have already been completed. Unpaved Roads & Parking Lots With regard to paved parking, the city currently has a Capital Improvement Program requiring the pavement of dirt lots. Although all commercial developments require paved parking, this same requirement does not currently apply to residential areas. Proposed Programs: Traffic Flow Improvements To improve traffic flow, the city is currently using ATSAC systems at intersections. However, staff has indicated that there is a need for more and better systems. Preferred ATSAC systems are ones which are vehicle activated. Merchant Transportation Incentives To encourage people to use another form of transportation, the idea of installing additional bike racks should be examined. Current places of business with bike racks include the Pavilion and Martha's. Telecommuting Another important measure which will reduce road trips is telecommuting. The City of Cerritos is involved in a pilot 2 program which offers residents of the community teleconferencing services via two-way full motion video conferencing which closely approximates face-to-face interactions. This type of service is termed "business television," and has been recommended for appointments with, for example, doctors and lawyers. Some places of business are currently using this video system sometimes with audio connections. For some places, audio conferencing is becoming a more prevalent way of conducting routine committee or business meetings. At this time, cost figures are not available. However, according the AQMP appendix IV -G, audio conferencing is the least expensive form of teleconferencing and is the easiest to implement. Furthermore, staff intends to further investigate the feasibility of this type of service. In addition, staff suggests that some work-related tasks can be done from the home via computer terminals, and that this practical alternative should be further examined. Growth Management This is a matter being discussed in the housing element. Air Quality Element Since the Planning staff is currently revising the General Plan, adding an air quality element will not be difficult, and can probably be finished by the middle of 1991. Overview At this time, staff believes that the current programs, as listed in the report are in compliance with AQMP measures, and are providing the necessary "reasonable further progress." Staff intends to further investigate options mentioned in both report and attachments for future implementation to continue to provide "reasonable further progress." CONCUR: / J /71 ichael Schubach Planning Direc or evin B. Northc City Manager Attachments: 141/{/4'fir':-) Andrea N. Anderson Planning Aide 1. Summary of AQMP measures (Exhibit A) 2. Staff responses to measures (Exhibit B & C) p/ccsragmp - 3 (Exhibit A) CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Kevin Northcraft, City Manager FROM: Andrea N. Anderson, Planning Aide.f/m,r,,ht/;_e-tAS SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF CONTROL MEASURES TO BE IMPLEMENTED DATE: February 26, 1990 Attached, please find a copy of the Air Quality Management Plan's Summary of Control Measures To Be Implemented. Please be advised that the summary contains requirements for local governments in general, not necessarily all requirements of Hermosa Beach. AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY OF CONTROL MEASURES TO BE IMPLEMENTED Tier I contains: - -Actions to be taken in the first 5 years and, - -Transportation improvements which can be built with funds available in the next 20 years Tier II contains: - -Actions to be taken from year 6 to 20 and - -Actions dependent upon additional funding or new legislative authority ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULES Tier I 1. To implement programs for employees to reduce work trips by 10% by 7/1/90 2. To adopt trip reduction ordinance to require employees to reduce work trips by 10% through AWS by 7/1/91 3. To look at legislation by 7/1/90 to remove impediments to AWS in management bargaining contracts 4. To provide data on current work trip levels, monitor progress & effectiveness & report results to SCAG annually Tier II No additional control methods Pg. 47-52 TELECOMMUNICATIONS Tier I 1. To adopt specific program of telecommuting strategies by 7/1/91 to reduce work trips by local govt. employees by 20% (or maximum feasible amount) 2. Adopt trip reduction ordinance requiring employers to reduce employee work trips by 20 % (or max. feasible amount) by 7/1/92 3. To support non -work trip reduction legislation by 7/1/92 Tier II 1. local governments to work toward tax incentive legislation (no date given) Pg. 53-62 NOTE 1: RELATIONSHIP TO REGULATION XV All the work trip reduction measures noted here call for actions beyond those called for under Regulation XV. The primary differences are that the RMP actions/AQMP measures call for: (1) separate trip reduction goals for alternate work weeks and telecommuting (they are two of the many trip reduction strategies under Regulation XV); (2) an increase in the regional average vehicle ridership (AVR) ratio* to 2.10 in 2010 and 1.26 in 1994 (Regulation XV set a 1.50 AVR goal for most sites with 100+ employees of one firm at one site); (3) inclusion of multi -tenant sites and those with 25+ employees at one site under work trip reduction plans (Regulation XV only applies to single employer work sites with 100+ employees). * The ratio between the number of employees reporting to a site to the number of vehicles driven to a site. NOTE 2: Both public and private sector require institutions of alternative work schedules and telecommuting programs as condition of business license renewal and as a permit condition for new development. EMPLOYER RIDESHARE & TRANSIT INCENTIVES Tier I 1. To adopt ordinance by 7/1/90 to require trip reduction plans for facilities with tenants employing 100 employees or more. 2. To adopt ordinance by 7/1/91 to require facilities employing 25 to 99 employees to disseminate information on trip reduction 3. To evaluate effectiveness of trip reducing ordinance employee level threshold to 25+ by 7/1/92 Tier II No additional control methods Pg. 65-70 6 PARKING MANAGEMENT Tier I 1. To conduct local assessment; adopt an Air Quality Element into General Plan by 1/1/91 which will apply to programs listed on pg. 71 of AQMP Tier II No additional control methods Pg. 71-76 NOTE 1: Require, as appropriate, parking management options listed below. The following parking management options should be implemented, where appropriate: increased parking fees, a surcharge on parking for single -occupant vehicles, reduced on -street parking, elimination of employer -subsidized parking, restrictions on residential parking adjacent to commercial centers, improved parking enforcement, limits on the number of parking spaces in specified zones, and restricting centers access to transit and non -motorized modes. VANPOOL PURCHASE INCENTIVES Tier I 1. To induce provision of vanpools among list of options in trip reduction ordinances & require employers to provide preferential parking for vanpool users by 7/1/90 Pg. 77-82 MERCHANT TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVES Tier I 1. Adoption of non -work trip reduction ordinance which would require merchants of Lg. retail establishments to offer customer mode -shift travel incentives & require managers of retail stores to provide facilities for non -motorized transportation Tier II No additional control methods Pg. 83-88 f AUTO USE RESTRICTIONS 1. Adoption of Air Quality Element into General Plan by 1/1/91; to implement measures such as Park -N -Ride & Off-site facility lots Tier II Ordinance to encourage transit, shuttles & non -motorized modes. Pg. 88-94 TRUCK REROUTING 1. To adopt Air Quality Element in General Plan which will facilitate improved truck rerouting 2. To adopt local ordinances and/or MOU's regarding above by 1/1/91 Pg. 105-112 NOTE: Potential means of diverting truck traffic and reducing accidents include: (1) restricting the operation of trucks on congested portions of arterials during peak periods, (2) establish peak period pricing surcharges for the operation of trucks during peak periods on congested arterials, (3) require that major shippers and receivers develop plans to move shipments to off-peak periods, (4) developing voluntary plans for off-peak operations of special shippers, such as construction suppliers, package delivery, and dairies, and (5) developing a program to reduce truck accidents th1ough increased enforcement and rapid incident response. TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENTS 1. To implement ATSAC systems on 2000 signalized systems between 1989-1993 & 8000 by 2010 2. To improve channeling of 125 intersections between 1989-1993 & 500 by 2010. Pg. 119-123 NONCURRENT CONGESTION TIER I: Design & program improvements by 1989-93 to do the following: 1. expand & improve incident response program 2. improve freeway management & enforcement practices 3. increase enforcement of codes governing safety 4. develop & secure funding for SCAG overall work program -2- c Tier II: No additional control methods Pg. 125-133 UNPAVED ROADS & PARKING LOTS Tier I: Local governments amend ordinances & allocate resources by 1/1/94 to require paving or an alternative control of all vehicle maneuvering areas & parking facilities, according to ARB/Caltrans criteria Tier II: No additional control methods Pg. 179-184 ELECTRIC VEHICLES Tier I: 1. local governments & SCAQMD support tax incentive & research & development legislation between 1989 & 1990 2. local governments commit by 1994 to phase-in penetration of public fleets by electric vehicles; 10% by 2000 & 20% by 2010 Tier II: 1. Support electric vehicles phase-in & advanced battery research activities Pg. 197-201 GROWTH 'MANAGEMENT Tier I: 1. Meet the housing goals derived from a process involving the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, local Housing Elements, and State housing law by 7/1/89. 2. Amend General Plan & adopt ordinance by 1/1/91 to attain job/housing balance performance goals at the subregional level consistent with the Growth Management Plan 3. Develop intergovernmental agreements to attain job/housing. balance performance goals consistent with GMP • 4. In conjunction with SCAG and subregional entities, reassess performance goals/implementation by 1/1/94. Tier II SCAG to assess effectiveness of local programs by January 1, 1994, and proceed, if necessary to recommend further actions to be implemented through SCAQMD, RWQCB's and State HCD Page 209-216 ENERGY CONSERVATION Tier I: By 7/1/90 adoption of local administrative practices to reduce local government energy demand 87 by 1/1/94; 15% by 2000 & 30% by 2010 Tier II: No additional control methods Pg. 217-224 WASTE RECYCLING Tier I Local governments to adopt ordinance by 7/1/90 to reduce amount of local solid waste requiring disposal by 25% by 1994 & 35% by 2000 Tier II No additional control methods Pg. 225-232 UNPAVED ROADS AND PARKING LOTS TIER I Local governments amend ordinances and allocate resources by January 1, 1994, to require paving or an alternative control of all vehicle manuevering areas and parking facilities, according to ARB/Caltrans criteria. Pg. 179-184 Tier II No additional control methods PAVED ROADS Tier I 1. By July 1, 1990 legislate a requirement for the installation of liners on truck beds and covering of loads for transportation of particulate matter 2. By July 1, 1990, local governments to develop a "clean streets" management program which includes adopting construction carryout and entrainment ordinances and vehicle entrainment ordinances, as well as allocating resources for controlling emissions from unpaved areas and storm water control, respectively. Tier II No additional control methods Pg. 173-178 HIGH SPEED RAIL Tier I 1. Local agency to initiate by July 1, 1990, a study to devise agreement to build, fund, and operate a rail system. 2. Local agency to undertake by July 1, 1990, a study to identify new routes and viable funding instruments. Tier II 1. Implementation by 2010 of a high speed rail line between Los Angeles and San Francisco Pg. 203-207 1. (Exhibit B) CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMO TO: MIKE SCHUBACH, PLANNING DIR. DATE: MAY 16, 1990 RE: AQMP FROM: MARY C. ROONEY Iii•e i F. 1990 ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** LISTED BELOW ARE SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR THE AQMP FROM THE COMMUNITY RESOURCES DEPARTMENT: ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULES RETAIN 4/10 WORK WEEK STAGGER HOURS (I.E. PROVIDE CORE HOURS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES AND ALLOW FLEX) TELECOMMUNI CATIONS COMMUNITY RESOURCES "TELECOMMUTING" POSSIBILITIES WOULD BE LIMITED TO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND/OR MANAGEMENT. OUR POSITIONS ARE NOT CONDUCIVE TO WORKING AT HOME AS WE DO NOT ENCOMPASS ROUTINE TYPES OF JOBS AND BECAUSE PUBLIC INTERFACE IS CRUCIAL TO OUR SERVICE. DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR COULD PUT IN ONE DAY AT HOME PER WEEK WITH COMPUTER AND PHONE ACCESS. SUGGESTION THAT POSSIBILITY OF ASSIGNING SPEED NUMBERS TO MANAGEMENT AT HOME (AS IS DONE FOR MAYOR) MAY ALLOW FOR TELECOMMUTING. UPCOMING DATA PROCESSING STUDIES SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE POSSIBILITY OF PORTABLE COMPUTER SYSTEMS FOR HOME USE AND TO INCENTIVES FOR EMPLOYEES WHO WILL PURCHASE THEIR OWN. EMPLOYER RIDESHARE & TRANSIT INCENTIVES AS IS OBVIOUS, PROVIDING FINANCIAL INCENTIVES TO EMPLOYEES WHO SHARE RIDES AND/OR USE ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION WOULD BE SUGGESTED. MANY HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS, ETC. USE BICYCLES TO GET AROUND THE LOTS...WITH THE SIZE OF OUR CITY, SOME CYCLING TO GET FROM PLACE TO PLACE MAY NOT BE A BAD IDEA...AT LEAST FOR DOWNTOWN VISITS...LIABILITY? PARKING LOTS PLANT GRASS PARKING LOT AT GREENBELT. PROVIDE CENTRAL PARKING AREA AT CITY OUTSKIRTS (SCE?) AND HAVE SHUTTLES TO THE BEACH (SUMMER WEEKENDS?) MERCHANT TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVES MAKE WALKING PLAZA FOR DOWNTOWN AREA SEE ABOVE RECYCLING WE NEED THIS! START WITH MONTHLY PROGRAM COORDINATED WITH SCHOOL DISTRICT. EVOLVE TO CURBSIDE PICK-UP. (Exhibit C) CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Schubach, Planning Director FROM: Anthony Antich, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Air Quality Management Plan DATE: May 21, 1990 In response to your March 1, 1990 Memo regarding the Air Quality Management Plan, the following was discussed at a recent Public Works staff meeting: ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULES - Tier I - Provide incentive to carpool or walk. (make walking more attractive) - Encourage employees (within a one mile radius) to walk to work and within a ten mile radius to ride bicycles to work, weather permitting. - Provide attractive, more spacious lunch room to reduce lunch trips. - Flexible work schedule TELECOMMUNICATIONS - Tier II - FAX information to work - work at home (example: Ed Ruzak, City Traffic Engineer) EMPLOYER RIDESHARE & TRANSIT INCENTIVES - Tier I - Park and ride facility at the Community Center PARKING MANAGEMENT - Tier I - Expand the impacted area and meter area - Revenues to be used to offset impact cost - Propane City vehicles VANPOOL PURCHASE INCENTIVES Tier I - City purchases mopeds for transportation to work by employee(you gotta be kidding' 111 11111) MERCHANT TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVES - Tier I - Televised Council meetings - Home shopping network Televised public counter AUTO USE RESTRICTIONS - Park and ride facility has been suggested for the Community Center TRUCK REROUTING - Done TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENTS - Signals on Pacific Coast Highway have been synchronized. UNPAVED ROADS & PARKING LOTS - Tier I - Greenbelt; plant more trees on parking lots. Michael, you have this report. ELECTRIC VEHICLES - Tier II - General Motors, Ford and Chryslt'r are among the manufacturers who will be producing electric vehicles. To date, prototypes only have been produced; no commercialization yet. VEMA will be producing approximately 500 one tori cargo vans by the end of the year. This model will be built on a one ton GM chassis. ENERGY CONSERVATION - Tier I - Installation of energy saving lamps at City Hall (done) - Alternate fuel vehicles Weather strip buildings - Window tinting (done) - Insulation WASTE RECYCLING - Tier I - In-house paper reclycling (beino done) - Salvage at City yard (being done) - Recycle glass bottles - Purcharlo only paper products from recycled paper - Refurbl)h before considering new purchases PAVED ROADS - Tier I - Purchapo and install liners for truck beds and covers for loads for transportation of particulate matter. HIGH SPEED RAIL - TIER I - Bring hAck the "red car". June 7, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of June 12, 1990 NOTIFICATION OF IMPENDING RETIREMENT OF CITY PROSECUTOR JOHN BARRY Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council accept and file this re- port regarding City Prosecutor John Barry's upcoming retirement and plans for continuation of prosecution services. Background: John Barry, who has been the City's prosecutor since November, 1972, has notified staff of his intention to retire from perform- ing services for the City in the near future, but no later than September 1. Analysis: Mr. Barry has performed reliable and inexpensive services to the City for 18 years, and regularly receives high praise from citizens and judges with whom he has been in contact as part of the services he performs for the City. In appreciation for his long term, valued services, a tile plaque will be prepared for presentation to him at a future Council meeting. Regarding the continuation of City Prosecutor services, staff is looking at two possible options. For the first five months of 1990, Mr. Barry averaged 76 arraign- ments, 6 trials, and 43 pre -trials per month. As many of these activities involve penal code violations, and the County District Attorney's office handles these types of cases in other cities, staff is meeting with the District Attorney's office to determine what services are available from that agency. If these services can be economically handled by the D.A.'s office, it may be ap- propriate to utilize these services on a trial basis. Regarding other prosecutions, a recruitment was conducted in November of 1989 to hire a Deputy City Prosecution firm to handle bootleg enforcement and other municipal code violations not han- dled by Mr. Barry. That recruitment process resulted in the selection of Martin Mayer and Associates to handle those cases on an hourly basis. The Mayer can handle any municipal code viola- tions that are now handled by Mr. Barry, as they now perform those services for other cities, including the City of Manhattan Beach. They also can handle penal code violations, though it has not been their practice to do so. - 1 - 11a Accordingly, if it does not appear feasible to use the District Attorney's office, staff is proposing that a recruitment be con- ducted for a prosecutor for penal code violations, with the Mayer firm being eligible to compete in that process. Kevin B. Northcr ft City Manager KBN/ld cc: John Barry Martin Mayer & Associates Public Safety Director Wisniewski Building and Safety Director Grove �J V. curt a vViffiam 2065 ,.-;l4anI attan ver �%tmosa13zac4, 90254 Mayor and Council Selection of Mayor Policy (13/0 eft clerk "1'Y of iletmoga Bek 6, Before you make any decision please review the reasons for making the change to rotation in 1984. Based on my experience on the Council I strongly disagree with Councilmember Midstokke. There is no problem with "continuity". Just does not follow that their are meetings with inter -governmental agencies that require the same individual. The MAYOR PRO TEMP should be attending any of that type meetings with the Mayor. This has NOT been the case. WHY? Councilmember Midstokke has voiced her opinion many times that Councilmembers SHOULD NOT meet with the CM before the meeting. The Mayor has no more authority than any of the other Councilmembers. Why should the Mayor's meeting with the CM be any more important than any other. I know of NO reason. What TIME commitment ? Ability to conduct efficient meeting ? (BS) Rapport with public ? (More BS) That is a subjective opinion. How are .the Councilmembers�pgoing to judge WHO can conduct an efficient m e e t i n g ? l4„rst(X�C Z� �'u�(' �/r/49 C'`9"AVM 6 I y l+4s (,f) G¢ Y- The Mayor has no more authority than any of the Councilmembers. How could any action he took be construed as "Leadership for the City” when his vote alone doesnt do anything. It TAKES THREE and sometimes FOUR to lead this City. At this time our Mayor is merely an honorary position. I must say that it is the only very pleasant part of an extremely difficult and time consuming 4 years. Let's keep rotating. If anyone does not wish to take his turn, let him pass. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 13 a June 7, 1990 City Council Meeting June 12, 1990 SELECTION DF MAYOR POLICY Recommendation To consider changing Council policy from a 9 month automatic rotation of Mayor to a One -Year Term, selected by fellow Councilmembers. Background As you can see by the attached list, the current policy of a 9 month rotation of Mayor has only been in effect since 1984, with Gary Brutsch being the first 9 month Mayor. Prior to that time, the term was for one year, and fellow Councilmembers selected among themselves. Analysis Returning to the policy of having a One -Year Term and selection by fellow Councilmembers will better serve the City in the following ways: 1) Opportunity for more continuity both with inter -govern- mental appointments (many other cities have one or two year terms) and in relationship with City Manager. 2) Opportunity for fellow members to select a Mayor based on willingness to make the time commitment, ability to conduct an efficient meeting, and rapport with the public. 3) Improving efficiency by eliminating work and costs associated with more frequent changes. (Reorganization, roster, signing warrants and original documents, inter -govern- mental notification, business cards, etc.) 4) Councilmembers will no longer have to submit to their nine-month stint, but rather would offer to serve if they wished to make the commitment. In conclusion, it is my opinion that the Mayor could increase the leadership role on behalf of the City of Hermosa Beach if we go back to the prior method of One -Year Terms, selected by fellow Councilmembers. If all the current members of the Council wish to serve as Mayor during their term, I would be willing to give up my turn in order to change to the longer One -Year Term. Kathleen Midstocke MAYORS - CITY COUNCIL 04-09-28 Arnold R. Holston 04-14-30 John W. Clark 04-11-32 Logan R. Cotton 04-09-34 John W. Clark 04-13-36 Albert Schuppner 04-12-38 G.V. Learned 10-04-38 Arden R. Mathews 10-27-39 Roy D. Burkhalter 03-25-40 D. Carlton Jones 04-02-42 T.C. Sheehan 05-02-44 William W. Mathews 04-16-46 Paul H. Drake 08-17-48 L.T. Holden 04-18-50 R.C. Sheehan 05-20-54 Edward J. Edwards 04-17-56 William D. Sachau 04-15-58 Edward J. Edwards 03-17-59 Jack T. Belasco 04-19-60 John deGroot 08-01-61 Patricia A. Gazin 08-21-62 Frank Sasine, Jr. 04-21-64 K.R. (Pat) Anderson 05-04-65 Quinton L. Thelan 05-03-66 Jack T. Belasco 12-20-66 John P. deGroot 12-18-67 Al Valdes 12-02-69 Quintin L. THelen 04-18-72 Al Valdes 04-17-73 ;;lank Doerfling 03-12-74 Charles J. Post 03-25-75 George Barks 03-09-76 Lance Widman 03-08-77 Mary Tyson 03-14-78 Gemage Schmeltzer 03-13-79 Hank Doerfling 04-15-80 George Barks 04-14-81 Lance Widman 04-20-82 Eddie Webber 04-12-83 George Schmeltzer 01-10-84 Gary Brutsch 10-09-84 George Barks 07-09-85 Jack Wood 04-25-86 Tony DeBellis 01-27-87 John Cioffi 11-10-87 Etta Simpson 07-12-88 Jim Rosenberger 03-14-89 June Williams LEGISLATIVE RECORD CITY CLERK CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SUBJECT Mayors 4 DATE BOOK PAGE • - Ma •r: -nce Widman - A•ril 1981 to A•ril 1982 Mayor Pro Tempore; Edie MacFaden - Apri1,1981 to April,1': 4484 9/8/81 I appy Birthday - Mayor Widman 23 4571 4/27JR2 ter Mayor MaoFaden'Seerve as Mayor until Apr. 1983 then Mayor Pro Tern Geo. Schmeltzer will begin erm o r n i n e rang (Neu.) Pe 1, C,1 '0 1 e.ctr 110 Cr nk 4S) 23 4693 .2.1-20-13A l4ay zir t , ary ( ut bh`. y:±o '.9x84.+ TPraif-ic€ arq YBarks_ , _937 24 5266:2 10-09-84 Mayor: George Barks - to 6-85, Pro Tem: Jack Wood 24 5553 07-09-85 Mayor: Jack Wood - to 5-86, Pro Tem: Tbny Debellis 24 5791 06-10-86 Mayor: Tony Debellis - to 1-87; Pro Tem: John Cioffi 25 6014 01-27-87 Mayor: John Cioffi - to 11-10-87; Pro Tem: Etta Simpson 25 6255 11-10-87 Mayor: Etta Simpson - 7-88; Pro Tern: Jim Rosenberger 25 6518 07-12-88 Mayor: Jim Rosenberger - to 3-88; Pro Tem: June Williams 26 6707 03-14-89 .Mayor: June Williams - to 12-R Pro Tem: Roger Creighton 26 6879 ,.,MAYORS MAYOR Creighton Sheldon Midstokke Essertier Wiemans ROTATION OF MAYOR 365 Days x 4 years 5 terms = TERM IN DAYS (292 DAYS) 11-14-90 to 9-2-90 9-3-90 to 6-21-91 6-22-91 to 4-8-92 4-9-92 to 1-19-93 1-20-93 to 11-7-93 292 days each NEAREST COUNCIL MEETING DATES 11-14-89 to 8-28-90 8-28-90 to 6-25-91 6-25-91 to 4-14-92 4-14-92 to 1-26-93 1-26-93 to 11-9-93