The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/13/90MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa. Beach, California, held on Tuesday, November 13, 1990, at the hour of 7:3S P.M. CLOSED SESSION - The to Government Code litigation: Sunstone was adjourned at 7 meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Absent: None closed session was held at 7: P.M. pursuant Section 54946.9(a) regarding matters of Music vs City of Hermosa Beach. The session :2 P.M. to the regular scheduled public Essertier, Midstokke,:Wiemans, Mayor Sheldon PRESENTATIONS OF DONATIONS: 1) $500 GIFT FOR TREE PLANTING FROM WOMAN'S CLUB 2) HEARING IMPAIRED TELEPHONE BY KIWANIS/OPTIMIST CLUBS. e .r,,.,ax-- 4-:4-4"1".'..4-".- 14 /� '� 14( l ` / tS�Z() tO)'. • PRESENTATION OF COMMENDATIONS TO FORMER CABLE TV BOARD MEMBERS (I:::�---- V Com— ,-j--r ,--cLc 6T -4-v PROCLAMATIONS: 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. -,- (m)ALEL„- r f Page 1 Minutes 11-13-90 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.) Creighton: Essertier: Midstokke: Wiemans: Mayor Sheldon: 1. (a) CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve the (a) through (p) with items which were pulled order for clarity: ( ) Motion d, , second Consent Calendar recommendations the exception of the following for discussion but are listed in So ordered. ,Redommendation to approve the following minutes: 1) Regular meeting of the City Council held on October 23, 1990; 2) Adjourned regular meeting held on October 30, 1990. (b) (c) Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos through inclusive. Recommendation to receive and. file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) Recommendation to receive and file October, 1990 monthly ,,ry:nvestment report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated November 6, 1990. (e) Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #,.21'575 for a 3 -unit Condo at 641 6th Street. Memorandum °Trom Planning Director Michael Schubach dated November 5, 1990. Action: To adopt Resolution No. -90-54457, entitled, SIA_ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,. CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #21575 FOR A THREE -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 631 SIXTH STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA." Page 2 Minutes 11-13-90 (f) Recommendation to receive and file report on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated November 1990. l (g) Action: To approve the staff recommendation to receive and file the report on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems which summarizes the status of the stormwater discharge (into the Santa Monica Bay) permit required of the County and the City in order to comply with the 1987 Clean Water Act. Recommendation to award construction contract for bas- ketball courts. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated November 5, 1990. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) Authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with Hines Construction Company at a cost not to exceed $94,750, which includes a 10% contingency; 2) Authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary within budget limitations; 3.)a) Appropriate $7,181 from the Grant Fund'(to be reimbursed from the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Grant No. BB -19034) to Capital Improvement Project 89-512; Appropriate $4,128 from the Grant Fund (to be reimbursed from the 1986 Community Parklands Grant No. 86-1-19095) to CIP 89-512; Transfer $11,200 in the Park and Recreational Facilities Tax Fund from CIP 89-512 to CIP 89-512 d) Appropriate $20,985 from the balance in the Park and Recreational Facilities Tax Fund to CIP 89-512 Recommendation to approve Maniaci Insurance Services, Inc. as the City's Health Insurance broker. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated November 6, 1990. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to au- thorize the City Manager to executethe attached Ser- vices Agreement with Maniaci Insurance Services, Inc. to provide employee health insurance brokerage service for group coverages for: Medical, Dental, Vision, Psychological/Mental Health, Life, and Long Term Disability. ,/, , . Z 674 2 Page 3 Minuttes 7,i-13-90. 777 *E.,L ,� (i) Recommendation to approve award of bid for truck with utility body. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated October 31, 1990. Action: To approve the staff recommendation that the City Council award a bid to Golden State Ford for the Purchase of a 1991 1/2 ton pickup truck at a cost of $11,496 (tax and license included). Recommendation to approve Hermosa Beach Rotary Club Tree decoration. Memorandum from Community Resources Direc- tor Mary Rooney dated November 6, 1990. J Action: To approve the staff recommendation that the v44pine tree located on the Community Center lawn (donated in 1963 by the Rotary Club of Hermosa Beach in honor of the "children of Hermosa Beach") be decorated by Public Works staff with lights purchased by the Rotary Club and ornaments made by Hermosa Beach school children prior to the City's Tree Lighting Ceremony to be held on December 4, 1990. Recommendation . sale of FAU' funds. Memorandum from Public,W�or erector Anthony Antich dated , 1990. Recommendation to approve designation of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission as County Congestion Management Agency. Memorandum from Public Works Direc- tor Anthony Antich dated November 1, 1990, with resolu- tion for adoption. Action: To approve Resolution No. 90-54j9, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ACKNOWLEDGING THE DESIGNATION OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AS THE LOS ANGELES CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) AGENCY FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY." Page 4 Minutes 11-13-90 Recommendation to approve annual request to bag meters during holidays and street closure for tree lighting ceremony. Memorandum from General Services Director Cynthia Wilson dated November 6, 1990. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to approve the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce request to: a) Place a bag over all silver post meters in the City to allow three hours free parking, (bags are purchased by the Chamber) from December 1, 1990 until January 1, 1990. b) Authorize the closure of Pier Avenue from Her- mosa Avenue to the Pier Head, on Tuesday Decem- ber 4, 1990 between the hours of 4:30 P.M. and 7:30 P.M. with enough barricades provided to block off both ends of Pier Avenue for the Holiday Lighting Ceremonies. Recommendation to receive and file the Wave Dial -A -Ride Annual Summary Report. Memorandum from Planning Direc- tor Michael Schubach dated November 6, 1990. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to receive and file the report. 0 (p) Recommendation to reject Hermosa Beach by Potlatch Company. Memorandum from dated November 6, 1990. claim filed against City of Corporation and Simpson Paper Risk Manager Robert Blackwood Action: To approve the staff recommendation to the claim. Recommendation to direct staff to Service Clubs to request funds for less Coalition. Memorandum from Director Mary Rooney dated November reject contact the City's the South Bay Home - Community Resources 6, 1990. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to contact the City's Service Clubs to request funds for the South Bay Homeless Coalition, to assist in providing an ap- propriate share of their anticipated total budget of $7,000 to house the homeless on a temporary basis at the Inglewood National Guard Armory when the temperature is predicted to be 40 degrees or less, or 50 degrees or less with a 50% chance of rain Page 5 Minutes 11-13-90 CONSENT ORDINANCES. ORDINANCE NO. 90-1049 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT TO ADD MOTORCYCLE SALES AND MOTORCYCLE PARTS SALES AS PERMITTED USES INTHE C-3 ZONE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. For adoption.. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 90-1049. Motion e.. , secondE,.. So ordered. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Items ( ), ( ), and ( ) were discussed at this time but are listed in order for clarity. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS, -NONE, SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 5. BILTMORE SITE ISSUES (a) REPORT ON BILTMORE REFERENDUM VALIDATION. Memoran- dum from City Attorney Charles Vose dated November 2, 1990. City Attorney Vose reported that it was his opinion that the referendum against Ordinance No. 90-1043 was invalid in that it would constitute a zoning action which would be inconsistent with the General Plan, and based upon the signature verification by the Registrar -Recorder of the County of Los Angeles, the City Clerk has submitted the certification of sufficiency for the referendum, therefore the City Council had a number of options: 1) Submit the referendum to the voters at a regu- lar or a special election. (This would likely subject the City to litigation since the referendum appears to be invalid -- deBottari v. Norco City Council (1985) Cal.App. 3d 124); 2) Take no action on the initiative at this time and seek a judicial declaration from the Supe- rior Court as to the validity of the referendum; 3) Determine that the referendum is invalid and refuse to set election date; 4) Determine that the referendum is invalid and place the matter before the voters at the next regular election or a special election as a City Council sponsored initiative. (Both zoning and general plan designation); 5) Initiate new public hearings before the Plan- ning Commission and City Council to reconsider the zoning and general plan designation for the subject property; and, the invalidity of the referendum does not suspend the Page 6 Minutes 11-13-90 legal effect of Ordinance No. 90-1043 and, therefore, the residential zoning and general plan designation shall remain in effect. (b) PUBLIC HEARING /e- QiG�1 / C�'"LF'e-_ --64 The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: „i�Q,(.1a- Cl we ' � sIF 6/E, 401--m-?P'Y • e r„ ,) /0 ,------ The Public Hearing was closed. (C) APPLICATION TO COASTAL COMMISSION FOR AMENDMENT TO CERTIFIED LAND USE PLAN AND CHANGE RE. BILTMORE SITE. Memorandum from_planning Director Michael Schubach dated November 1990, with a resolution for adoption. Supplemental page insertion to Coastal Application (between pages 9 and 10) from Planning Department, November 13, 1990. Director Schubach presented thestaff report and re- sponded to Council questions. L-----7 a -) -11.L/19 Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-145 , entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, TO REQUEST AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CERTIFIED LAND USE PLAN FOR THE "BILTMORE SITE" TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF PARKING LOT "C" TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND TO AMEND THE TEXT OF SAID PLAN, AND TO OFFICIALLY TRANSMIT SAID REQUEST TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMIS- SION FOR CONSIDERATION.", and direct staff to submit the Land Use Plan amendment application to the Coastal Com- mission, and to inform the Coastal Commission that this matter will be a ballot measure prior to becoming effective. Motion , second So ordered. e/ Minutes 11-13-90 PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 6. APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT RE. HOURS OF LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AT 8 PIER .AVE., HENNESSEY'S. Memo- randum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated November41990, with a resolution, (or an alternative resolution), for adoption. Supplemental Resolution from the City of Seal Beach, submitted by Lee,Whittenberg, of Development Services, on November 13, 1990. Supplemen- tal letter from the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce dated November 12, 1990. Director Schubach presented the staff report and re- sponded to questions from Council. The public hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak a ainst w� the appeal were: vim.. Q (22 -c. -47=C70: -.71q Low 7.5 Coming forward to speak in favor of the appeal were: fr---( pay e --t -- ,^ -,� --�-✓ �J it ,t �,`,`�---� �' j s 9 - a' e Id The public hearing was closed. " ce.55c l of Action: To uphold the Planning Commission decision, deny the appeal, and adopt Resolution No. 90-54.2), enti- tled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CON- ( JUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING BAR AND ADOPTION OF AN EN- VIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION .FOR 8 PIER AVENUE, "HENNESSEY'S", AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHERLY 45 FEET OF LOT 5, BLOCK 12, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT." Motion , second sSo ordered. elzaa ice-) - 19? g 8 Minutes 11-13-90 ' '' `—' `� P.-- /;7.5 Action: To •verturn the Planning Commission decision, grant the app al, and adopt Alternative Resolution No. 90-54 , entit d, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HE •SA BEACH TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT ' ALLOW LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNC- TION WITH AN EXISTI,G BAR AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMEN- TAL NEGATIVE DELLA' ,ION FOR 8 PIER AVENUE, "HENNES- SEYNS", AND LEGALLY D •CRIBED AS THE NORTHERLY 45 FEET OF LOT 5, BLOCK 12, HERMO BEACH TRACT." Motion , second . So ordered. 7. FEE RECOMMENDATIONS RESULTING FROM USER FEE STUDY AND STAFF RESEARCH. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated November', 1990, with an Ordinance for introduction and a Resolution for adoption. �'Direc or Copela• presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. The public hearing was opened; coming forward to address the Council on this item were: 9 / C � � 11 C04 /.9 c. o_i9) rri Nts, it'ctK C J The public hearing was closed. ) `"' (X --e ') 0 , , 155 r Page Minutes 11-13-90 Action: To approve the staffrecommendation to accept the user fees study and cost allocation plan from the firm of David M. Griffin and Associates and introduce Ordinance No. 90-1050, as amended Motion /I, second E .So ordered. Further Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 90-1050, entitled, HAN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE XIII OF THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE RELATED TO FEES AND SERVICE. CHARGE REVENUE/COST COMPARISON SYSTEM AND AMENDING VARIOUS OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE INCONSISTENT THEREWITH." Motions , second C. AYES: NOES: 6 in Final Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-54A2, enti- tled, HA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A MASTER SCHEDULE OF SERVICE CHARGES AND FEES.", as amended A.).14 Motion , second . So ordered. 8. TEXT AMENDMENT RE. SPECIAL STUDY 90-6 - SIDEYARD EXCEP- TIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION with or- dinance for introduction. Memorandum from Planning Di- rector Michael Schubach dated November i, 1990, with Or- dinance for introduction. Director Schubach presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. The public hearing was opened, coming forward to address the Council on this matter were: Page 10 Minutes 11-13-90 The public hearing was closed. 6( Action: To approve the staff recommendation and intro duce Ordinance No. 90-1051. Motion , second . So ordered. Final Action: To 90-105/, entitled, BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SECTION 13-7(C)(3) NONCONFORMING SIDE waive full reading of Ordinance No. "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT, REGARDING EXTENSIONS OF WALLS WITH YARDS TO GIVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MORE DISCRETION TO APPROVE REQUESTS FOR SUCH EXCEPTIONS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION." Motion 6, second,' . AYES: `Wt— a. NOES: 9. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON CITY COUNCIL MEETING PRO- CESS. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin Northcraft dated November 3, 1990. City Manager Northcraft reported The public hearing was opened, coming forward to address the Council on this item were: The public hearing was closed. Page 11 Minutes 11-13-90 Action: Motion second So ordered. MUNICIPAL MATTERS N Co 10. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER City Manager Northcraft reported Cr. a d_ Y° • ''`' > c--)1 11. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Scheduling of. December City Council Meeting. Memo- randum from City Manager Kevin Northcraft dated November 7, 1990. % City Manager Northcraft reported /" Action: To approve the staff recommendation to hold the regular meeting of the City Council on December 11, 1990, as the only scheduled Council Meeting for the month of December, 1990. Motion , second . So ordered. (b) Notice of automatic vacancy on the Planning Commis- sion. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated November 8, 1990. Supplemental Page 12 Minutes 11-13-90 memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated November 8, 1990. Director Schubach presented the staff sponded to questions from Council. Action: Motion report and re - , second So ordered. 12. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to discuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Coun- cil action tonight. CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Citizens wishing to address the Council on items the agenda but within the Council's jurisdiction so at this time. Coming forward to address the�, Council were: ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council not on may do of the City of Hermosa Page 13 Minutes 11-13-90 Beach, California, adjourned on Wednesday, November 14, 1990, at the hour of 12: A.M., to an Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, November 27, 1990, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. Deputy City Clerk Page 14 Minutes 11-13-90 e /4( ei 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 COUNCLL AGENDA' WELCOME! By your presence in the City Council Chambers you are participating inthe process of representative government. Your government welcomes your interest and hopes you will attend the City Council meetings often. Itis 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. Theagendasare, developed with the intent to have allmatters 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 rolefor community resources anddisplays 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. NOTE: Adopted by City Council on October'23, 1986 There is no smoking allowed in the Council Chambers.' • 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 whatisto 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 •das for meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council.: • Consent Items on 'most ages 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. 'By nature, men are nearly alike; by practice, they get to be wide apart" - Confucius AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, November 13, 1990 - Council Chambers, City Hall Closed Session - 7:00 p.m. Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. MAYOR CITY CLERK' Chuck Sheldon Elaine Doerfling. MAYOR PRO TEM CITY TREASURER Kathleen Midstokke Gary L. Brutsch COUNCILMEMBERS CITY MANAGER Roger Creighton Kevin B. Northcraft Robert Essertier 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: PRESENTATIONS OF DONATIONS - 1) $500 GIFT FOR TREE PLANTING FROM WOMAN'S CLUB 2) HEARING IMPAIRED TELEPHONE BY KIWANIS/OPTIMIST CLUBS PRESENTATION OF COMMENDATIONS TO FORMER CABLE TV BOARD MEMBERS PROCLAMATIONS: 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. (a) CONSENT CALENDAR: The following routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority con sent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown by a member prior 'to the roll call vote. (Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 3.) Recommendation to approve the following minutes: 1) regular meeting of the City Council held on October 23, 1990; 2) Adjourned regular meeting held on October 30, 1990. (b) Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Recommendation to receive and file October, 1990 monthly investment report. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated November 6, 1990. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #21575 for a 3 -unit Condo at 641 6th Street. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated November 5, 1990. Recommendation to receive and file report on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated November 5, 1990. Recommendation to award construction contract for bas- ketball courts. Memorandum from Public Works Director. Anthony Antich dated November 5, 1990. Recommendation to approve Maniaci Insurance Services, Inc. as the City's Health Insurance broker. Memorandum from Personnel Director. Robert Blackwood dated November 6, 1990. (i) Recommendation to approve award of bid for truck with utility body. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated October 31, 1990. (j) Recommendation to approve Hermosa Beach Rotary Club Tree decoration. Memorandum from Community Resources Direc- tor Mary Rooney dated November 6, 1990. (k) WITHDRAWN (1) Recommendation to approve designation of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission as County Congestion 2 - Cm) (n) (o) (P) Management Agency. Memorandum from Public Works Direc- tor Anthony Antich dated November 1, 1990. Recommendation to approve annual request to bag meters during holidays and street closure for tree lighting ceremony. Memorandum from General Services Director Cynthia Wilson dated November 6, 1990. Recommendation to receive and file the Wave Dial -A -Ride Annual Summary Report. Memorandum from Planning Direc- tor Michael Schubach dated November 6, 1990. Recommendation to reject claim filed against City of Hermosa Beach by Potlatch Corporation and Simpson Paper Company. Memorandum from Risk Manager Robert Blackwood dated November 6, 1990. Recommendation to direct staff to contact the City's Service Clubs to request funds for the South Bay Home- less Coalition. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Mary Rooney dated November 6, 1990. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. ORDINANCE NO. 90-1049 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT TO ADD MOTORCYCLE SALES AND MOTORCYCLE PARTS SALES AS PERMITTED USES IN THE C-3 ZONE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. For adoption. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. 4. WRITTEN. COMMUNICATIONS. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 5. BILTMORE SITE ISSUES (a) REPORT ON BILTMORE REFERENDUM VALIDATION. Memorandum from City Attorney Charles Vose dated November 2, 1990. (b) PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND CERTIFIED LAND USE PLAN TO RE- FLECT THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION IN THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE BILTMORE SITE, WITH RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION. (a) APPLICATION TO COASTAL, COMMISSION FOR AMENDMENT TO CER- TIFIED LAND USE PLAN. Memorandum°from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated November 5, 1990. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 6. APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT RE. HOURS OF LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AT 8 PIER AVE., HENNESSEY'S. Mem0- randum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated November 5, 1990. 7. FEE RECOMMENDATIONS RESULTING FROM -USER FEE STUDY AND STAFF RESEARCH. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin Northcraft dated November 8, 1990. 8. TEXT AMENDMENT RE. SPECIAL STUDY 90-6 - SIDEYARD EXCEP- TIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION with or- dinance for introduction. Memorandum from Planning Di- rector Michael Schubach dated November 1, 1990. 9. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON CITY COUNCIL MEETING PRO CESS. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin Northcraft dated November 7, 1990. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 10. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER 11. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Scheduling of December City Council Meeting. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin Northcraft dated November 7, 1990. (b) Notice of automatic vacancy on the Planning Commission. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated November 8, 1990. 12. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to discuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Coun- cil action tonight. 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 November 5, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 13, 1990 PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF COMMENDATION TO MEMBERS OF THE • HERMOSA BEACH CATV ADVISORY BOARD Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council, in recognition of their dedicated, unselfish, volunteer contributions to the community, present to the Cable Television Advisory Board, Certificates of Appreciation from the City, City Council, Staff, and the Community. Background: At your regularly scheduled meeting of October 23, 1990, the City Council approved Staff's recommendations to: 1) Accept the Final Report of the CATV Advisory Board; and 2) Accept as complete, the Duties and Responsibilities charged to the Board; and 3) Accept the attached resignations, and discharge Board. the The Board was appointed in October of 1987. Initially, all twelve (12) applicants were appointed to serve as Board members, for an initial period not to exceed six (6) months. During the first year, due to conflicting work schedules, and other commitments, the Board dissolved to only five (5) members. During the next two (2) years, in addition to producing, circulating and compiling their own CATV Subscriber Survey, the Board continued to pursue the realization of their dream of Public Access. That dream has become a reality for the citizens of both Hermosa and Manhattan Beaches, as a direct result of the diligent efforts of the Board. In cooperation with MultiVision's Operational Manager, Chantal Hargis, Production Manager John Atkinson, and General Manager John Merritt, Hermosa Beach residents can now take a certification class, and become a Public Access producer. Also, as a result of the recommendation by the Board, a consulting firm was hired, at the expense of the Cable Operator, to conduct a compliance audit and analysis. Based on the results of that audit, the Board made several recommendations to the City Council. Among other significant contributions made by the Board, Consumer Protection Standards were drafted, and upon recommendation by the Board, were subsequently adopted by the Council in June of 1990. The last responsibility of the Board was to compile a Final Cable Television Report. This report consists of 750 pages of resource material, research, Board actions, discussions and minutes in chronology order. On October 23, 1990, the Final Cable Television Report was submitted to Council for acceptance. Copies of the report will be on file with the General Services Department, City Clerk and Hermosa Beach Public Library. This document will serve as an excellent historical and reference record for future discussions with MultiVision. Analysis: Staff proposed and the Council agreed that all of the Cable Television Advisory Board members would be recognized and commended for their outstanding service, dedication and contributions to the City. Letters of commendation will be sent to the following past seven (7) Board members: R. Sylvia Barton, Susan Hay, Barbara Jean Holland, John A. McIntyre, D. Scott Rosenberg, Dr. S. Roy Schubert and C. Evan Wright. Formal Certificates of Appreciation will be presented to the resigning five (5) Board members: Charlotte Malone, Robert Fleck, Stephen Gach, Christopher M. Rowe and Jane Allison -Fleck. Respectfully Submitted, Cynthia Wilson Director, General Services by Michele D. Tercero Administrative Aide Concur: Cynthia Wilson Director, General Services evin B. Northc'aft City Manager MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, October 23, 1990, at the hour of 7:32 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Dee Strange and students from Hermosa Valley School ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Essertier, Midstokke, Wiemans, Mayor Sheldon Absent: None PROCLAMATIONS Red Ribbon Week, October 22 - 27, 1990 Mayor Sheldon presented the Proclamation to Dee Strange, accept- ing on behalf of the 740 students of Hermosa Valley School, who introduced Officer Thompson of the Hermosa Beach Police Depart- ment, who announced that Thursday, October 25, 1990, was "Wear Red Day" as a pledge to not use drugs, he then asked the students from Hermosa Valley School to give red ribbon wristbands to the Council Members. Buckle -up for Life Challenge, November 1, 1990 through 1991 Mayor Sheldon read the Proclamation stating that there was a sig- nificant decrease in injuries and deaths when seat belts and child saving seat restraints were used. OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER: Rachel Gaines Public Works Department Mayor Sheldon presented a plaque to Rachel Gaines, in recognition of her outstanding work and her thirty-five years of service with the City of Hermosa Beach. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve the Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (h) with the exception of the following item which was pulled for discussion but is listed -in order for clarity: (f) Essertier. Motion Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on October 9, 1990. Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos. 34814, 34944, and 34948 through 35101 inclusive, noting voided warrants Nos. 34952, 34953, 34954, 34974, 35016, and 35017; and to cancel certain warrants as recommended by the City Treasurer. Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. Recommendation to receive and file the September, 1990 Financial Reports: • Page 1 Minutes 10-23-90 la u 1) Revenue and Expenditure Report; 2) City Treasurer's Report. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #21580 for a two -unit condominium at 833 Loma Drive. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 15, 1990. Action: To adopt Resolution NO. 90-5417, entitled, HARESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA,-, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP # 21580 FOR A TWO - UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 833 LOMA DRIVE, HER- MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. Recommendation to receive and file Quarterly review of Capital Improvement Projects through September 30, 1990. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated October 11, 1990. Supplemental letter from City Treasurer, Gary Brutsch, dated October 22, 1990, in.op- position `to bonded indebtedness for Capital Improvement needs. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Coun- cilmember Essertier for separate discussion later in the meeting. Action: To receive and file the Quarterly review of Capital Improvement Projects through September 30, 1990, that include: 1) CIP 85-137 - FAU, Overlay Valley, Ardmore, and Prospect; 2) CIP 89-141 — Street Rehabilitation; 3) CIP 89-142 - Sidewalk Repairs; 4) CIP 90-144 - Replace Strand Wall and Walkway; 5) CIP 89-146 - Street Median Upgrades; 6) CIP 89-148 - Trash Enclosures Downtown; 7) CIP 89-150 - Misc. Traffic Signal Improvements; 8) CIP 89-151 - Traffic Engineering Program; 9) CIP 89-170 - Slurry Sealing; 10) CIP 88-201.- Street Lighting Upgrades; 11) CIP 88-406 - Sanitary Sewer Improvements, Tar- get Area 4; 12) CIP 13) CIP 14) CIP 15) CIP 16) CIP 17) CIP 18) CIP 19) CIP 20) CIP Locations; 21) CIP 22) CIP 23) CIP 24) CIP 89-506 88-508 90-511 89-512 89-516 89-517 89-518 89-601 89-604 87-606 89-609 89-615 90-616 Various Park Improvements; Park Irrigation Rehabilitation; Railroad Right -of -Way Parking Lot; Basketball Courts; Sixth Street and Prospect Park; Recreation Facilities; - Recreation Facilities; - Fuel Tanks; - Building Improvements at Various - Police Department Remodel; - Modular Furniture/Council Chairs; - Community Center Fire Alarms; -Earthquake Reinforcement of Clark Page 2 Minutes 10-23-90 (g) (h,) Building; and, 25) CIP 89-701 - City Parking Lot Improvements. And, to delete the reference on page 2, paragraph 5, to bonded indebtedness as a possible form of financing. Motion Essertier, second Midstokke. So ordered. Recommendation toreceive and file Energy Conservation report. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated October 16, 1990. Action: To receive and file the Energy Conservation Report that enumerated the implemented measures, based on an energy audit performed by the Southern California Edison Company, to reduce energy consumption at the City Hall, the Community Center, and the Clark Building. These measures focused on energy efficient lighting and showed a daily saving of 106.1 Kilowatt Hours for a $220 per month saving on electric bills. Recommendation to approve execution of a joint powers agreement between Hermosa Beach, other South Bay Cities, the County of Los Angeles, and the County Sanitation Districts of L.A. County for purpose of compliance with requirements of AB939 - state recycling law. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated October 16, 1990. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES (a) ORDINANCE NO. 90-1048 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO OS, OPEN SPACE, FOR THE CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF PROSPECT AVENUE BETWEEN 15TH AND 17TH STREET AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARA- TION. For adoption. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 90-1048. Motion Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Item (f) was discussed at this time but is listed in order for clarity. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None Councilmember Essertier informed the public that Proposition B, on the November ballot, would provide Hermosa Beach with $6,000,000 to repay the Greenbelt/Railroad Right -of -Way; $1,500,000 to rehabilitate the pier; and, additional cash for parks restoration, if passed. Mayor Sheldon reported on his attendance at a Mayor's workshop on the role of the City Council at the annual League of California Cities which began October 21, 1990. Page 3 Minutes 10-23-90 Due to the brevity of the previous actions and the publicized time of 8:00 P.M. for the start of the Public Hearings, a recess was called. The meeting recessed at 7:54 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:01 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AT 1081-85-87 AVIA- TION. BLVD, WITH RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 15, 1990. Supplemental draft minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of September 18, 1990, and supplemen- tal letter from Wanda S. Horn, 1111 Eighth Street, dated October 22, 1990. Director Schubach presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. The public hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak in favor of the appeal were: Jim Marquez - 1860 South. Elena, Redondo Beach, representing the appellant Paul Phillips - Co -consultant for the appellant Wanda Horn - 1111 Eighth Street Sheila Donahue Miller - 77 Seventeenth Street Bob Du Pre — 1127 Fourteenth Street Coming forward to speak against the appeal were: Bernice Lindo - 1232 Corona Street, who submitted a paper listing the auto related businesses in the area Ray Martin - 1255 Corona Street, who submitted a petition against the appeal containing 62 sig- natures, and stated that he had counted 59 junked autos visible in the area Maurice Beaudet - 1203 Eleventh Street, who submitted a petition against the appeal con- taining 85 signatures Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street Tonya Beaudet - 1203 Eleventh Street The public hearing was closed. Action: To uphold the Planning Commission, deny the appeal, and adopt Resolution No. 90-5418, entitled, 'IA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONCURRING WITH THE PLANNING COMMIS- SION DECISION TO DENY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PRE- CISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUEST FOR AN AUTO BODY REPAIR AND PAINTING ESTABLISHMENT AT 1081 TO 1087 AVIATION, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 49 AND 50, AND THE SOUTHERLY 58 FEET OF LOTS 47 AND 48, HERMOSA HEIGHTS TRACT." Motion Creighton, second Wiemans. Page 4 Minutes 10-23-90 Proposed Substitute Action: To refer the matter back to the Planning Commission to review the staff alternative proposal, and to have staff contact the Air Quality Man- agement District to determine how, or if, odors can be controlled. Motion Wiemans. Motion died for lack of a second. Proposed Substitute Action: To refer the matter back to the Planning Commission with the direction that there is merit in the appeal, but in its present form it is unac- ceptable, and to request that the Commission determine the conditions that could be placed on the proposal that would allow it to be agreeable to the neighboring resi- dents and to the appellant. And, to continue the appeal to the meeting of November 27, 1990. Motion Mayor Sheldon, second Essertier. Motion failed due to the objections of Creighton, Midstokke, and Wiemans. Following a call for the question by Midstokke, seconded by Creighton, the motion on the floor was brought to a vote. The main motion was so ordered, noting the objections of Essertier and Mayor Sheldon. The meeting recessed at 9:15 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:22 P.M. 6. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY AMBIGUITYIN ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADDING "MOTORCYCLE SALES" AND "MOTORCYCLE PARTS AND ACCESSORIES (NEW), RETAIL SALES" TO THE COM- MERCIAL PERMITTED USE LIST SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WITH ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION. Memorandum from: Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 15, 1990. Director Schubach presented the staff report. and re- sponded to Council questions. The public hearing was opened. There being no one wishing to speak on this matter, the public hearing was closed. Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 90-1049. Motion Essertier, second Creighton. So ordered. Final Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 90-1049, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT TO ADD MOTORCYCLE SALES AND MOTORCYCLE PARTS SALES AS PERMITTED USES IN THE C-3 ZONE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION." Motion Creighton, second Essertier. Page 5 Minutes 10-23-90 AYES: Creighton, Essertier, Midstokke, Wiemans, Mayor Sheldon NOES: None 7. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR DISPLAY IN COM- MERCIAL ZONES, WITH ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION. Memo- randum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated October 16, 1990. Director Schubach presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. The public hearing was opened. Coming forward to address the Council on this matter were: Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey, opposed Wilma Burt 1152 Seventh Street, opposed Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place, opposed Parker Herriott - 224 Twenty-fourth Street, opposed Wesley Bush - Chamber of Commerce, concerned about the effect on the Chamber's proposed bi-annual outdoor sales; informed that the Chamber's pro- posals were special events and not ongoing sales. The public hearing was closed. Action: To approve the Planning Commission recommenda- tion to make no changes in the present City Code. Motion Essertier, second Midstokke. So ordered, noting the objection of Creighton. EXPEDITING OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND PUBLIC COM- MUNICATION OPPORTUNITIES. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated September. 20, 1990. (Con- tinued from September 25, 1990 meeting to hold a public hearing.) City Manager Northcraft presented the report and re- sponded to Council questions. The public hearing'was opened. Coming forward to speak on this matter were: Tom O'Leary - Redondo Beach, objected to the term "audience", wanted the Council to use the term "citizen participators", and wanted to speak at the start of the meeting. Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, wanted citizen participation at the start of the meeting Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place, Hermosa Beach Council is "unfriendly", Manhattan Beach Coun- cil format is good Parker Herriott - 224 Twenty-fourth Street, wanted to be able to speak on every item on the agenda Shirley Cassell 611 Monterey Blvd., wanted the Council to limit their own speaking time to three minutes - Page 6 Minutes 10-23-90 June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, did not think it was fair to people attending the Public Hearings to have to wait in order to allow those who dropped in to speak early, also, felt that all written comments and let- ters should be listed on the agenda Jim Lissner 2715 El Oeste Drive, wanted all letters and written''' comments listed on the agenda, and to talk at the start of the meeting The public hearing was closed. Action: To suspend the formal proceedings and just dis- cuss this item informally. Motion Essertier, second Wiemans. So ordered, noting the objection of Creighton. Straw Votes: (agreement or disagreement is shown only as there had been no return to formal proceedings) Page No. 1, Report -- Recommendations Item 1 - Yes, Adhere to City policies Item 2 - No consensus, revised agenda Item 3 - Yes, "Welcome.." brochure. Item 4 - No, Speaker request forms. Item 5 - No, City Attorney as Parliamentarian, (the City Clerk shall be the chief Parliamentarian, assisted by the C.A. if needed) Item 6 - Yes, Closed sessions shall recess at 7:20 if not completed Item 7 - Yes, Meeting recesses shall be limited to 10 minutes Page No. 4, Report -- Alternatives Item 1 - Yes, Oral communications, citizens shall have one minute each to comment on any non-public hearing item on the agenda or any subject within Council jurisdiction at the start of the meeting Item 2 - Yes, Voting machine, without speaker's timer light (Creighton/Wiemans object) Item 3 - No, Staff table Item 4 - Yes, Mayor's discretion for public discus- sion on municipal items Item 5 - No, Meeting proceduretraining for Councilmembers Item 6 - No, Parliamentarian (see 5 above) Final Action: To have the item returned with the agreed upon changes, and to continue the public hearing to the meeting of November 13, 1990. Motion Creighton, second Mayor Sheldon. So ordered. Page 7 Minutes 10-23-90 MUNICIPAL MATTERS 9. FINAL REPORT OF CABLE TV BOARD. Memorandum from General Services Director Cynthia Wilson dated October 15, 1990. Director Wilson presented the staff report and responded to Coun- cil questions. Addressing the Council on this matter was: Charlotte Malone - 260 Thirty-first Street, Chair- person of the Cable Television Advisory Board, who submitted the final report, of approximate- ly 750 pages, from the CATV Board Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: 1) accept the -final report of the. CATV Advisory Board; and 2) accept as complete, the Duties and Responsibili- ties charged to the, Board; and 3) accept the attached resignations, and discharge the Board. Also, to direct staff to have commendations prepared for the meeting of November 13, 1990, to be presented to the - CATV Advisory Board members. Motion Essertier, second Creighton. So ordered 10. APPROVAL OF LORETO PLAZA AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT. Memo- randum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated October 17, 1990. Director Antich responded to Council questions. Addressing the Council on this matter were: Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place, wants Plan- ning Commission study Shirley Cassell 611 Monterey Blvd., opposed. Wilma Burt - 1152 Seventh Street, wants Planning Commission study Proposed Action: To approve the staff recommendation to prepare a license/lease agreement for City Council ap- proval to allow for enclosed air space, including the standard fee (currently $.50 per square feet, per month) . Motion Creighton, second Mayor Sheldon. Motion failed due to the objections of Essertier, Midstokke, and Wiemans. Action: To send the matter to the Planning Commission for review and the development of a Conditional Use Permit. Motion Creighton, second Wiemans. So ordered. 11. ABATEMENT PROCEDURE FOR STRUCTURES IN RIGHT-OF-WAY - NORTH HERMOSA AVENUE. Memorandum from Public Works Di- rector Anthony Antich dated October 16, 1990. Page 8 Minutes 10-23-90 Director Antich presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Addressing the Council on this matter was: Janet Hamilton - 3417 Hermosa Avenue, approved of the abatement procedure; presented photographs to show trash problem. Proposed Action: To approve staff recommendation No. 1, to have the city staff red tag the existing illegal wooden trash enclosures located in the public street right-of-way along the west side of north Hermosa Avenue; but, to extend the time deadline on recommenda- tion No. 2, from November 15, 1990 to June of 1991 be- fore staff removes any remaining trash enclosures. Motion Midstokke. Motion died due to the lack of a second. Proposed Action: To approve staff recommendations Nos. 1 and 2. Motion Essertier, second Wiemans. Motion failed due to the objections of Creighton, Midstokke, and Mayor Sheldon. Action: To approve staff recommendation No. 1, but ex- tend the time deadline on recommendation No. 2 to March 1, •1991. And, to direct staff to begin rapidly .on abatement proceedings for other areas of the city where similar problems exist. Motion Mayor Sheldon, second Essertier. So ordered 12. RECOMMENDATION TO SUPPORT THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CIT- IES ',OPERATION BUDGET FREEDOM,' TO ELIMINATE CITY FUNDS BEING USED TO BALANCE THE STATE'S BUDGET. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated October 18, 1990. City Manager Northcraft reported on California State Senate Bill 2557, which would shift certain City revenues to the Counties to make up for a cut in State funding, and would cost Hermosa Beach over $100,000 in this fiscal year alone. Action: To approve the staff recommendation. Motion Creighton, second Wiemans. So ordered. 13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER City Manager Northcraft reported: 1) there would be an Adjourned Regular Meeting on Tuesday, October. 30, 1990, at 7:00 P.M. to have a workshop on the User Fee Study; and 2) since the Council had not approved item No. 7, "Outdoor Display in Commercial Zones", enforcement of the prohibition of such displays would be rein- stated; and Page 9 Minutes 10-23-90 3) this would be the last meeting in this calendar year that would be attended by Laurie Duke, the Executive Secretary to the City Manager and City Council, as she was scheduled for knee surgery in November. 14. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Report on validation of Biltmore site referendum. Memo- randum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated October 17, 1990. City Clerk Doerfling presented a Certificate of Suf- ficiency for a Referendum protesting the passage of Or- dinance No. 90-1043, which changed the permitted use of the Biltmore site from a hotel to mediumdensity residential. The Certificate of Sufficiency showed: Number of unverified signatures 1,798 Number of signatures verified 1,650 a. Number of signatures qualified 1,326 b. Number of signatures not qualified 324 c. Percentage of those verified. 80.36% City Clerk Doerfling further recommended that since November 13, 1990 is the date that was publicly an- nounced for consideration of this matter, and the Elec- tions Code does not require Council action at the time the• certification is presented, that the item be con- tinued to the meeting of November 13, 1990. Addressing the Council on this matter was: Parker Herriott - 224 Twenty-fourth Street, submitted a letter with attachments Action: To continue this item to the regular meeting of November 13, 1990. Motion Creighton, second Essertier. So ordered. 15. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Request by Councilmember Creighton for discussion of newsletter. Concern was expressed by the Council that staff confine the City Newsletter to program activities, up -coming events, and non-political City activity. No action was taken. CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Coming forward to address the Council were: Rene Burke - Redondo Beach, concerned about .recycling, wants "double barreling" in public areas, with one container for trash and the second for recyclable items Howard Longacre -' 1221 Seventh Place, concerned about hotel parking lot being 30 feet below sea Page 10 Minutes 10-23-90 level Parker Herriott - 224 Twenty-fourth Street, should have the right to speak on every item; the Farmer's Market sign on Pier Avenue is illegal; announced there will be a hearing in November on the noticing for the hotel for the Coastal Commission Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., concerned about graffito on the memorial to the Chal- lenger astronauts and graffiti on the ocean side of the Strand wall Sheila Donahue Miller 77 Seventeenth Street, concerned that there had been no Environmental Impact Report on the hotel June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, concerned with changes to the agenda format Tom O'Leary - Redondo Beach, opposed to the hotel ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Wednesday, October 24, 1990, at the hour of 12:48 A.M., to an Adjourned Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, October 30, 1990, at the hour of 7:00 P.M. Deputy City Clerk Page 11 Minutes 10-23-90 //-/3 -96 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, October 30, 1990, at the hour of 7:05 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - William Grove, Director of Building and Safety ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Essertier, Midstokke, Wiemans, Mayor Sheldon Absent: None 1. WORKSHOP OF USER FEE STUDY - Memorandum from City Man- ager Kevin B. Northcraft dated October 25, 1990. Mayor Sheldon advised the Council and the public that this was a workshop session, intended to allow any questions to be answered concerning the user fee study, and that no decisions would be made at this time. a. Introduction - City Manager Northcraft City Manager Northcraft reported: 1) The goal of this study was to identify user fees in only four key departments; Building, and Safety, Planning, Public Safety (Police and Fire Depart- ments), and Public Works. The consultants had worked with the departments involved to determine the actual cost of the procedure, and staff had supplied the recommendation for the fee. 2) The service fee policy considered the fact that these fees were for some special service that bene- fited only one person or group, not the city as a whole, and a charge for the special service freed tax monies for city services that benefited the entire citizenry, such as street or sewer repairs. 3) The criteria for setting fees included: elasticity, subsidization, economic incentives, competitive restraints, the policy and fee in other cities, and the "ridiculous factor"; these combined to attempt to determine a balance between the actual cost of the service and a point where people would say, "That's ridiculous to pay that amount for...". 4) The fee adjustment procedure criteria would in- clude: the process by which fees are established should be set by ordinance; the actual amount of the fees should be set by a master resolution that lists the amount of all user fees for ease of ad- ministration, accessibility and updating; the fees should have a minimum automatic adjustment annual- ly; other adjustments and/or fees for unanticipated requests would be set by the City Council. 5) The impact of the recommended fees would be: an increase in 33 existing fees; a decrease in 11 ex- isting fees; the establishment of 23 new fees; and Page 1 Minutes 10-30-90 Ia2) a $250,000 decrease in taxpayer subsidy of special services. b. Consultant's Study - Brad Wilkes, Erin Payton, David M. Griffiths Associates The consultants, Brad Wilkes and Erin Payton; Building and Safety Director, William Grove; Planning Director, Michael Schubach; Public Safety Director, Steve Wisniew- ski; and Public Works Director, Anthony Antich, respond- ed to Council questions. The meeting recessed at 9:00 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:08 P.M. c. Staff's fee recommendations - Finance Director Viki Copeland Finance Director, Vicki Copeland, responded to Council questions. 2. NAMING OF NEW BASKETBALL COURTS - Memorandum from Com- munity Resources Director. Mary Rooney dated June 25, 1990. Director Rooney presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Proposed Action: To name the new basketball courts, soon to be completed at Clark Building, in honor of Lo- gan Cotton. Motion Mayor Sheldon, second Wiemans. Motion failed due to the objections of Creighton, Essertier, and Midstokke. Action: To direct staff to prepare an appropriate plaque, to be presented to Mr. Cotton in honor of his ninetieth birthday and his many years of service to Her- mosa Beach. Motion Midstokke, second Creighton. So ordered. PUBLIC COMMENT Councilmember Creighton raised a question regarding the 42 condi- tions that had been placed on the proposed hotel to be construct- ed on the Strand; Mayor Sheldon directed staff to identify any changes of a ministerial nature that may have occurred. Councilmember Creighton requested that the full Council meet with the oil developer, Mr. Macpherson, in a regular open.session to discuss any perceived "breach of contract". No action was taken. There was no other member of the public wishing to speak. Page 2 Minutes 10-30-90 ADJOURNMENT The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned on Tuesday, October 30, 1990, at the hour of 9:51 P.M., to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, November.13, 1990, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. Deputy City Clerk Page 3 Minutes 10-30-90 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 PAY—VENDOR—NA CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 AMOUNr :ice -9n -J PAGE 0001 DATE 11/08/90 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP p� 2 3 4 H DAVID G.*COFFEY 03677 001-400-1132-4201 00058 $4,635.00 00956 34945 li CITY PROS SERV/SEP 90 10/09/90 CTY PROSECUTOR /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90: J 6 - I*** VENDOR TOTAL a tatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatat*atatatatat'fatatatatatatatat*******stat#atatatai•9t*iteFetdtet#dtatatit3tatatit $4,635.00 . - .. 10 11 2 H CPRS PARK OPERATIONS 03426 001-400-4601-4316 00144 $30.00 00718 34946 i- SEMINAR REG/C. BELSER 10/09/90 COMM RESOURCES /TRAINING $0.00 11/08/90:: 13 14 atatat VENDOR TOTAL ********** tataaatatatatat#atatatat*****************************************at** $30.00 r !• - 18 1. 20 ,I H LEAGUE DF CALIFORNIA CITIES 03261 110-400-3302-4316 00192 $75.00 00284 35107 .,- SEMINAR REG/C. WILSON 11/08/90 PARKING ENF /TRAINING $0.00 11/08/90:4 21 22 atatat VENDOR TOTAL #atatat*atatat****afar*******afar*******afar****afar************afar*******afar******* $75.00 2.3 26 27 29 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00439 $85.818.62 35103 I'' RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT - $0.00 11/08/903: 29. 3", H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS.- 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00440 515,168.58CR 35103 RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/08/903 33 3.,,' H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00441 $70,948.99CR 35103 RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/08/905,41 -. H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00442 $72.610.09 35106 RETIREMENT ADV/OCT 90 11/07/90 RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/08/9044454 42. H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 105-400-2601-4180 00135 $711.70 35103 46 RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 STREET LIGHTING /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/08/904. 41, - H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 109-400-3301-4180 00005 $144.85 35103 50 II RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 VEH PKG DIST /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/08/905 52 I..�53 PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 110-400-3302-4180 00136 55,038.12 . 35103 RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 PARKING ENF /RETIREMENT$0.00 11/08/90,,,JI ::1 S,) 4 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS.. 00026 145-400-3401-4180 00109 $57.70 35103 S6 -. RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 DIAL A RIDE /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/08/906; 61 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 145-400-3402-4180 00109 $19.42 35103 62 „ RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 ESEA /RETIREMENT- $0.00 11/08/906; 65 S: 66 11 - 6]611I 70 7, 14 72 73 75' llb J 0 0 0 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME16:05:21 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 PAGE 0002 DATE 11/08/90 [' —•-----•• •-•-.•— R —ACC ..,.', OUNT NUMBER TRN if MilUUN1 ilMV/I tr ru TV—__ctiK--It DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP ,'N 2 3 4 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 145-400-3403-4180 00054 $17.13 35103 RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 BUS PASS SUBSDY /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/08/90; 5 6 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 155-400-2102-4180 00107 $120.52 35103 RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 CROSSING GUARD /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/08/9012 9 ,a i H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS., 00026 160-400-3102-4180 00134 $940.72 35103 -- — _ RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 SEWER/ST DRAIN /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/08/90;: ,3 ,4 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 90 —_ — _ 00026 170-400-2103-4180 00008 $4,172.02 35103 10/23/90 __ SPEC INVESTGTNS /RETIREMENT r $0.00 11/08/90;: 17 ,6 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 705-400-1209-4180 00058 $236.57 35103 RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 LIABILITY INS /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/08/9024 21 22 1• H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 705-400-1217-4180 00058 $304.22 35103 I:1I RETIREMENT/SEP 90 10/23/90 WORKERS COMP /RETIREMENT $0.00 11/08/902; 25 20 2. *** VENDOR TOTAL ********** t•************ ****** ************at-**** ****************** $84,074.11 30 3, 32 33 H SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00400 110-300-0000-3302 36834 $453.00 00271 34947 34 CITATION COURT BAIL 10/09/90 /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 11/08/9035 3,7 H SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00400 110-300-0000-3302 36835 $418.00 00273 35102 3'i CITATION,COURT BAIL 10/22/90 /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 11/08/9034 _: 41 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $871.00 • 42 43 4, 45 H STEVE*WISNIEWSKI 01364 170-40072103-4322 00029 $23,500.00 00975 35104 46 SPEC INVESTIGATION FUNDS 10/30/90 SPEC INVESTGTNS /UNCLASSIFIED $0.00 11/08/90:; ., -49 •*** VENDOR TOTAL ***** ******** ***************** ********* ************************* $23,500.00 50 5, 52 ;:e .7, 53 *** PAY CODE TOTAL#**#************##*****•tt*•st****• *****#*•u•******at•******#**#*• *#•u•*#**aa $113,185.11 54 55 56 14 45 57 R _ 1 DAY PAINT AND BODY CENTERS 03509 001-400-4101-4311 00119 $506.87 - .181560 10875. 35111 56 AUTO REPAIR/PLANNING 81560 10/25/90 PLANNING /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 11/08/90:: •:5 11 4 B 61 *** VENDOR TOTAL ** *********•***** ************** *********** ***************** **** t $506. 87 62 . 63 64 4^ 3: S7 - 65 R A & E TROPHIES 02744 001-400-1101-4319 00091 $20.28 00102 35112 66 MISC. CHARGES/OCT 90 20/31/90 CITY COUNCIL /SPECIAL EVENTS $0.00 11/08/90:p 53 69 70 71 72 77 /3 74 - - - - 75 77 .7 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 -----PAY----VENDOR—NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 VND—# ACCOUNT—NUMBER ---TRAMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION A & E TROPHIES MISC. CHARGES/OCT 90 PAGE 0003 DATE 11/08/90 r INV/REF PO—# --CHK # 1' AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 3 02744 001-400-4601-4308 00450 $91.59 00102 35112 10/31/90 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL*#at*#**#*#*at#**##****##*****###*##**##*#*#*#*#####*#**##****#*##***# $111.87 7 9 b 0 KATHRYN*ADAMS FALL PROGRAM REFUND 03724 001-300-0000-3826 01621 8284 10/29/90 $35. 00 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES 8284 00724 $0.00 35113 11/08/90 #*# VENDOR TOTAL ********************** ******************************************* 17 10 13 51 $35. 00 ADVANCED ELECTRONICS FREQUENCY TEST/MDT SYS 18067 00935 001-400-2101-4201 00678 $200.00 10/12/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 18067 00948 $200. 00 35114 11/08/90 ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 00935 001-400-2101-4201 UPGRADE/DISPATCH BASE 18073 10/12/90 POLICE *** VENDOR TOTAL*****#*#*###****************#***#*******###**#***#*******#**#**#**## 00679 $392.00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 18073 00945 35114 $392.00 11/08/90 • $592. 00 AHN'S RESTAURANT TEMPORARY BANNER REFUND 05959 03610 001-210-0000-2110 03951 10/25/90 $250. 00 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE 05959 11045 $0. 00 35115 11/08/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL*****#**#*#*****#****###****#********#**#*#**#*##**#***#****##*#**** R SCOTT*ALDEN ANIMAL TRAP REFUND 4953 $250. 00 03155 001-210-0000-2110 03953 $50.00 4953 11/01/90 .. /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE ** VENDOR TOTAL*-x•*#**##*##*#**##*####*#******#**#**#***###****#tr#***#*#*##**###***# $50. 00 00596 35116 $0.00 11/08/90 AMAZAHN ELECTRIC WORK GUARANTEE REFUND - 95617 03709 001-210-0000-2110 03948 $375.00 95617 00593 35117 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL**#**#****#*###****#****##*****#****#******##*##*#****##*#***#**##*# $375. 00 R AMERICAN STYLE FOODS 00857 001-400-2101-4306 00883 $75.50 MISC. CHARGES/OCT 90 5573 10/31/90 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE 5573 00105 $0. 00 35118 11/08/90 2 R 3 4 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 `r 24 25 26 27 VII .9 2 761 30. 31 r 32 33 34. 304. 36 60 41 42 a3 �. a 45 46 47 46 40 50 51 52 53 54 35 56 57 58 59 30 *** VENDOR TOTAL at*at*#*etatatatetetat**#;t.t*at*##tt-et**atatatatetetat#etatat*atat#atatet**atat##stn#at#at****at#atat*atat • $75. 50 LOR I*ANGELER I WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 03722 001-210-0000-2110 03942 $75.00 95523 00585 95523 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 35119 11/08/90 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 69 69 70 71 i 72 73 74 75VIld 446 79 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 PAGE 0004 DATE 11/08/90 ' -' .- .. PAY----VENDOR-NAME VND"#— ' —ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF' PU.f— CHA- • , DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 4 5 *** VENDOR TOTAL *********** I***.t#•3t•tt**************•****•****************************** $75.006• 7 A R ASAP FIRE PROTECTION 00250 001-400-4204-4201 00402 $150.00 26763 01056 35120 10 SEMI—ANN HOOD SYS SERV. 26763 10/23/90 BLDG MAINT /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $150.00 11/08/90 ........ *** VENDOR TOTAL********************************ata*************************stat******* $150.00 14 13 - 16 R ASPA INSURANCE PLANS 02218 001-400-1212-4188 01904 $115.00 07505-0500464 00061 35121 16 CITY HEALTH iNS/CTY MGR 00464 10/23/90 EMP BENEFITS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 11/08/900 • .. _ 21 *** VENDOR TOTAL ***************************************** s•****************** ****** $115.00 22 23 24 25 i. R AT & T 03423 001-400-2101-4304 00690 $5.92 00096 35122 26 LONG DIST/MOBILE PHONES 09/30/90 POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90227. *** VENDOR TOTAL ***-******#********************•** **•************************* ******* $5.92 '• 31 R • B & N ASSOCIATES 03688 001-210-0000-2110 03949 $375.00 95594 00590 35123 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 95594 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/9036 3/ R B & N ASSOCIATES 03688 001-210-0000-2110 03958 $1,550.00 95594 00586 35123 3A WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 95594 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/90 - 41 *** VENDOR TOTAL********************••**********•*****•*************•n•*•***************** $1,925.00 42 43 44 45 R BANK OF AMERICA 00180 001-400-1203-4201 00721 $231.05 01303 35124 46 L. OCT EXP/R. BLACKWOOD 10/31/90 PERSONNEL /CONTRACT.SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90�� 1.. 41; R BANK OF AMERICA 00180 001-400-2101-4316' 00613 $22.99 00982 35124 50 OCT EXP/S. WISNIEWSKI 10/31/90 POLICE /TRAINING $0.00 11/08/9052 R BANK OF AMERICA 00180 001-400-2101-4316 00614 $5.96 00958 35124 54 SEP EXP/S. WISNIEWSKI 09/30/90 POLICE /TRAINING $0.00 11/08/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL*************ate*it************************* ************************** $260.00 50 59 '45 60 61 R KRISTINA*BELL ' 03710 001-300-0000-3826 01612 $35.00 8256 35125 62 .,1, FALL PROGRAM REFUND 8256 • 10/15/90 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 11/08/906„; 65 66 .. .. 67 6N 69 ... 70 71 ... - - - 72 73 74 75 7.9, FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 • -----PAY—VENDOR—NAM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 VND-0-----ACCDUNT—NUMB AMOUNT PAGE 0005 DATE 11/08/90 ry DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 3 4 5 *** VENDOR TOTAL*************************************************4******************* $35.00 6 6 R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC. 02664 001-400-1207-4305 00213 $588.60 838 11036 35126 10 BUSINESS LICENSE FORMS 838 10/18/90 BUS LICENSE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $486.56 11/08/90;2 • 13 R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC. • 02664 001-400-4101-4305 00474 $42.70 839 10869 35126 BUS CARDS/L. HIRSH 839. 10/18/90 PLANNING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $42.70 11/08/90; *** VENDOR TOTAL *******# -1a##*********************************************************. $631.30 18 1 . 0 •-� - - 20 21 R BLICKMAN, INC. 03092 001-400-4601-4201 00654 $56.00 00032 35127 22 —. THEATRE TECH/10-15-90 10/18/90 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/9026 V 25 R BLICKMAN, INC. 03092 001-400-4601-4201 00655 $245.00 00738 35127 26 THEATRE TECH/OCT 16-21 10/22/90 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/902', -; 2u *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $301.00 3 31 32 3. OFCR DAVID*BOHACIK 01983 001-400-2101-4312 01534 $32.76 00874 35128 3 MILES/P. O. S. T. COURSES 10/29/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 11/08/90 J,fi 37 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************** ***************************** ***** $32.76 -- 39 40 R THOMAS*BOHLIN 00894 001-400-2101-4312 01535- $22.36 00876 35129 A2 MILES/INVESIGATION CLASS 10/29/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 11/08/90;6 1] *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $22.36 6 48 IC :., 49 R LOU*BOURGEOIS 03687 001-210-0000-2110 03955 $350.00 95559. 00588 35130 50 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 95559 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/903; �' - 53 LOU#BOURGEOIS 03687 001-210-0000-2110 03959 $1,525.00 95559 00587 35130 5a WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 95559 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/90;; :4 43 57 *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************************************************a************** $1,875.00 58 59 60 117 ,<1 1 61 R JEAN*BRIAN 03676 001-400-2101-4312 01536 $393.75 00868 35131 62 63 MEALS/HOTEL/POST CLASS 10/29/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 11/08/9064 ,' ".266 $1 V 65 .. .. .. 67 69 69 7071547212 73 J v Vi FINANCE—SFA340 TIME ,16: 05:21 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 PAGE 0006 DATE 11/08/90 --""--"" •""•••— ...... n n .�. .. v..0 ...• 1,s,' tt MI-IVVIV1 Lvivin f ru 69-------C,MA jF-7-, DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 *** VENDOR TOTAL a tatstat**at*****at***atat*****atarae***********•******et*****###at rst"tt••3ret##*** * t * - $393. 75 - 6 R BUREAU OF BUSINESS PRACTICE 00253 001-400-2101-4305 01377 $212.76 00967 35132 SUBSCRIPTION/POLICE 10/29/90 -_ POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 11/08/9012 9 10 atatar VENDOR TOTAL*****at***********•*********at********************#******************** $212. 76 14 15 16 R C. P. P. A. 00818 110-400-3302-4315 00037 $40.00 ,00282 35133 ANNUAL DUES/C. WILSON 10/25/90 PARKING ENF /MEMBERSHIP $0.00 11/08/90'9 17 1s *** VENDOR TOTAL at********at****at*********************at*at**at*at***************at*****at** $40.00 21 22 23 24 .., R THE#CALIF PARK & REC. SOCIETY 00602 001-400-4602-4316 00146 $74.08 007502. 35134 PUBLICATIONS/M. ROONEY 10/30/90 COMM RESOURCES /TRAINING $0.00 11/08/90:78 26 atatat VENDOR TOTAL*****************************#at*************************atat****atatatatatat $74.06 29 30 31 32 F R CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF MUN. 00590 001-400-1202-4315 00048 $65.00 00200 35135 ANNUAL DUES/V. COPELAND 11/06/90 FINANCE ADMIN /MEMBERSHIP $0.00 11/08/90;' 3J- 31 *atat VENDOR TOTAL a tat******************************************ureter#****at************** $65.00 3 4 1.. 41 R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 -001-400-2101-4303 00015• $21.18 01010 35136 42 WATER BILLINGS/OCT 90 10/31/90 POLICE /UTILITIES$0.00 11/08/90:14 R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-3101-4303 00115 $582.50 01010 35136 45 WATER BILLINGS/OCT 90 - 10/31/90 MEDIANS /UTILITIES $0.00 11/08/904, ,", 40 R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-4204-4303 00416 $460.16 01010 35136 50 WATER BILLINGS/OCT 90 10/31/90 BLDG MAINT /UTILITIES $0.00 11/08/90;; ," i-.• 53 R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-6101-4303 00324 $3.002.92 01010 35136 54 WATER BILLINGS/OCT 90 10/31/90 PARKS - /UTILITIES $0.00 11/08/905:„ .., I 57 *** VENDOR TOTAL**************atatat**ar**atat**at***4**at****ar***.*** ***********at********** $4,06676 53 62 60 �.7 ,., 61 R CRAIG*CASNER • 00332 001-210-0000-2110 . 03954 $375.00 95610 00594 35137 62 WORK"GUARANTEE REFUND 95610 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/9064 h –1 - .. 66 67 613 :a ';:- G9 70 71 72 i--. 73 74 I 75 3 a FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 PAGE. 0007 DATE 11/08/90 Li i 11 .— 1 INV/KW-PO $ CHK #—`\ -� .. ,.• .��(•. -..,,,,un nCCOGry I IMU Uj .K I I I' i4 PROJ DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP AMOUNT 2 3 4 *** VENDOR TOTAL •tt••x•**•u•*#•x••a•***•tt•et*#*•*•x•*****•x•*aa****##•tt•*#***•><••u•****#**#****#*****#*aa*#*#ea $375.00 5 5 7 0 R CERTIFIED OFFICE EQUIPMENT 00389 001-400-1208-5401 00021 $89.67 3201 08036 35138 CALCULATOR/M. HULL 3201 11/02/90 GEN APPROP /EQUIP—LESS THAN $500 $0.00 11/08/90;2 a 10 R CERTIFIED OFFICE EQUIPMENT 00389 001-400-2101-4305 01375 $30.43 01011 35138 MISC. CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 11/08/90;6 13 14 iritic VENDOR TOTAL . **t*** ****it*******#itis***** *iris************•x•*********************** $120. 10 - - - 1B IS 20 R CHAMPION CHEVROLET 00014 001-400-2101-4311 00997 $313.33 01012 35139 ,MISC CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 11/08/90:; 21 2' R CHAMPION CHEVROLET 00014 110-400-3302-4311 00638 $74.70 01012 35139 MISC CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 PARKING ENF /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 11/08/9026 25 26 *** VENDOR TOTAL **************************************************************iritic** $388.03 30 3,0 R PHILLIP*CHEN & JAMES OVERMAN 03714 001-300-0000-3211 00057 $250.00 593 11043 35140 34 TEMPORARY BANNER REFUND. 593': 10/25/90 /BANNER PERMITS $0.00 11/08/90;F 37 *41* VENDOR TOTAL ******iritic********************4************************************** $250.00 2._= 3a R RICHARD*CHERTOW 03252 001-210-0000-2110 03960 $1,525.00 83223 00591 35141 42 _! WORK GUARANTEE REFUND 83223 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/90 ***-VENDOR TOTAL **4ir*******iritic***********ir****************************************** $1,525.00 4 711 40 44+ R CHEVRON USA, INC. 00634 001-400-2101-4310 00280 $385.35 1417284419 01014 35142 3°, MISC CHARGES/OCT 90 84419 10/31/90 POLICE /MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES $0.00 11/08/90;' ***-VENDOR TOTAL*****************#*****************ir************************* ***** $385. 35 5, :, R COAST IRRIGATION CO. 00354 001-400-6101-4309 00971 $1,492.15 667 00449 35143 50 REP SPRINKLERS/GREENBELT 667 08/15/90 PARKS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $1,654.40 11/08/906; 61 *** VENDOR TOTAL iriririririfit�r•xiririririraririr •ir#inti*icer• irir• iriririririr#iHr*•ttir#ir>EiraHririr#iririririririr-sr*#iHriririririr $1,492.15 62 63 64 45 65 R DAVID G.*COFFEY 03677 001-400-1132-420100059 • $4,600.00 00981 35144 66 CITY PROSECUTOR/OCT 90 10/31/90 CTY PROSECUTOR /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/906', - 70 71 - 72 13 3 - -. 74 J .1 u V U FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 46:05;21 — ---PAY -VENDOR—NAME DESCRIPTION VND # DATE INVC CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0008 FOR 11/13/90 DATE 11/08/90 3 ACCOUNT—NUMBER --TRN #— AMOUNi 1NV7REF-- P0—# -----CHK WTh PROD # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 Ii 3 j *** VENDOR TOTAL#*****#********##*if#*#***#et##***et***##***##**##**#*****#*****##****# $4,600.00 6 7 R COM SYSTEMS, INC 00017 001-400-2101-4304 00689 $25.28 374-4625 01017 35145 LONG DIST/POLICE LINE —4625 10/31/90 POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL ********************************** ********** ********************** $25. 28 R RUTH*CONROY 03707 001-300-0000-3826 01619 $20.00 6158 ,00740 35146 FALL PROGRAM REFUND 6158 10/23/90 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 11/08/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL #####*at#stet######*at###at######31''.'7f##iF###################dE######dF####### $20. 00 r..t R OFCR NANCY#COOK 02173 001-400-2101-4316 00612 $24.00 MEALS/3 OFFICERS 10/29/90 00884 35147 POLICE /TRAINING • $0.00 11/08/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL****#****##**#*###*#*#*##iF*##***#***##*****#*#*#*****##*at***##*##**# $24.00 R VIKI.*COPELAND 00041. 001-400-1202-4317 00066 $30.00 REIMB TRAVEL EXPENSES 10/31/90 FINANCE ADMIN /CONFERENCE EXPENSE *** VENDOR TOTAL*******iF*#****#***##*****iF*#********#*#*#if*###if*#*****###***##*#*et* $30.00 00197 $0.00 35148 11/08/90 9 0 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31I 32 3 3'7 3C NICK*COURINOS ANIMAL TRAP REFUND 03719 001-210-0000-2110 03944 $50.00 7945 00598 35149 7945 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL #*#****##*#####****##******#*#*#****#**##****##*##**al•**#*#**#***#** $50.00 4•: 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 R CPOA FOUNDATION 03689 001-400-2101-4312 01526 $148.00 00897 35150 TUITION/4 POLICE EMP. 11/05/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 11/08/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL****#***#**#*****#*##***#*##******#*##*#*#*##**###**#****#*#*##*##* $148.00 49 49 50 5 52. 53 54 55 R CPDA/CPOERT TUITION/B. PHILLIPS 01796 001-400-2101-4312 01537 $72.00 10/31/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST 00882 35151 $0.00 11/08/90 4** VENDOR TOTAL**#**#**********#**#*#***#*##**#*#if**#****#**##***#***###***#*#**#** $72.00 55 57 50 60 6i 62 63 R CPRS SUPERVISORS' SECTION SEMINAR REG/T. EDISON 03706 001-400-4601-4316 00147 $30.00 00728 35152 10/17/90 COMM RESOURCES /TRAINING $0.00 11/08/90 64 65 66 67 60 69 70 J FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 -CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 PAGE 0009 DATE 11/08/90 rJ • • • • vrvu W ril,a,uUrv: NUMUMtc t MR w APiUUN I INV/REF PO # CHK DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP ,n,S•1` r T�.a yh•„lr j .S..Y 1 2 *at* VENDOR TOTAL***•3t•*•tt••m•tt•*#**ttn•sr•n***at****•tttt• '•7t* *•it• •##•tt•**•tt••tt••u•*** '*#**#**# •**at***ia•u•u•#**#•x• $30.00 6 7 6 R . BERTHA#CRAFT ' 03720 001-210-0000-2110 03943 $50.00 8586 00597 35153 ANIMAL TRAP REFUND , 8586 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/901 sr ° *** VENDOR TOTAL ***************•fit**************tea***it•lrtt••x******#*at******************** $50. 00 13 14 15 16 R CATHERINE*CRUDUP 03705 001-300-0000-3826 01620 $35.00 OB255 00725 35154 FALL PROGRAM REFUND 08255 10/15/90 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 11/08/90=8 17 16 *** VENDOR TOTAL**************aHt*********#****************************************** $35.00 21 22 23 2,1 R DATA SAFE 00156 001-400-1206-4201 00782 -$140.00 51759 00015 35155 TAPE"STRGE/OCT 12—NOV 11 51759 10/17/90 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90:,7 26 ***,-VENDOR TOTAL ****tat** *********************** t************** ***************** ** $140.00 2v ,o, 31 33 KAREN*DE SOTO 03704 110-300-0000-3302 36838 $15.00 929252 00195 35156 34 CITE PAYMENT REFUND 29252 10/17/90 /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 11/08/90 37 *** VENDOR TOTAL***************************************et**********at****at*****at****** $15.00 31^ 39 40 41 R EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY 02840 001-400-1208-4201 00696 *255.00 006M12800 00926 35157 42 MAINT/IBM 60/SEP 90 12800 • 10/07/90 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90;: 45 R- EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY 02840 001-400-1208-4201 00697 $280.40 006M12800 00926 35157 18 METER USE/AUG 90/IBM 60 12800 10/07/90 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90'6 *** VENDOR TOTAL at****at**************************ef*at* **************************** ** $535.40 50 31 53 R EASTMAN, INC. 02514 001-400-1208-4305 00823 $287.53 01025 35158 3d OFFICE SUPP/STOCK/OCT 90 10/31/90 GEN APPROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 11/08/907 :": R EASTMAN, INC. 02514 001-400-2701-4305 00014 $129.64 6713991 00959 35158 30 BINDERS/EMERG PROGRAM 13991 '" 10/12/90 CIVIL DEFENSE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 11/08/906c 61 *** VENDOR TOTAL*ater*ateHtatatatat•tt•*at•at*at• afat#*at>r•#at##at>t****atatatat*atatat#at• **at*atat*;taFat**atat '4#*atat*** - $417. 17 E2 r .. 63 64 3 R EASY READER 00181 001-400-1121-4323 00113 $1,320.65 0268 00927 35159 66 PUBLIC NOTICES/SEP 90 0268 09/30/90 - CITY CLERK /PUBLIC NOTICING $0.00 11/08/906; 69 701 - 72 _ 73 74 751 AINW00,4- J J r' J 1 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:0521. ------PAY--7—VENDOR—NA CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 J PAGE 0010 DATE 11/08/90 al • I r* uvim 1 111iv/f6 r ru w UMW •DESCRIPTION DATE INVC —PROJ #,.�1� ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP i\ 2 3 R EASY READER 00181 001-400-1203-4201 00720 $25.40 0268- 00927 35159 EMPLOYEE ADS/SEP 90 0268 09/30/90 PERSONNEL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT, $0.00 11/08/908 5 6 *** VENDOR TOTAL aHtatafataHtafafafafafataHtatateHt•atatatafafaHfat•x st###iHr•z••7t#•tt•#it##at##at#•u#*##*•x•#3r+.t#at•#it##eHF#•tt"iF $1,346.05 10 12 R EL CAMINO COLLEGE . 01469 001-400-2101-4316 00611 $30.00 AJ50J 00887 35160 TUITION/RESERVE OFCRS AJ50J 10/06/90 ' POLICE /TRAINING $0.00 11/08/90;; 13 14 *** VENDOR TOTAL * *************************.tat : **************tat ************•u•*****a *** $30. 00 . _ • . 17 1e 19 20 R MATTHEW*ELMES 03715 001-300-0000-3826 01611 $10.00 8325 00747 35161 FALL PROGRAM REFUND ' 8325 10/30/90 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 11/08/9024 21 22 *** VENDOR TOTAL a fatatatatafataHfat*at•u•##*#atat#aHt**at#*at#•u•**##*#at•rnat*##at#*at*##at#*at#*at#*at####**#at* $10.00 • 25 26 27 26 R STEVE*ENDOM 01034 001-400-2101-4312 01538 $33.28 00877 35162 •n MILES/ETHICS CLASS 10/17/90 POLICE /TRAVEL' EXPENSE , POST $0.00 11/08/903', 29 20 I... - *** VENDOR TOTAL af#afar###at###atatat•x•*at•••at*##atatatatat#*#at*atatatatatat4*akar#at##atat#at•n***#atat#•tt#at#*ataF*afar $33. 28 f 33 34 35 30 R ROBERT*EVANS 03712 . 001-210-0000-2110 03946 $250.00 3018 11041 35163 1,- TEMPORARY BANNER REFUND 3018 10/25/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/9048 37 36 $250k.. *** VENDOR TOTAL##afafatafaHHfar•afaHHHfaHHtaHHtafaHfataHfatafafaHfataHHfafaHfatafatatat#af#atatatatafataHtafafatatatatatatatafat#at 00 4!,. 4z 43 nn R FLEXIBLE SYSTEMS 01207 160-400-3102-4309 00544 $314.26 235543 01085 35164 SEWER RODDER VALVE 35543 11/01/90 SEWER/ST DRAIN /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/90;8 46 *** VENDOR TOTAL##atataFaEafat:f*at#afafaf#*afafafatafaf#aratafat##afataf#*aHfat#af*af#afataf*ataf#atafaHtafafaf*arat•afaf*ataf#at $314.26 2.1.1 50 51 r R THE#FORUM - - 03721 001-400-4601-4308 00452 - $509.50 - 00746 35165 EXCURSION TICKETS/CIRCUS 10/30/90 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/905: 52 53 34 *** VENDOR TOTAL **afar********* ****************** f###af***********af#at##aHHtat#at##******* $509.50 1.. - 57 56 59 60 R FRANKSONS, INC. 00010 110-400-3302-4311 00639 $289.87 18543 00249 35166 CUSHMAN WINDSHIELDS 18543 10/25/90 PARKING ENF /AUTO MAINTENANCE $275.59 11/08/90:4 ^ 61 62 '.. - •.1 65 66 67 .. 66 .. - .. - " 69 70 71 72 .. - 7q 73 74 3 J; J FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 -J� • PAGE 0011 DATE 11/08/90 r- . .-.. ' ..-.. ..-. .,f. 1VnrIc v1V1/ it MA.A.UVNI IVVfUCK INN if AMOUNT INV/REF PO # — CH - DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 *** VENDOR TOTAL *it**** tit#**it*******iterates'***it******************'*********************** $289. 87 R GANDALF DATA, INC. 01432 001-400-1206-4201 00781 $546.00 _ 41669 00018 35167 10 MODEM MAINT/OCT—DEC 90 41669 10/08/90 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90;; *** VENDOR TOTAL itis*stat****it*it*itat***'*****itis****itis*'*'*******itis******'*****it#'tt********.t*itis $546.00 14 15 16 17 R GATES, MCDONALD & COMPANY 02538 705-400-1217-4201 00088 $4,000.00 00044 35168 1B ADMIN SERV/OCT—NOV 90 11/01/90 WORKERS COMP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/902,, *** VENDOR TOTAL #itis*ititititatitititititit**ititit#it#*****it:titit*********it*#'*'itis********************* $4,000.00 1 21 22 23 24 R GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY 00058 001-400-4204-4309 01796 $461.05 845-308150 01042 35169 1 FAN MOTORS/CITY BLDGS 08150 10/12/90 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $389.43 11/08/90;,', 16 ***VENDOR TOTAL ititittt'ititititititititit#it?tit*itis#itititititatititititititititititiHtitit#ititit#it#ititit*ititititititifititititititititit $461.05 3: R GERBER AMBULANCE SERVICE 02897 001-400-2101-4201 00680 $295.50 109553 00968 35170 EMERG PRISONER SERVICES 09553 10/09/90 POLICE , /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90x. 34 *** VENDOR TOTAL ititititititititititititititititetitititit*itititititititatitititititititit.tititititit#itititititstitititititit*it*itititititititit $295.50 3: LORI*GONZALEZ 03718 001-210-0000-2110 03945 $100.00 6079 00583 35171 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND 6079 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/9042 41 ^' *it,* .VENDOR TOTAL '3t#'u*********************itis***************alit* '***itis****it***** t******* $100. 00 4e 47 - RGTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED .. 00015 001-400-1101-4304 00333 $5.86 318-0200 01132 35175 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV,90 —0200 11/01/90 CITY COUNCIL /TELEPHONE . $0.00 11/08/90'; 40 50 I R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1101-4304 00334 $9.39 01031 35175 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 CITY COUNCIL /TELEPHONE$0.00 11/08/90 63 54 R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1121-4304 00343 - $15.91 318-0200 01132 35175 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 —0200 11/01/90 CITY CLERK /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90;;, 57. 60 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1121-4304 00344 $23.06 - 01031 35175 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 CITY CLERK - /TELEPHONE - $0.00 11/08/90x, 61 62 .. ... / _ 06 66 67 60 69 70 71 72 -- - 73 74 75 ] fi J • FINANCE-8FA340 TIME 16i..05:21 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 PAGE 0012 DATE 11/08/90 rIT VCIVUUR NHrlt • VIU W AI.GUVN I Numuttl I KN If ANUUN I 1NV/KtP - - PO it CHK $ • DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP T. 2 3 4 R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1131-4304 00261 $8.37 318-0200 01132 35175 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 - CITY ATTORNEY /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/908 6 R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1131-4304 00262 $10.83 01031 35175 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 CITY ATTORNEY /TELEPHONE - $0.00 11/08/90 9 1O R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1141-4304 00365 $0.27 372-6186 01033 35175 FAX BILLING/OCT 90 -6186 10/31/90 CITY TREASURER /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90 14 5 R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1141-4304 00366 $15.91 318-0200 01132 35175 8 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 CITY TREASURER /TELEPHONE ` $0.00 11/08/9020 i 21 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1141-4304 00367 $23.71 01031 35175 22 L., TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 CITY TREASURER /TELEPHONE - $0.00 11/08/902. 25 R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1201-4304 00385 $1.29 372-6186 01033 35175 2C FAX BILLING/OCT 90 -6186 10/31/90 CITY MANAGER /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90; ]u R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1201-4304 00386 $13.40 318-0200 01132 35175 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 CITY MANAGER /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/9012 . R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1201-4304 00387 $19.06 01031 35175 3' TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 CITY MANAGER /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90 R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1202-4304 00395 $8.78 372-6186 01033 35175 FAX BILLING/OCT 90 -6186 10/31/90 • FINANCE ADMIN /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90. 1 41 R GTE CALIFORNIA, .INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1202-4304 00396 $48.57 - 318-0200 01132 35175 42 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 . FINANCE ADMIN /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90;; R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1202-4304 00397 $64.52 01031 35175 4A TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 - 10/31/90 FINANCE ADMIN /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/904n R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1203-4304 00399 $5.31 372-6186 01033 35175 5^ -- FAX BILLING/OCT 90 -6186 - 10/31/90 PERSONNEL /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/9052 .._-,. _... 53 •1 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1203-4304 00400 $20.10 318-0200 01132 35175 54. ,- DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 PERSONNEL /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/905„ 5T R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1203-4304 00401 $36.72 01031 35175 5'3.3 - TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 PERSONNEL /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90 61 R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1206-4304 00287 $1.69 372-6186 01033 35175 G2 - - FAX BILLING/OCT 90 -6186 10/31/90 DATA PROCESSING /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90 ' 60 - - 67 1 - OR 70 i:/• 71 72 ,. 73 74 ,n 75 ,. 70 l FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 PAGE 0013 DATE 11/08/90 �T 4(-11 vc,ruvn 1inr1c V'4U W PA ..UUN I NUVWtK I KN ;f AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHR—T1 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1206-4304 00288 $24.30 318-0200 01132• 35175 6 DIRECT DIAL CHCS/NOV 90 —0200 11/01/90 DATA PROCESSING /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/908 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1206-4304 00289 $161.68 01031 35175 1O TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 DATA PROCESSING /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90;12 13 • R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1207-4304 00227 $1.08 372-6186 01033 35175 14 FAX BILLING/OCT 90 —6186 10/31/90 BUS LICENSE /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90;; 17 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1207-4304 00228 $15.91 318-0200 ,01132 35175 16 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 —0200 11/01/90 - BUS LICENSE /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90;90 21 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1207-4304 00229 $25.12 01031 35175 22 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 BUS LICENSE /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/9024 25 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1208-4304 00095 $8.37 318-0200 01132 35175 26 — —_ DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 —0200 11/01/90 GEN APPROP /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/9028 2V R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-1208-4304 00096 $10.87. 01031 35175 3' .. TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 GEN APPROP /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90; 33 - R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2101-4304 00693 $335.10 318-0200 01132 35175 3'. I".- DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 —0200 11/01/90 POLICE !TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90 37 •f R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2101-4304 00694 $946.55 01031 35175 3'- TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90;9 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2201-4304 00304, $8.37. . 318-0200 01132 35175 42 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 —0200 11/01/90 FIRE /-TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/9044 ;.R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2201-4304 00305 $272.94 01031 35175 46 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 FIRE /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90 49 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2401-4304 00339 $11.72 ., 318-0200 01132 35175 5O _ — _ DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 —0200 11/01/90 ANIMAL CONTROL /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/903; 53 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-2401-4304 00340 $32.74 01031 35175 54 - TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 ANIMAL CONTROL /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90;a 57 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4101-4304 00398 $3.89 372-6186 01033 35175 56 ••; FAX BILLING/OCT 90 —6186 10/31/90 PLANNING /TELEPHONE - $0.00 11/08/9030 61 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4101-4304 00399 $40.20 318-0200 01132 35175 62 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 —0200 11/01/90 PLANNING /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/9065 .. .. - - 68 67 it 69 69 - - 70 71 72 73 74 75 25, J FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 PAY-- VENDOR 'NA CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 PAGE 0014 DATE 11/08/90 i. �,:• mi wvm, Low/REF ru W - ---LNK 8 ''DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # .... ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 11 2 4 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4101-4304 00400 $75.35 01031. 35175 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 '10/31/90 PLANNING /TELEPHONE$0.00 11/08/900 • 6 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4201-4304 00370 $0.33 372-6186 01033 35175 FAX BILLING/OCT 90 -6186 10/31/90 BUILDING /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90;2 9 0 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4201-4304 00371 $64.48 318-0200 01132 35175 DIRECT DIAL CHCS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 BUILDING /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90:: 3 14 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4201-4304 00372 - $108.37 ' ,,01031 35175 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 BUILDING /TELEPHONE$0.00 11/08/9020 17 18 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4202-4304 00407 $19.42 372-6184 01033 35175 FAX BILLING/OCT 90 -6186 10/31/90 PUB WKS ADMIN /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90:: 21 22 I-• r R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4202-4304 00408 $91.94 318-0200 01132 35175 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 PUB WKS ADMIN /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/9027,, 25 26 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4202-4304 00409 $280.78 01031 35175 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 PUB WKS ADMIN /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/9032 29 3° l .33 �•.I R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4204-4321 00527 $21.38 01031 35175 �. TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 BLDG MAINT /BUILDING SAFETY/SECURIT $0.00 11/08/90' 3' j., F R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4601-4304 00470 $0.27 372-6186 01033 35175 FAX BILLING/OCT 90 -6186 10/31/90 COMM RESOURCES /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90;0 37 38 1 1. IFIF R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4601-4304 00471• $25.42 318-0200 01132 35175 - DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 COMM RESOURCES /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90 1 4 j.: i:" R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-4601-4304 00472 $131.35 01031 35175 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 COMM RESOURCES /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/9017 43 46 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED. 00015 . 001-400-6101-4304 00280 $8.37 318-0200 01132 35175 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 PARKS /TELEPHONE $0.00. 11/08/90,12 49 5° ,- R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 001-400-6101-4304 00281 $10.73 01031 35175 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 • PARKS /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90'8 3 54 .. G ,- R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 109-400-3301-4304 00007 $10.00 - 01031 35175 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 VEH PKG DIST/TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/9080 57 10 R GTE CALIFORNIA. INCORPORATED 00015 110-400-3302-4304 00397 $3.37 372-6186 01033 35175 FAX BILLING/OCT 90 -6186 10/31/90 PARKING ENF /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/906: 61 62 4••66- ,Sy 51 65 67 60 ... ^4 69 70 71 72 '1f -79 73 74 JI L% J j J. A �.4 r FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 YAY--VENDOR-NAME VND # CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 CCOUNT-NUMBtk iRN-# INV/REF PAGE 0015 ..DATE 11/08/90 ,-1 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 3 4 5 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 110-400-3302-4304 00398 $100.50 318-0200 01132• 35175 6 DIRECT DIAL CHGS/NOV 90 -0200 11/01/90 PARK;NG ENF /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/908 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 110-400-3302-4304 00399 $171.75 01031 35175 to TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 PARKING ENF /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90;2 13 R GTE CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED 00015 145-400-3401-4304 00070 $4.16 01031 35175 14 TELE CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 DIAL A RIDE /TELEPHONE $0.00. 11/08/90;6 i..�***'VENDOR TOTAL*****et*******ar*******ar*****at****statetsteteteteteHtetstsrereHeetetetetst>tatarstetsr •atetetatarstatet $3,359.56 16 ...I - .. 19 20 21 R GTEL 01340 001-400-2101-4304 00688 $51.56 1778129 01034 35176 22 EQUIP RENTAL/OCT 90 78129 10/22/90 POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/902,' 25 ##at VENDOR TOTAL ***********###**######**** t####*********9r*##*** *9t##*##3t3F3!•jF*****at# $51. 56 26 27 26 29 ,r,R ELIZABETH*GUILD 03703 001-300-0000-3826 01614. $54.00 06181 00730• 35177 3tr FALL PROGRAM REFUND 06181 10/17/90 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 11/08/90;; etetsr VENDOR TOTAL **********at***************##**tett####**at****#***###at*********** **-*it $54.00 31 ]5 L L R HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO. 00731 001-400-3103-4311 00613 $205.98 1C15449 01041 35178 ELGIN SWEEPER PARTS 15449 10/04/90 ST MAINTENANCE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $202.28 11/08/90 37 3_ R HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO. 00731 001-400-3103-4311 00614. $323.38 1C15548 01070 35178 ELGIN SWEEPER PARTS - 15548 10/17/90 ST MAINTENANCE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $323.38 11/08/9043 41 42 44 at#•* VENDOR TOTAL ;tet#et*stet**enter-##:taa#stater#*#at##stet##3t##et*#**#st**.t#stet#stater.tat#*at*eratat*ie*it#et**;t $529.36 . - - - - I-� - 45 46 47 46 R HARBOR CITY ENTERPRISES, INC.. 03571 001-400-2101-4311 00996 $276.60 24464 01076 35179 MISC. CHARGES/OCT 90, 24464 10/31/90 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 11/08/9051 44, 50 *** VENDOR TOTAL stst>Estst*st**st#stst*st*#*stststsrstat*at**#sraratstat*sr*#*atatstsr*st*#st*st*#srst*sratst**atstst*stst** $276.60 53 54 35 5. (•: R HEIMAN FIRE EQUIPMENT. INC. 03681 001-400-2201-4311 00368 $51.03 081946 11244 35180 `_ WHEEL CHOCKS/ENGINE 11 81946 10/20/90 FIRE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $51.35 11/08/9060 57 50 17 *** VENDOR TOTAL a tsrstatststsFSHtaratatsrsr*atat*arar*srst*starefararstarsrstsratstatatst*arefatatstsrststatatstatar*ararstsrstsrat*statatststat $51.03 .. 82 63 64 R HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 00149 001-400-1206-5401 00018 $437.68 7Y45233 09556 35181 -.1 BAR CODING. WAND 45233 10/19/90 DATA PROCESSING /EQUIP -LESS THAN $500 . - $0.00 11/08/90:: 65 66 -•. • 70 71 ' 72 73. 74 75I Zi J 5J aJ 46.1 X11 1 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 PAGE 0016 DATE 11/08/90 Ll GI\ I R19 +. Mi luvIV l uwi ncr ru w CHA IF ! DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP _ 1 2 4 ### VENDOR TOTAL-*•tt•*****##########**###**#**•;t###•3t***#***###*#x#**#*4##*ae-tt*##• ##•tt-#**** $437.68 6 R ICMA 00205 001-400-1201-4305 00175 $427.00 219287 09182 35182 SUBSCRIPTION/CTY MGR 19287 10/10/90 CITY MANAGER /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 11/08/9012 10 ### VENDOR TOTAL******######******##############################******########•*##### $427.00 - - 13 14 13 16 R IDENTICARD SYSTEMS INC 02001 001-400-2101-4201 00681 $201.00 700963 -35183 ANNUAL SERV AGREEMENT 10/17/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/9020 17 16 ### VENDOR TOTAL*****######******################################################### $201.00 21 72 23 24 R INDEPENDENT ORD. OF ODDFELLOWS 02591 001-210-0000-2110 03957 $500.00 6094 00582 35184 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND 6094 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/9070 25 26 ### VENDOR TOTAL##################******###•*############******************########## $500.00 . - 26 3 31 3 R INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 02458 001-400-3104-4309 00589 • $111.12 01074 35185 MISC. CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/903' R INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 02458 001-400-4204-4309 01798 $980.59 01074 35185 I-,MISC. CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/90': !t 3A R INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 02458 105-400-2601-4309 00668 $304.38 01074 35185 MISC. CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 STREET LIGHTING /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/90;,', 41 47 ### VENDOR TOTAL##################******##############################******######## $1,396.09 4' 47 4n R INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL ENGRS 01929 001-400-4202-4305 00522 $27.00 01077 35186 ,•, _ SUBSCRIPTION/A. ANTICH 10/24/90 PUB WKS ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 11/08/9051 40 50 5< 5, 0, 66 ### VENDOR TOTAL******##################******############*****############*****#### $27.00 • R JACK#JANKEN 03702 001-300-0000-3202 03215 $50.00 • 6733 00277 35187 19 - ANIMAL TRAP REFUND 6733 10/16/90 /DOG LICENSES - - $0.00 11/08/9070 ### VENDOR TOTAL############******#####i##################******#################### $50.00 • .10 61 62 G3 41 p - R ANGELA*JANULEWICZ ' - 02758 001-400-2101-4312 01539 - $25.48 00875 35.188 61 - MILES/CPR CLASS 10/15/90 - POLICE ' /TRAVEL EXPENSE • POST $0.00 11/O8/90RF1 6654 66 GH 70 71 77 .. .M1 .. - 73 74 75 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 PAY—VENDOR NA CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 AMOUNT NV7REF PAGE 0017 DATE 11/08/90 [j DESCRIPTION DATE INVG PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 3 4 5 #stat VENDOR TOTAL************************************************stet****************** $25.48• 6 7 8 9 R JET DELIVERY. INC. 00281 001-400-4201-4305 00609 $54.00 .64623 00637 35189 1O DELIVERY SERV/BLDG 64623 10/15/90 BUILDING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 11/08/90;2 13 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************* t*********-************** t $54. 00 14 15 17 R DONALD*JONES 02627 001-400-2101-4312 01540 $393.75 ,00870 35190 8 MEALS/HOTEL/TRAFF. CLASS 10/31/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE . POST $0.00 11/08/90;°0 21 '17. *stat VENDOR TOTAL*****************************************************•************** $393.75 22 23 115 24 .7 R LAWSON PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED 00076 105-400-2601-4309 00667 " $74.80 519187/528699 01011 35191 26 NUTS/BOLTS/CABLE SUPP 28699. 10/08/90 STREET LIGHTING /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $75.64 11/08/90 I... ***,'VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $74.80 30 31 32 LI LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 00842 001-400-4102-4316 00023 $26.69 16398 1087E 35192 3' PUBLICATIONS/PLANNING 16398 . 10/16/90 PLANNING COMM /TRAINING $0.00 11/08/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL*******************************************************************aa $26.69 31� 3[ I.�; LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 03261 001-400-1202-4316 00326. $140.00 01101 35193 42 , SEMINAR REG/V. COPELAND 11/06/90 FINANCE ADMIN /TRAINING $0.00 11/08/90^45; ***."VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $140.00 d' 47 4° I,, R DENNIS*LINDSEY 03708 001-300-0000-3418 " 00027 $1,665.20 00733 35194 50 SLOW—PITCH LEAGUE SERV. 10/22/90 /SPECIAL EVENTS $0.00 11/08/905,2 53 *** VENDOR TOTAL**********at********************************************************* $1,665.20 54 55 56 - -. 5J R H.*LONGACRE 02172 001-210-0000-2110 03961 $1.575.00 74772 00589 35195 50 . WORK -GUARANTEE REFUND 74772 11/01/90 . /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/90 , 61 17 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,575.00 62 63 en 64 r• - 65 R LOUIS THE TAILOR. INC. 00079 110-400-3302-4187 00256 $221.38 403626 00246 35196 66 51 - •INITIAL UNIFORM/ROLAND 03626 10/18/90 PARKING ENF /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE $221.38 11/08/9083 70 - - - - 71 - 72 - - - 73 75 75 _ .. 76' J 1 110 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 - PAY ---'-VENDOR NAME CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 VND''T ACCOUNT NUMBER•----TRN- • PAGE 0018 DATE 11/08/90 &,w, flcf ru if Wit if— DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP j\ 2 3 *** VENDOR TOTAL *•x-et*atat•ttatat•=t•tF#eteFatai•at#3tei•iter#•tt•#atatet•n•###tt;t•tt•*•tt•;t#ei••zat**#at#•u•*#*at*•b•it#et t;t•z•ao-#•itet.tatat $221.38 _.- -- -- — 6 7 6 R M & W ELECTRIC -01119 001-400-4204-4309 01797 $305.07 184745 01082 35197 CITY HALL FURNACE MOTOR 84745 10/31/90 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00. 11/08/90;1 '° *** VENDOR TOTAL it•x•#it###ititiHtititetititit•'•###•#it#it###•tt•#it#itiHt#it##etit#it#####ititit###it##it###iHt#it#it# $305. 07 14 15 i R LORI*MARCEL -- 03700 001-300-0000-3826 01615 $25.00 08280 .00035 35198 FALL PROGRAM REFUND 08280 10/22/90 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 11/08/9010 IC 17 16 :-' *** VENDOR TOTAL-****************##************************flit•:•**********#******* **** $25.00 21 22 23 R ERROL C.*MATA 03701 001-300-0000-3826 01613 $15.00 06189 00726 35199 '-,i FALL PROGRAM REFUND 06189 10/15/90 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 11/08/90:6 24 25 26 *** VENDOR TOTAL itititit#•********ititit***•u•itit**********it****************•*tit*****i ********* $15. 00 3) 31 R MARTIN J.*MAYER 03220 001-400-1132-4201 00060 $990.00 89.12.1 00635 35200 FINAL BILLING/CITY PROS. .12.1 09/30/90 CTY PROSECUTOR /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/903 3J 3' *** VENDOR TOTAL iHtititet#iHt#iHt#itit•)tint•)titetitiHt#itiHt#it##iNa•ititiHt•)t#et##iF#ittt•#it•x•itiHtet#it#ititititetetitiHHtitit $990. 00 36 36 _. R DEAN*MENART 02625 001-400-2101-4312 01541 $281.58 00879 35201 MILES/SAFETY CLASS 10/31/90 POLICE - /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 11/08/90`'3 40 41 42 R DEAN*MENART 02625 001-400-2101-4312 01542 $393.75 00871 35201 MEALS/HOTEL/TRAFF CLASS 10/31/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 11/08/90 45 46 47 ... *** VENDOR TOTAL iHHteteHtetet##etetitiHHtiHt##•uHtit#it###itiHtit•u•#itit#et##et#it#ii•x•iter*•tt•#it#itiHt#itit#eteHHtit#itet $675.33 40 50 51 5' 53 54 MICHAELS 03167 001-400-4601-4308 00449 $138.35 01045 35202 MISC. CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/9055 *** VENDOR TOTAL #it* ************* **********#ititit##hirer*****iteHtet###iHtit###it#itit#et##it#it## $138.35 50 58 60 7 R MIRACLE RECREATION EQUIP CO. 00439 305-400-8516-4201 00003 $3,334.87 320716 01015 35203 PLAY EQUIP/6TH & PROSP. 20716 10/19/90 CIP 89-516 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $3,334.87 11/08/90% 61 62 I, :.J 11 - 65 66 67 ... , 66 69 70 7, 72 n _6 75 75 73 74 .1 Li _J J J J .0 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 PAY ----VENDOR —NAME VNU iF CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 HCCDUNT—NUMBttt A 7REF PAGE 0019 DATE 11/08/90 LJ uw4..rctrituN DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 3 * # VENDOR TOTAL ****************************.******#****tt*************************** $3, 334. 87 4 6 7 6 R MOBIL OIL CREDIT CORPORATION 00388 110-400-3302-4310 00129 $10.92 930783J2 00948 35204 MISC. CHARGES/SEP 90 783J2 10/09/90 PARKING ENF /MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES $0.00 11/08/9012 10 i #•u* VENDOR TOTAL*#*•tt•*•u•*et.r#*•tFas•#**et•#•x•at•**#•n•*#**et.t•tt•x••z•*#**et••u•*##et•*•u•et••tt•#*#at•tt**•x•et•at•##• •z•#•u•#at•et•#* $10. 92 13 14 15 1- R MONARCH BROOM 00084 001-400-3103-4309 01063 $240.18 7847 ,01047 35205 MISC CHARGES/OCT 90 7847 10/31!90 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/901° 16 7 16 20 VENDOR TOTAL*•tt#•x•*at•**•?t*•u••�t*#•3t*•x••u#*•u•****•tt••x•*##***•�t•tt••=t•tt**•u••tE•tt•#et••x•tt**•x#*•u•#**#•x•*az•**#•n•#at**•tt $240.18 2*** 2z 23 1.1 R MONTEREY GRAPHICS 03413 001-400-4601-4302 QD-113 $533.75 5492 0071325 35206 TYPESET FALL BROCHURE 5492 10/01/90 COMM RESOURCES /ADVERTISING $533.75 11f08190ae 24 26 ##* VENDOR TOTAL**#*#•tt••tt••tt•at•tt•*•tt•tt•**#***#**##*•tt•#at*#-tt**•tt••se***.t*•tt•tt•**•tt*****at•tt•#*#•tt•*•te*•n•tt#*•tt•**af $533.75 -11 ..,2' 31 37 TR MOORE BUSINESS FORMS 00423 001-400-2101-4305 01376 $945.35 61838490 00957 35207 COMPUTER PAPER/POLICE 38490 10/15/90 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $910.22 11/08/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL**#•tt•#*•z-**##**at••tt-at•****#***#at•*#•x-•ttat*****•tt•*#*es•#**•a•#at••tt•******#*•x•****##•z•*az•#* $945.35 31 I 1 :- R NATIONAL CAREER WORKSHOPS 02203 001-400-1121-4316 00037 8196.00 512621531/532 09351 35208 SEM REG/VALDES/DOERFLING 1/532 10/29/90 CITY CLERK /TRAINING $0.00 11/08/90;;1 4 1 42 et## VENDOR TOTAL •tt•**et•�•tt•het•�•tt�•x••tt•***##•tt•et••x•et**•tt•###at#*•u•��#��#•tt•***mat•****•x•*#*•u•*at•et•*•tt••=t*#at•.r#* $196.00 40 u.. 471 1; 411 - -i R NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL: 03532 705-400-1209-4316 00030 $55.00 10999 35209 50 -11 PUBLICATIONS/BLACKWOOD 10/29/90 LIABILITY INS ✓TRAINING$0.00 11/08/905 1 7 51 ### VENDOR TOTAL ###*#**•;r*****as•********••tt*•tr*•1t#•b•****•te*****•u•at•*sa:t•tt*****•n•**#•tt**** •#•u•*#•tt•** $55.00 _,1 56 57 R NATL PUBLIC EMPLOYER LABOR 03148 001-400-1203-4315 00054 $122.50 874 11000 35210 58 ANNUAL DUES/R. BLACKWOOD 874 10/12/90 PERSONNEL !MEMBERSHIP $0.00 11/08/906;1 6*** VENDOR TOTAL ar**#•u:t*•tt•***•zt•u••tt•3t•**•tt•*#•tt•*#*•tt**at•tt•x•tt•**#•ttat•**•u•*•tt••tr*•tt• •tt•tt•*****�t•**•tt•* •***•te•tt•tt••x•it•tt•* $122.50 62. 631 64 , ..- R NEW HORIZONS 03587 001-400-2101-4316 00610 $200.00 ' 18701 00922 35211 66 'COMPUTERRENTAL/TRAINING 18701 - 10/12/90 POLICE /TRAINING '$200.00 11/08/906;' 70 715 - 72 ... 73 70125/ J FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 PAY-- --VENDOR NAME CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 VND—#` ACCOUNT" NUMBER---TRN # AMOUNT -J PAGE 0020 DATE 11/08/90 Di INV/REF '—P0'# CHK' DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 3 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************** I*********************** $200. 00 6 7 9 R KEVIN B.*NORTHCRAFT 02064 001-400-1201-4317 00223 $11.97 09183 35212 0 MON EXPENSE/OCT 90 10/29/90 CITY MANAGER /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $0.00 . 11/08/9012 3 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $11.97 4 ,5 6 17 I R OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE 02892 001-400-1131-4201 00611 $1,112.50 ,09181 35213 ,e LEGAL SERV/SEPT 90 10/31/90 420001 CITY ATTORNEY /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/902: 2, R OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR &.NOSE 02892 001-400-1131-4201 00612 $9,646.50 09181 35213 ff22 LEGAL SERV/SEPT 90 10/31/90 CITY ATTORNEY /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90Iz' 24 25 R OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE 02892 705-400-1209-4201 00161 $137.50 09181 35213 26 LEGAL SERV/SEPT 90 10/31/90 LIABILITY INS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/9027 *** VENDOR TOTAL *********at*****stat# tie***************************stat************iF#stet*** $10,896.50 30 SI 3, R PACIFIC BELL TELEPH6e 00321 001-400-2101-4304 00692 $163.99 00036 35214 COMPUTER HOOKUPS/OCT 90 10/31/90 POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90;' 3 . *** VENDOR TOTAL-sE#*##*******#*#****#***##*****##***3t#****at***tt*******#at**#***#**#**# $163.99 1 36 - R PACTEL CELLULAR — LA 03209 001-400-2101-4304 00691 $888.21 01050 35215 I MOBILE PHONE CHGS/OCT 90 10/31/90 POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 11/08/90~3 41 2 *** VENDOR TOTAL a tatatatatat*atatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatat*atatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatatat#atatatatatatat $888.21 4r. 47 40 49 R RICHARD*PAPILLON 03711 001-210-0000-2110 03947 $250.00 194 11042 35216 50 TEMPORARY BANNER REFUND 194 10/25/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/9052 53 , *** VENDOR TOTAL atatatatatafat*atatatat*********at*****************************stater***********#*at $250.00 54 55 4: 55 .., R PEP BOYS 00608 001-400-2201-4311 00367 $11.90 015761 01053 35217 56 .,., MISC. CHARGES/OCT 90 15761 10/31/90 FIRE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 11/08/90; 6, *** VENDOR TOTAL a tat******************afar**************************** ***************** $11.90 67 63 "' 64 43 65 R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS: 02746 001-400-1212-4188 01903 $279.99 12679/12287 00011 35218 a6 51 EMP ASSIST PROG/NOV ' 12287 11/01/90 EMP BENEFITS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00. -.11/08/9017 :] 70 71 .n 72 .. 73 1 , 74 75 70 41. FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 PAGE 0021 DATE 11/08/90 [J - - - - . r.vvwi.l lwrlucrs 1 rlN it MPUJVN 1 1NV/Ktt YO R CHK- DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 1 2 R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 105-400-2601-4188 01038 $5.19 12679/12287 00011 35218 6 I EMP ASSIST FROG/NOV 12287 11/01/90 STREET LIGHTING /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 11/08/90. 1 R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. - 02746 109-400-3301-4188 00051 - $0.20 12679/12287 00011 35218 ° EMP ASSIST PROG/NOV 12287 11/01/90 VEH PKG DIST /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 11/08!90;; 13 R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 110-400-3302-4188 01254 $35.19 12679/12287 00011 35218 14 EMP ASSIST PROG/NOV 12287 11/01/90 PARKING ENF /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 11/08/90;; 17 PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 145-400-3401-4188 01003 $1.06 12679/12287 00011 35218 10 EMPASSISTPROG/NOV 12287 11/01/90 DIAL A RIDE - /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 11/08/90;9 71 R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 145-400-3402-4188 01007 $0.39 12679/12287 00011 35218 22 EMP ASSIST PROG/NOV 12287 11!01!90 ESEA /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 11/08/902; 25 ! R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 145-400-3403-4188 00324 - $0.12 12679/12287 00011. 35218 20 EMP ASSIST PROG/NOV 12287 11/01/90 - BUS PASS SUBSDY /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 11/08/90o • R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 155-400-2102-4188 00575 $0.41 12679/12287 00011 35218 3' EMP ASSIST FROG/NOV 12287 11/01/90 CROSSING GUARD /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS - $0.00 11/08/90 I R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 160-400-3102-4188 00980 $5.92 12679/12287 00011 35218 3.111 EMP ASSIST PROG/NOV . 12287 11/01/90 SEWER/ST DRAIN /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 11/08/90 •� R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 705-400-1209-4188 00345 $0.51 12679/12287 000I1 35218 EMP ASSIST PROG/NOV 12287 11/01/90 LIABILITY INS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 11/08/907; 41 { R PERSONAL PERFORMANCE CONS. 02746 705-400-1217-4188 00354- - $1.02 .12679/12287 00011 35218 4Z -i EMP ASSIST PROG/NOV 12287 11/01/90 WORKERS COMP /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS$0.00 11/08/9043 *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************************•a•p******** **** *****•tt•**• ***********• ** $330. 00 - ;° .. 4 7 413 41) R MINHHOA#PRAM 03436 001-210-0000-2110 03950 $250.00 04405 11046 35219 S0 _ TEMPORARY BANNER REFUND 04405 10/29/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/905.; #* VENDOR TOTAL *#•tt••x-***•n***•tt*•tt•#tt•# •****•tt•• **#***#•x•*#****•u••tt#*#**•u•*ac•*#*at****at***•tt•##ar**#* $250. 00 31 .. _ 7.5 57 R BRUCE#PHILLIPS ' 00534 001-400-2101-4312 01531 $8.00 00883 35220 56 MEALS/DISCIPLINE COURSE 11/01/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE $ POST $0.00 11/08/905.. 61 ;/ *** VENDOR TOTAL*********x-**********************4******•z•**************************** $8.00 62 - 63 - _ 64 65 ,3 R PHOENIX GROUP 02530 110-400-3302-4201 00255 $283.84 5031-00 00063 35221 6G ,1 OUT-OF-STATE CITES/SEP90 31-00 10/23/90 PARKING ENF /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/9087. .. - (•6 70 71 , -- - - 72 73 74 .1 '. - 7511 70 1 v FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 7-7--PAY----VENDOR — NAME CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 PAGE 0022 DATE 11/08/90 L) r111VV.Yi 1.14V/ncr ru if -Grill DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 3 *** VENDOR TOTAL•it*•;t*#at•at#*###at•###•tt•*•tt••m•;t*##***#•tt***•x•tt•#•tt *•tt•*#at••tt•*#•x•tt#**#*#•its•#*•tt•• •#:t*•tt•at**#** $283. B4 6 7 O R READICARE—DANIEL FREEMAN 02390 705-400-1217-4182 00153 $760.05 10990 35222 10 EXPOSURE TESTING 10/09/90 WORKERS COMP /WORKERS COMP CURRENT YR $0.00 11/08/90,2 3 *** VENDOR TOTAL•n•ar•ir*•tt#**•z•****#*.t****#***et•*:t****#*•tt•tt•*•tt•***at•#*#*er#*•x•**et#**arar*#at3t•ar#at•tt••staa* $760.05 14 15 15 � 11] R REGISTRAR—RECORDER 00225 001-400-1122-4201 00209 $1.765.50 721-0 ,09352 35223 0 VERIFY SIGS/REFERENDUM 721—G 10/18/90 ELECTIONS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/9021 *** VENDOR TOTAL *•u••x•#**#*•x•*#•ger***;t•a•1tt•*•tt•#***#*##***•n•at•x•#**#*#at**•tt•****#****#*•tt•##•tt•*#**•x••it•** $1.765.50 22 23 24 25 R OFCR DAVID#RICKEY 00949 001-400-2101-4312 01529 -$393.75 00872 35224 26 MEALS/HOTEL/TRAFF CLASS 10/31/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 11/08/9022 *alit VENDOR TOTAL**•x*•tE***•tt*##•it#**•tt••tt•x•**•te#•tt•ar#•x•#at***••3r•tt•#•u••tt***•tt•*#•sf**•x••tt•***at•**•n•***•#*•tr*at•**•tt $393.75 V 3 R RIO HONDO COLLEGE 01070 001-400-2101-4312 01532 $16.50 00885 35225 TUITION/J. GAINES 10/29/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 11/08/90 37 3.3 R RIO HONDO COLLEGE 01070 001-400-2101-4312 01533 $6.00 F90.80 00886 35225 TUITION/D. BOHACIK 90.80 08/27/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE . POST $0.00 11/08/90;'1 3/ 3AJ *** VENDOR TOTAL itat**#•tt***#**##***#*#*********#*##**#*#**##**#*#*###*at##*##**#*#**#tt# $22. 50 - - 42 43 R RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY COLLEGE 01421 001-400-2101-4312 01530 $30.00 00873 35226 TUITION/3 OFFICERS 10/31/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 11/08/9042 45 46 AO *** VENDOR TOTAL *alar**************1I*** s**at**********•tt******alit*****at*#it****at#***#at#•*tit $30. 00 • - 49 30 51 R S. C. M. A. F. 03696 001-400-4601-4315 00069 $15.00 00741 35227 ANNUAL DUES/T. EDISON 10/23/90 COMM RESOURCES /MEMBERSHIP $0.00 11/08/90 52 53 54 4-I .13 3 *alar VENDOR TOTAL itisarat**atatatatat#atatatatar#ataHretararatar#•ltat#*alit#it#*jrat####stat#•u•##et#star##et#it##it####### $15.00 _ , 57 55 59 60 ^.; R SAN PEDRO BUILDING SUPPLIES 03679 150-400-8506-5499 00002 $939.03 J25938 01069 35228 VALLEY PRK EQUIP INSTALL 25938 10/24/90 CIP 86-506 _ /NON—CAPITALIZED ASSETS $939.03 11/08/90 61 62 30 51 • .. ... .' _, 65 66 57 OA -4 • - 70 ' 71 . 72 -n . i 75 ?Sc 7 :i j J FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 PAGE 0023 DATE 11/08/90 LJ I• VIVO W Ml...UUi I IvUMUMM MN If AMOUNT INV/REF PO—#— CHK DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROD # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC. DATE EXP 1 2 a 4 *** VENDOR TOTAL at•x-tt•#•zt•;t•n••tt•tt•ittt•at•tt•isiaat*x••stat•itaa•gat•tt• •atat***•*•tt••tt-tt••it•tt••3t•u3t#•p•*•at•u••u••3t•tt• ** •aaaa*at•tt•*#ir•n•et••tt•*at* $939.036 • " 7 a i� R AMY*SINCLAIR 03697 001-300-0000-3826 01610 $80.00 8310 00744 35229 FALL CLASS REFUND 8310 10/24/90 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 11/08/90;1 9 1O *** VENDOR TOTAL ******•tt•#********sty****et• •at•************ r ••tt•#**# ••tt••****:t#*• ••u••tt•*•3t#a•z•******* $80.00. 13 14 15 16 ►: R SINCLAIR PAINT CO. 01399 001-400-4204-4309 01794 $270.77 701059 35230 MISC CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/901C 17 I6 i•- R SINCLAIR PAINT CO. 01399 001-400-6101-4309 00970 $164.71 01059 35230 22 - MISC CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 - PARKS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/90 *** VENDOR TOTAL********************************•*************•*********•x*****�s•****•tt*• • $435. 48 26 1:- 2R 2<. R ;::`SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-2101-4306 00884 $124.14 01060 35231 �� >_MISC. CHARGES/SEP—OCT 90 — 10/31/90 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE $0.00 11/08/90;; L i:7 .231 R `-SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-2201-4305 00409 $41.70 01060 35231 31 MISC. CHARGES/SEP—OCT 90 10/31/90 FIRE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 11/08/903 37 R. SMART &FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-4601-4308 00448 $212.45 01060 35231 3 MISC. CHARGES/SEP—OCT 90 10/31/90 'COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/90 � I. *** VENDOR TOTAL•********•************************************************************ $378.29 442 R -.DEBORAH*SMITH 03694 110-300-0000-3302 36837 $46.00 891054 00196 35232 46 -CITATION PAYMENT REFUND 91054 10/23/90 /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 11/08/90478 *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************•***********•*******************************• n•at****** $46.00 30 41 +_ R - MILES W.*SMITH - 03717 001-400-4601-4201 00653 - $94.00 00751 35233 53 AFTER SCHOOL PROG SERV 10/31/90 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/9055 56 ;3 :.. .. 97 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $94.00 56 .. 59 60 .. 46 6I R SO CALIF RAPID TRANSIT DISTR. 00843 145-400-3403-4251 00084 $1.594.00 53143 00274 35234 62 BUS PASS SALES/OCT 90 53143 '. 10/31/90 BUS PASS SUBSDY /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 '11./08/9064 .<. 50 51 .. 05 - - - _ 66 67 66 ... - 70 72 55 7i• :17 74 j . 75 7n. J J J J -J FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 •vFrvnna- CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 PAGE 0024 DATE 11/08/90 Li poi .wrmr.n 1 my it Mi IUVIV 1 i v, r tr ru i4 CHK #� DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP i 1 2 3 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************* $1,594.00 6 6 R SOURISSEAU SUPPORT SERVICES 02075 001-400-2101-4201 00677 $435.00 1682 00965 35235 BACKGRND INVESTIGATIONS 1682 10/15/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90:2 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $435.00 0 13 14 15 16 R SOUTAR'S 03620 001-400-2101-4311 00998 $474.74 32124 -00927 35236 REPAIR NARCOTICS VEHICLE 32124 09/13/90 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $475.00 11/08/902: 17 16 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $474.74 22 21 24 R SOUTH BAY HOSPITAL 00107 001-400-2101-4201 00676 • $189.52 00973 35237 BLOOD ALCOHOL TESTING 10/25/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90,' 25 26 24 30 31 37 *** VENDOR TOTAL *******i************************************************tat********** $189. 52 1 - - R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00400 110-300-0000-3302 36836 $175.00 00283 35238 CITATION COURT BAIL 11/01/90 /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 11/08/902' 31 3•` *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************* $175.00 37 art 34 40 R SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY 01688 001-400-3104-4251 00050 $150.00 1351063 01058 • 35239 EQUIPMENT PERMIT FEES 51063 10/08/90 TRAFFIC SAFETY /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 11/08/90, 41 42 - R SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY 01688 001-400-3104-4251 00051 $150.00 1351064 01058 35239 EQUIPMENT PERMIT FEES 51064 10/08/90 _ TRAFFIC SAFETY /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 11/08/90°6 44 46 R SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY 01688 001-400-4204-4201 00401 $150.00 1351065 01058 35239 EQUIPMENT PERMIT FEES 51065 10/08/90 BLDG MAINT /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/9052 43 50 11 ***• - VENDOR TOTAL.t****#*#*##********#***.f*#*****#***#**#********#*#********#****at**** $450. 00 1, 54 55 56 57 R. SOUTH COAST MARRIAGE. FAMILY. 03699 001-210-0000-2110 ' 03956 $500.00 06113 00584 35240 56 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND 06113 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS%WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/9000 Cl t7 R - SOUTH COAST MARRIAGE, FAMILY, 03699 001-300-0000-3406 00310 .$151.50 6112 00745 35240 62 ,., THEATRE RENTAL REFUND 6112 10/29/90 /COMM CTR THEATRE$0.00 11/08/906;, :7 66 - SI CII . 69 70 n.l - 7 1 72 73 74 1 75 J J 4. FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 CITY OF HERt1OSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 J PAGE 0025 DATE 11/08/90 LJ • r• • .+ • •rn 1c VIVV W Nl•I+UVN 1 'NM/MOW 1 KN W A1IUUN 1 INV/REF PO # C DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 3 *** VENDOR TOTAL *************************#'************ '•##'*********************** $651,50 • 1 R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. 00170 001-400-4204-4303 00415 $670.14 01064 35241 GAS BILLINGS/SEP—OCT 90 10/31/90 BLDG MAINT /UTILITIES $0.00 11/08/90 1O i2 *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************************•******•********************************* $670.14 I - - • , 13 16 R SOUTHERN PACIFIC ASSOC. OF 00543 001-400-4601-4302 00112 $50.00 00734 35242 AD/SAND y. STRAND RUN - 10/22/90 COMM RESOURCES /ADVERTISING ' $0.00 11/08/90;n 17 1fS I�{ ***. VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 21 23 24 R SOUTHWEST REG OCC TRNG CENTER 02295 001-400-4601-4316 00145 '$185.00 00742 35243 TUITION/M. ERNST . 10/24/90 COMM RESOURCES /TRAINING $0.00 11/08/90;,, 25 76 *** VENDOR'TOTAL*********************************•*********************************** $185:00 Illi 30l 71 32 R MARILYN*SPANGBERG 03695 001-300-0000-3212 00051 $50.00 6743 00276 35244 34 ANIMAL TRAP REFUND 6743 10/16/90 /ANIMAL/FOWL PERMITS$0.00 1I/08f9037 *** VENDOR TOTAL*******'************************************************************* $50.00 37 =T 30 40 '- R STATE OF CALIFORNIA 00364 001-400-2101-4251 00334 $140.75 887118 00023 35245 i— —_ FINGERPRINT APPS/SEP 90 B7118 10/22/90 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 11/08/90;; 41 4.2 .:' *** VENDOR TOTAL****di'****************************************************#********** $140.75 45 4. 47 413 R MARK*STOVER 00797 001-210-0000-2110 ' 03962 $1.575.00 95612 00592 35246 WORK GUARANTEE REFUND.- 95612 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/9031 41 50 63 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,575.00 34 r.3 5(4 37 R DEBBIE*STRATTON 03698 001-300-0000-3826 01617 $54.00 08201 00731 35247 3a FALL PROGRAM REFUND 08201 10/17/90 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 11/08/90Z 61 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $54.00 62 63 64 65 R SUPERAJIT, INC. 03713 001-300-0000-3211 00058 $250.00 243 11040 35248 66 TEMPORARY BANNER REFUND .243 10/25/90 /BANNER PERMITS $0.00 11/08/9067 71 72 73 ... 74 7.5 J J +.i .J ..J at, cI L FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 -------- PAY— "' 'VENDOR NAME CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 PAGE 0026 DATE 11/08/90 75 jei 411. 41. S w M M ---- -- ••----•.• •--••._.. •.... .. r,.lvv1v1 arvv,rccr ru if DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC _ W1A IF DATE EXP _1 2 3 *** VENDOR TOTAL####aFaFatatatataFaFatar3tatat##•x et#et•#at3t•##at###*atao-•x•##:tat##:tat•gat•u•3Eat•et•tF#ar •at•#atatao-*3tetat•u##at* $250.00 e 6 R SUPERIOR MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 00425 001-400-2201-4309 00980 $27.00 MISC. CHARGES/OCT 90 10/31/90 FIRE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 01066 $0.00 35249 11/08/9012 fl i0 *** VENDOR TOTAL###tt***#•u*###at*;<•#***###*aE#if##it##**#at***at##at###*##aE*aE*•x##*iE***at###*aE* $27.00 13 14 IS R SWANK MOTION PICTURES INC. 03158 001-400-4601-4308 00451 $261.00 503686/503897 FILMS/COMM CTR PROGRAMS 03897 10/15/90 COMM RESOURCES /PROGRAM MATERIALS -00702 $261.00 35250 11/08/902: 16 17 16 *** VENDOR TOTAL•****-tt•at******i**•*•x-#•x•##*********• *****tt•****#at**• •tt•#•tt•*-tt•#•ttat****at# '#atst••tt**** $261.00 - 21 22 23 7. 2: 26 1 R KIM#THOMAS 03693 001-300-0000-3826 01616 $49.00 08222 FALL PROGRAM REFUND 08222 10/22/90 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES 00737 $0.00 35251 11/08/90270 *** VENDOR TOTAL*******************************aFatataFatataFaFatatafatat•#atatatat*aFaFaFaFaFar*atataF#atataF*** $49. 00 29 30 31 R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY 00124 160-400-3102-4309 00543 $9.59 48945H MISC CHARGES/OCT 90 8945H 10/31/90 SEWER/ST DRAIN /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 01068 $0.00 35252 11/08/903: 32 33 34 *** VENDOR TOTAL a ta�atataFaFaFataFaFaFaFatatataFaFataFatatatatataFataf** fat**aF*#aFatatatatatataF>t•aFaFaFatataf#at>Eatat*****aFaFafa *** $9. 59 3: 36 R CITY OF*TORRANCE 00841 001-400-2101-4251 00335 $34.50 102062 PRISONER ID CHGS/SEP 90 02062 09/30/90 POLTCE /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT 00068 $0.00 40 41 35253 42 11/08!9044 R CITY OF*TORRANCE 00841 145-400-3402-4201 00152 $942.92 102024 2ND QTR SHARE/MAX PROG. 02024. 10/12/90 COMMUTER BUS /CONTRACT SERVICES 10870 $0.00 .10 35253 46 11/08/90:70 *** VENDOR TOTAL at#at###aFataF#####aF###it##at#afataF##:Fat#aF#af##*#af#aF#*#*at#aFaFaFafataFaFat#•n•at#ataFafaf##:tat# $977.42 49 30 51 52 R TORRANCE NISSAN 00125 170-400-2103-4201 00068 $150.00 - AUTO RENTAL/OCT 1-15.90 10/23/90 SPEC INVESTGTNS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 00066 $0.00 53 35254 34 11/08/9035 1^ *** VENDOR TOTAL a fatataFataFataFataFaFatataFat*aF*aFatataF#aF*;Eatatat*araFatataFatatataFaFaFaFaFaF• ataFaFataF*aFatatatat*ataFatatatataFat#aFaF $150. 00 - 57 50 53 60 •6 :7 to R TRIANGLE HARDWARE 00123 001-400-4204-4309 01795 $149.40 10275 WATER HEATER/COMM CTR 10275 10/31/90 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 01083 $0.00 61 35255 R2' 11/08/9064 .. 17 GS 66 67 66 64 70 1 71 I 72 73 74 5 75 jei 411. 41. S w M M FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 • PAY'—VENDOR NAME CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 VNO — ACCOUNT—NUMBER—TRN PAGE 0027 DATE 11/08/90 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP . .. 3 4 atatat VENDOR TOTAL *at*************************** tstat****************#*at*****stat*******#stat $149. 40 - 5 6 e R MILDRED#WARREN 03691 001-300-0000-3202 03214 $4.50 8554 00275 35256 REFUND OVERCHG/AN LIC. 8554 10/16/90 /DOG LICENSES $0.00 11/08/90,1 ° *** -VENDOR TOTAL **at*at******at*******stat*********at***at**at*********at****at*at*ataf**stat#arae*stat $4. 50 1-7 14 5 16 R JOANNE*WEEMS - 03723 001-210-0000-2110 03952 $50.00 8122 700581 35257 ANIMAL TRAP REFUND 8122 11/01/90 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 11/08/9010 17 18 21 *stat VENDOR TOTAL ****stat******at**atat***atat**at***#*stat'fat******************at**#*stat****at**** $50.00 2= 23 24 25 R WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY 00141 001-400-1131-4201 00610 $63.11 652893746 09353 35258 26 PUBLICATIONS/CITY CLERK 93746 10/03/90 CITY ATTORNEY /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90;", *stat VENDOR TOTAL.****at**at*******************at***stat******************at**************** ' $63.11 30 31 32 R WESTFALL ROOFING COMPANY 03716 001-300-0000-3115 03163 $308.00 349700 11044 35259 34 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 49700 10/25/90 /BUSINESS LICENSE $0.00 11/08/90;: *stat VENDOR TOTAL*at**at*at*at*at•********************************#***************at******** $308.00 3u 39 - 40 41 R SALLY A. *WHITE 00140 001-400-4102-4201 00278 $102.00 10874 35260 42. SEC.SERV/OCT 16) 1990 10/25/90 - PLANNING COMM /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 11/08/90; 45 *** VENDOR TOTAL- atatatatataEatat>Eifat •atafatatat-atatatatatatatatataHt#atatatatatatatatatatat*stat*atatatatatat•atatataf*atatatatatatatat**stat $102. 00 46 - a 47 48 • . 4.1 R GARY*WIGGINS -. 03692 001-300-0000-3826 01618 $35.00 6161 00722 35261 50 FALL PROGRAM REFUND 6161 10/15/90 /REC PROGRAMS/CLASSES $0.00 11/08/903; 53 I. ***- VENDOR TOTAL************************************************************#stat***** $35.00 54 - 55 57 R CYNTHIA#WILSON 03690 001-400-2401-4317 00041 $121-.95 00278 35262 '0 MEALS/RABIES CLINIC VOL. 10/16/90 ANIMAL CONTROL /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $0.00 11/08/908: - 61 *** VENDOR TOTAL*at**************at******************at**at************************at*at** $121.95 62 63 64 65 R STEVE*WISNIEWSKI 01364 001-400-2101-4312 01527 $32.00 00896 35263 66 MEALS/4 OFFICERS 11/05/90 POLICE - /TRAVEL EXPENSE ,-POST $0.00 11/06/90: - 70 72 74 75 1 _ 9/ ti 44, ft. FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 16:05:21 " PAY '-' VENDOR NAME VND"#' CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH' DEMAND LIST FOR 11/13/90 ACCOUNT—NUMBER—TRN-# AMOUNT PAGE 0028 DATE 11/08/90 ' NV/REF— ' C DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 2 4 *** VENDOR TOTAL a ******************************************** t********************* $32. 00 6 6 9 R SGT MARK*WRIGHT 00133 001-400-2101-4312 01528 $11.95 00878 35264 10 MILES/P. O, S. T. CLASS 10/15/90 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST $0.00 11/08/90,1 ' 13 *** VENDOR TOTAL********************************************************************• $11.95 14 16 - 16 !•: 17 R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-1208-4305 00824 $32.03 142548078 00192 35265 18 COPIER SUPPLIES/STOCK ' 48078 10/31/90 GEN APPROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 11/08/9010 21 R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-2401-4305 00174 $35.23 142548078 00192 35265 22 COPIER SUPPLIES/STOCK . 48078 10/31/90 ANIMAL CONTROL /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 11/08/9021 R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-4601-4305 00882 '$425.93 142548078 00192 35265 COPIER SUPPLIES/STOCK 48078 10/31/90 COMM RESOURCES /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES . $0.00 11/08/9027 25 26 .. R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 110-400-3302-4305 00729 $105.68 142548078 00192 35265 COPIER SUPPLIES/STOCK 48078 10/31/90 PARKING ENF /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 11/08/9033; 29 3- If( *** VENDOR TOTAL******#*****###*#*#*****##*#*##*****##****####***##*#****##*##**#**# - $598.87 3 35 3 ),:, R ZUMAR INDUSTRIES 01206 001-400-3104-4309 00588 $202.24 3042 01086 35266 "NO LEFT TURN" SIGNS 3042 11/01/90 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 11/08/90''_ 3" R ZUMAR INDUSTRIES 01206 001-400-3104-4309 00590 $4,740.28 1522/2388 00447 35266 STREET SIGNS/HARDWARE /2388 10/04/90 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $4,729.18 11/08/90;; 41 42 *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************************I********************************* **** $4.942.52 45 41- 647 47 i..: *** PAY CODE TOTAL ####*##***##iF#iF####**>**######**#**#**##af#*#**#*#*#*>k*aF**#**###*** $83,406.39 .. _ 46 3„ 51 ' 52 *** TOTAL WARRANTS.F*#*#**�t#**#:t*#***###**#*****#aF**#*#**#***�'*#***#***#*******##*aF** $196.591.50 54 56 45 57 58 5P. 60 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE DEMANDS ORLAIMS COVERED BY THE WARRANTS LISTED ON PAG S— TO'2 INCLUSIVE OF -THE / / U AEE ArrURATE 61 67' ;; 1 1 WARRANT -REGISTER FOR • AND FUNDS A E AVAI ABLE FOR PAYMENT THEREOF: BY 6564 «y 67' n • - nrmiCE AD 11NIST omR DATE 0/47/U 611 70 711 6' r. 7 73 73 7, ea W Honorable Mayor. and Members of the City Council October 29, 1990 City Council Meeting of November 13, 1990 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS November 27, 1990 Responsible Agent Review of 4 - 10 schedule Personnel Director Recommendation to expand Rodaway Park Contract for Street Lighting/Crossing Guard Assessment Districts Public Works Director Recommendation to accept toxic study City Manager Award of contract, Sanitary Sewers, Target Area 4, CIP 88-406 and for inspections Public Works Director Hand held citation writers General Services Director Kenny Letter re. Strand Bike improvements City Clerk Status after 1 yr. of sidewalk cleaning and scrubbing Public Works Director Finance Director Community Resources Dir. Auditor's financial report for fiscal year 89-90 Ordinance for non -motorized vehicles parked on City r -o -w Greenbelt a) Conceptual approval of Greenbelt steps Public Safety Dir. Public Works Director b) Pedestrian jogger crossing mid - block at Greenbelt intersection Public Works Director Amendment to the ICRMA liability program to allow participation of Costa Mesa, El Segundo, & Upland Risk Manager Street rehabilitation and Slurry Seal call for bids, CIP 89-141 and CIP 89-170 Public Works Director lc Acceptance of environmental assessment report on 2 surplus school sites Sale of FAU funds Municipal Matters 8/14 Municipal Pier modifications Public Hearings Appeal of denial, by P.C. for variance at 40Seventh Court December 11, 1990 1st meeting —continued public hearing on 20th St. subdivision Project. Touch lease agreement Public Information Program Recycling bid award January 8, 1991 7/30 6 mo. review of Farmers' market 8/20 Gann limit - Appropriations subject to City Manager 11/6 Extension of Macpherson Oil lease City Manager January 22, 1991 City Manager Public Works Director Community Resources Dir. Planning Director Planning Director Community. Resources Dir. General Services Director Building & Safety Dir. Community Resources Dir. 7/24 Review Rule XV & parking fees for employees in 6 months Personnel Director. Annual report and review of City Goals City Manager March 12, 1991 Historical Society relocation alternatives Community Resources Dir. Utilization. of Prospect School House Community Resources Dir. ****************.************************************************* Upcoming Items Not Yet Calendared Caltrans utility maintenance agrmt. Public Works Director Vehicle parking on pedestrian streets Public Works Director Historic Preservation Ordinance (with Land Use Element) Planning Director ***************************************************************** Initiated by Party Date Council 5/8 Discuss financial arrangements on oil project City Mgr. Council 5/8 Re. oil project CUP - define "temporary" as relates to height of project Goal 2 5/16 Options to direct dial to City Hall Goal 4 5/16 Options to computerize per- sonnel as part of payroll function Goal 7 10/17 Review Fiesta cost/benefit Goal 8 5/16 Options to increasing service level of street sweeping City Mgr. 7/24 3 -hr. vs. 2 -hr. parking meter limit in the downtown (refer to VPD) Council 8/14 Review of standard CUP conditions Council 8/14 Obtain consultant's review of Cable Co. ascertainment Council 8/14 Review ways to enforce no parking in front yards City Mgr. 8/22 Joint meeting with Chamber of Commerce City Mgr. 9/4 Recommendation on Council Chamber chairs Council 10/9 Map and time schedule for street sweeping. Planning Dir. Gen. Svcs. Dir. Finance Dir. Finance Dir. Public Works Dir. Gen. Svc. Dir. Planning Dir. Gen. Svc. Dir. Planning Dir. City Manager Finance Director Public Wks. Dir. Council 10/9 Status of Strand safety measures Review Comm. Ctr. lease policy Council 10/30 Beach volleyball court report Ordinance for new Chapter 19 of HBMC entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic" Dept. 11/5 RFP for Traffic Engineer Dept. 11/5 Approval Process for South School Conceptual Design Public Safety Dir Comm. Res. Dir. Public Works Dir. Public Works Dir. Public Works Dir. Comm. Res. Dir. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council November 6, 1990 City Council Meeting of November 13, 1990 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT OF INACTIVE PUBLIC DEPOSITS FOR HERMOSA BEACH Attached is a report of all Inactive Public Deposits for the month of October 1990. Respectfully submitted, Gary Brutch City Treasurer NOTED: evin Northc City Manager ld INSTITUTION LAIF BALANCE 10/01/90 BALANCE 10/31/90 TOTAL INVESTMENT REPORT - OCTOBER 1990 DATE OF INVESTMENT DATE OF MATURITY INTEREST $3,610,000.00. $3,610,000.00 LACPIF Railroad Right -of -Way Account BALANCE 10/01/90 $ 336,188.77 BALANCE 10/31/90 474,928.61 CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT: Union Federal S&L Investment $ CORPORATE NOTES: Ford Motor Credit Co. Investment S 500,000.00 500,000.00 2/22/90 5/19/88 8.333% 8.42% 2/21/91 8.10% 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 $1,001,542.12 3/06/90 2/29/92 8.50% Investment $ 500,845.79 3/08/90 2/29/92 8.50% Investment Investment Investment FHLMC: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. $ 999,492.83 $1,019,779.01 $1,023.,029.89 Investment INVESTMENT TOTAL. SEATTLE 1ST NATL. BALANCE 9/01/90 Adjustment BALANCE 9/30/90 $ 248,733.64 $10,878,616.25 BANK TRUST $ 963,093.80 <455,545.00> TICOR TITLE INSURANCE CO. BALANCE 6/30/90 BALANCE 6/30/90 TRUSTEE TOTAL GRAND TOTAL 507,548.80 $ 10,711.04 10,711.04 518,259.84 $11,396,876.09 Respectfully Submitted, . 4erl -441 -el Gary Bruts City Treasurer 4/20/90 5/14/90 9/14/90 3/26/87 3/31/92 2/15/93 6/30/94 3/1/17 8.763% 8.49% 8.50% 8.0% 8.625% 7.5% HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL %6 SV/ ' /// -�O November 5, 1990 Regular Meeting of November 13, 1990 SUBJECT: FINAL MAP #21575 (C.U.P.'CON NO. 89-23) LOCATION: 641 SIXTH STREET APPLICANT(S): HB PARNERSHIP REQUEST: TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP FOR A 3 - UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Parcel Map #21575 which is consistent with the approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and recommends the City Clerk be directed to endorse the certificate for said map. Background The Planning Commission approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #21575 at their November 21, 1989 meeting. Analysis The staff has reviewed the Final Map and found it substantially consistent with the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map approved by the Planning Commission and in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act. Michael Schubach Planning Director 'Kevin B. NorthcrAft City Manager T/srfinmap A Respectfully submitted, n Ro -'r t s on Associate Planner 2 3 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #21575 FOR A THREE -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 641 SIXTH STREET, HER- MOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on November 13, 1990 and made the following Findings: A. This project will not violate any of the provisions of Sections 66427.1, 66474, 66474.1, and 66474.6 of the Subdivi- sion Map Act; B. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan required by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code, or any specific plan adopted pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code; C. The development of the property in the manner set forth on the subject division of land will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity and/ or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the subject division of land; D. The approval of said map is subject to all conditions out- lined in Planning Commission Resolution P.C. No. 89-87 adop- ted after public hearing on November 21, 1990. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to the recommendation of the County Engineer, the City Council does hereby grant final approval of Parcel Map #21575 in the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, being a Subdivision of Lot 18, and a portion of Lot 19, Dr. Dougher- ty's Hermosa Bay View Tract, as recorded in Book 10, Page 140 of Maps, in the Office of the Recorder of Los Angeles, for a three -unit condominium project on land commonly known as 641 Sixth Street, Hermosa Beach, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 13th day of November, 1990. ATTEST: APPROV ' AS 0 FORM: T/rsfinmap PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY November 05, 1990 Honorable Mayor and .Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 13, 1990 STATUS REPORT NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEMS (NPDES) Recommendation: It recommended that City Council receive and file this report. Abstract: The 1987 Clean Water Act requires all cities to monitor water runoff and improve the Santa Monica Bay Water Quality. The Los Angeles County Public Works Department is assisting Hermosa Beach to comply with the new rules. The new rules initially require the City staff to gather information about the storm drainage system and types of business in the community. This time consuming information gathering effort as required by the Clean Water Act is in the works by City Staff. However, potential litigation against L.A. County may make the rules more stringent. and the associated potential future costs to the City are unknown at this time. Background: This report summarizes the status of the stormwater discharge permit required of the County and the City in_ order to comply with the 1987 Clean Water Act. Analysis: The analysis is divided as follows: 1. 1987 Clean Water Act 2. Permits are Required 3. Permit Requirements for the Los Angeles Area 4. The Permit Application Procedure 5. Potential Future Costs 6. Potential Litigation 7. Summary 1. 1987 Clean Water Act In 1987, Congress re -authorized the Clean Water Act providing for more stringent controls of stormwater runoff in urban areas. Under the 1987 Clean Water Act amendment, the Environmental Protection Agency•(EPA) is required to permit all urban storm drain systems. All government agencies would fall under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permitting program. All stormwater systems serving population areas of 100,000 people or more would be required to obtain permits. For implementation purposes, EPA has designated population areas of 250,000 and greater to be permitted beginning by the year 1990 and population areas of 100,000 to 250,000 to be permitted by 1992. Hermosa Beach is in a "designated population area" that includes eighteen other cities discharging runoff into the Santa Monica Bay. On June 18, 1990, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, adopted Waste Discharge Requirements for stormwater/urban runoff discharge for Los Angeles County and co -permittees (NPDES Permit No. CA0061654). This permit application includes Hermosa Beach as a Co -Permittee. 2. Permits are Required The intent of the permit is to control the water quality of flows from land drainage facilities for the protection• of the beneficial uses of the receiving waters (lakes, rivers, groundwater, and the ocean). The County of Los Angeles is the Principal permittee, with each of the incorporated cities, plus other entities with large and/or significant drainage areas under their control, functioning as Co -Permittees. L.A. County Public Works Department is the lead for the County and has the obligation to coordinate the required permit activities, including efforts of co -permittees, within both unincorporated and incorporated areas. 3. Permit Requirements for the Los Angeles Area Los Angeles County is comprised of 86 cities with distinct political boundaries that share a common watershed and an integrated storm drain system. The majority of the storm drain system is owned and operated by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. However, catch basins and various portions of storm drains are owned and operated by different municipalities within the County. Whereas, all municipalities have direct control over their land use. To effectively provide for this set of conditions, a special permit was developed that would address the needs of Los Angeles County. To meet the requirements of the 1987 Clean Water Act in respect to stormwater discharges, representatives from Los Angeles County Public Works and City of Los Angeles met with members of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Water Resources Control Board and the Environmental Protection Agency's District 9 office to draft a model permit application. This permit application was submitted prior to the EPA's permit application deadline in July of 1990. The permit was geared to the particular hydrology and land use pattern that exists in Los Angeles County. The permit application identified five drainage basins. 1. The Santa Monica Bay drainage basin. 2. The upper Los Angeles River drainage basin. 3. The upper San Gabriel River drainage basin. 4. The lower Los Angeles River drainage basin. 5. The lower San Gabriel River drainage basin. 4. The Permit Application Procedure A permit application was submitted by Los Angeles County, Public Works Department, the lead permittee acting on behalf of all the Santa Monica Bay co -permittees. The Regional Board required that the. County's permit application include letters of intent from all cities desiring to participate as co -permittees. The City of Hermosa Beach Public Works Department submitted a letter of intent. 5. Potential Future Costs Future City costs of the permit application are unknown. The first year will require considerable staff time to put together the characterization of the storm drain system within our community and how it relates to the overall storm drain system in Santa Monica Bay, as well as develop a plan for a monitoring program and definition of land use "Best Management Plan" (BMP's) to control discharge of pollutants to the storm drain system. In subsequent years, additional funds and staff time will be required to fund the City of Hermosa Beach's portion of any monitoring program that will need to be implemented. 6. Potential Litigation On July 17, 1990 the National Resources Defense Council, Inc.(NRDC) filed a petition with the State Water Resources Control Board requesting a review of California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Los Angeles Region Order No. 90-079, NPDES Permit No. CA0061654 (CI 6948) Waste Discharge Requirements stormwater/urban runoff discharge for Los Angeles County and Co -Permittees. The petition claims: 1. The permit fails to impose enforceable standards. 2. The permit fails to require adoption of discharge controls to the maximum extent practicable. 3. The permit fails to impose a three-year timeline for compliance. NRDC requests that the permit be modified to comply with the provisions of the 1987 Clean Water Act. On September 25, 1990 the County of Los Angeles Public Works Director filed a response to the petition. On October 19, 1990, I spoke with Mr. Craig Wilson, Assistant Chief Counsel to the State Board, who informed me that the board has up to nine months from August 24, 1990 to respond. August 24th is the date the board deemed the petition as complete. If the board is unable to resolve the matter within the time period the petitioners will have exhausted their administrative remedies and they must petition the courts. On October 19th the L.A. Regional Water Quality Board issued a response to the State Board indicating their belief that the County permit application should be upheld by the State Board. 7. Summary Elimination of Santa Monica Bay water pollution is a public concern and enjoys substantial support of several parties and environmental groups - notably Heal the Bay, Sierra Club and American Oceans Campaign, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency. Government has required large industrial polluters to change their discharge practices. Studies have shown that storm drains can negatively impact water quality. The efforts of the cities within the Santa Monica Bay's watershed may help to reduce and identify future pollution sources. Preparing the necessary data base is time consuming and will require a concentrated effort by staff to meet the deadlines however it will meet the environmental concerns of many interested parties. Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to, City Council are: 1. Consider hiring of additional personnel at midyear to handle the additional workload demand. 2. Request additional information. Respectfully submitted, 14 /1:( /107C1S7 Anth75ny Antich Kevin B. Northc "raft Concur: Public Works Director City Manager pworks/npdes - 4 - November 5, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 13, 1990 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR BASKETBALL COURTS AT CLARK FIELD CIP 89-512 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with Hines Construction Company at a cost not to exceed $94,750, which includes a 10% contingency. 2. Authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary within budget limitations. 3a. Appropriate $7,181 from the Grant Fund (to be reimbursed from the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Grant No. BB -19034) to CIP 89-512. b. Appropriate $4,128 from the Grant Fund (to be reimbursed from the 1986 Community Parklands Grant No. 86-1-19095) to CIP 89-512. c. Transfer $11,200 in the Park and Recreational Facilities Tax Fund from CIP 89-506 to CIP 89-512. d. Appropriate $20,985 from the balance in the Park and Recreational Facilities Tax Fund to CIP 89-512. Background: This project proposes to install two full-size lighted basketball courts immediately north of the tennis courts at Clark Field. On July 30, 1990, the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission reviewed and recommended that the City Council approve the plans and specifications. In addition, the Commission recommended that additional funds from CIP 89-506 and the Parks and Recreation Facility Tax Fund be approved to provide lighting on the courts. On September 11, 1990, City Council authorized staff to advertise for construction bids on this project. Analysis: The analysis is divided into the following sections: 1. The Base Bids 2. Fiscal Impact 3. Reference Check 4. The Lowest Cost and Most Responsible Bidder 5. Summary 1. The Base Bids Eight sealed bids were received by the City Clerk on November 1, 1990. The bids were publicly opened and read aloud. The bid results are shown on Attachment "A". 2. Fiscal Impact Construction Contract Amount Contractor's Bid (including alternates) $86,137 10% Contingency 8,613 Not to Exceed Amount $94,750 Shown below are the low bidder's proposed construction costs: Contractor's Base Bid $59,464 The Contractor's Base Bid includes, demolition, grading, the installation of a reinforced concrete pad, basketball goals and posts, acrylic surfacing, striping, and fencing with screening. Alternate Bid Items 1. Underground Conduits for Lighting System 6,698 2. Court Lighting Alternate System "A" -0- (Contractor bid of $79,345 NOT RECOMMENDED) 3. Court Lighting Alternate System "B" 16,225 4. Drinking Fountain Installation 1,750 5. Benches 2,000 Cost of Alternate Items (1,3,4 and 5) $26,673 Total Construction Contract Cost $86,137 Estimated. Total Project Costs Design (FY 89-90) Construction Contingency Proposed Project Budget $ 6,744 86,137 $92,881 8,613 $101,494 Note: Inspection on this project will be performed in-house and will require no additional appropriation of tax dollars. Project Funding The City Council approved Grant Fund amount for this project in the 1989-90 fiscal year budget was $58,000 of which $6,744 was spent. The unexpended grant amount of $51,256 has been carried forward to the 1990-91 fiscal year. (See Attachment "B") Shown below is the proposed funding scheme for the total project. Per Capita Grant No. 88-1-19025 $ 58,000 Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Grant No. BB -190384(1) 7,181 1986 Community Parklands Grant No. 86-1-19095(2) 4,128 CIP 89-506(3) 11,200 Other(4) 20,985 Total $101,494 3. Reference Check At least three references were questioned for each of the three lowest bidders to determine their qualifications. All three contractors have a valid class "A" contractor license (General Engineering) issued by the State of California and no violations have been filed against the firms. References indicated that the three lowest bidders were qualified to construct this type of project, finished on schedule, within budget and produced quality work. 4. The Lowest Cost and Most Responsible Bidder Award of this contract is based on the lowest cost to the City and the most responsible proposal which best meets the needs of the City. Hines Construction Company is the lowest cost and most responsible bidder best meeting the needs of the City. (1) This grant funding is available for development of Facilities for recreational purposes at Clark Stadium. This money is remaining funds from previous improvements at Clark Field and must be spent this fiscal year. This grant funding is remaining from CIP 89-507, Tennis Courts at Clark Field and must be spent this fiscal year. This amount is anticipated to be remaining depending upon final fencing costs at various locations. (4) Proposed funding sources are: a) Park and Recreation Facilities Tax Fund ($257,944 available funding). b) General Fund, Designated for Capital Improvements ($39,907 unspent). 5. Summary The newly adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan identifies the need to add basketball courts at Clark Field. Over $69,300 State Grant dollars are eligible, and have been approved by the State, for this project. Also, the Commission has recommended that Parks and Recreation Facility Tax Fund dollars be approved to provide lighting on the courts. There is $11,200 in Parks and Recreation Facility Tax Fund dollars available in CIP 89-506. However, almost $21,000 additional Parks and Recreation Facility Tax Fund dollars is still needed to complete the entire project. This project is recommended for approval by the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Commission and is consistent with the City Council's adopted goals. Alternatives: Alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. Reduce the scope of work. (Eliminate any or all of the "alternate bid items".) 2. Award the project to the next lowest bidder. (This alternative should be considered only when the lowest bidder is non-responsive and is not recommended.) 3. Reject all bids and rebid the project. 4. Drop or delay the project. Respectfully submitted, Brian Gengler Assistant Engineer Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Director ty/basaward Concur: Lynn Terry Deputy City Engineer, Anthony Antich Director of Public Works Mary .o ey Comm n'i y Resources Director evin B. Nor craft City Manager cP. C. Jt�q JG�.' C. J` C`O, C`o. `oC`o. .c.. e, `0 `f ocy :° 0 K. L Co--. Co' JG oCc, �~y (,pCy, `CA �C t0� Co eq Ole .e. \-2 ,Ar ' ♦c `oc `ocy `o -.c tib, - 0`qG4-\ i9 CP �O�ey� �J`�a a�oc q�e.La� O G ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE BID NO. 1 BID NO. 2 BID NO. 3 BID NO. 4 BID NO. 5 BID NO. 6 BID NO. 7 BID NO. 8 BASE BID ITEM 1. Demolition, Clearing & Grubbing 8,000 2,730 12,572 16,900 15,000 23,000 17,334 23,000 52,800 2. Reinforced Concrete Pad 34,500 31,680 41,328 46,080 46,800 39,600 41,760 46,080 46,800 3. Basketball Goals & Posts 2,000 4,800 5,832 6,940 5,200 8,800 5,800 8,000 6,000 4. Acrylic Surfacing 6,210 •6,048 5,328 4,320 5,616 4,464 6,048 4,320 2,160 5. Striping 500 600 520 350 1,500 1,200 1,325 500 600 6. Fencing 6,264 12,180 12,396 10,788 9,483 10,614 11,213 10,544 8,700 7. Windscreen 992 1,426 1,810 1,488 1,302 1,240 1,314 1,488 1,488 TOTAL BASE BID 58,466 59,464 79,786 86,866 84,901 88,918 84,794 93,932 118,548 ALTERNATE BID ITEMS 1. Underground Conduits 3,400 6,698 4,624 2,720 2,346 3,740 4,780 4,692 1,700 2. Court Lighting System "A" 34,600 79,345 25,892 32,312 83,650 28,515 118,919 33,900 42,250 3. Court Lighting System "B" 25,000 16,225 20,416 15,994 21,600 16,615 28,619 19,410 29,650 4. Drinking Fountain Installation 600 1,750 2,423 2,027 2,100 2,200 4,000 6,500 2,000 5. Benches 400- 2,000 1,856 2,940 2,600 2,600 3,200 2,600 4,800 GRAND TOTAL "BASE BID" PLUS ALTERNATE BID ITEMS 1,2,4,5 GRAND TOTAL "BASE BID" PLUS ALTERNATE BID ITEMS 1,3,4,5 GRAND TOTAL "BASE BID" PLUS ALTERNATE BID ITEMS 1,3,4 GRAND TOTAL "BASE BID" PLUS ALTERNATE BID ITEM 1 ONLY 97,466 149,257 114,581 126,865 175,597 125,973 215,693 141,624 169,298 87,866 86,137 109,105 110,547 113,547 114,073 125,393 127,134 156,698 87,466 84,137 107,249 107,607 110,947 111,473 122,193 124,534 151,898 61,866 66,162 84,410 89,586 87,247 92,658 89,574 98,624 120,248 Attachment "A" CIP 89-512 BASKETBALL COURTS EXPENDITURES PROJECT ELEMENTS EXPENDED PRIOR TO FY89-90 BUDGET FY89-90 EXPENDED THRU 2/28/90 FINAL EXPENDED 6/30/90 FINAL BALANCE 6/30/90 BUDGET FY90-91 BUDGET FY91-92 ESTIMATED FUTURE NEEDS ESTIMATED PROJECT TOTAL FY92-93 FY93-94 FY94-95 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING 58,000 TOTAL 6,744 51,256 0 $51,256 58,000 0 PLANS, SPECS & ESTIMATES 8,000 6,744 1,256 1,256 0 8,000 CONSTRUCTION $58,000 50,000 $6,744 $51,256 50,000 50,000 $0 SO SO $58,000 50,000 INSPECTION 0 0 OTHER DIRECT COSTS 0 '0 SUBTOTAL 0 58,000 0 6,744 51,256 51,256 0 0 0 0 58,000 CONTINGENCY ' 0 0 TOTAL EXPENDITURE $0 $58,000 SO $6,744 $51,256 $51,256 SO S0 SO SO $58,000 FUNDING SOURCES 150 GRANT FUND BUDGET (7/1/90) REAPPROP. DATE MIDYEAR REVISION DATE REVISED BUDGET 0 0 51,256 8/14/90 51,256 PER CAPITA GRANT 0 PER CAPITA GRANT 58,000 TOTAL 6,744 51,256 51,256 $51,256 58,000 STATE GRANT 88-1-19025 0 0 TOTAL FUNDING SO $58,000 SO $6,744 $51,256 $51,256 SO $0 SO SO $58,000 TOTAL UNFUNDED $51,256 IS PROPOSED TO BE REAPPROPRIATED TO FY 90-91. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS OCCURRING AFTER 7/1/90 FUNDING SOURCES BUDGET (7/1/90) REAPPROP. DATE MIDYEAR REVISION DATE REVISED BUDGET 150 GRANT FUND 0 51,256 8/14/90 51,256 PER CAPITA GRANT 0 TOTAL $0 . $51,256 SO $51,256 NOTE: CONSTRUCTION OF THE PLAYING AREA 'IS PROPOSED FOR FY 90-91 FROM THE EXISTING STATE GRANT. ADDITIONAL FUNDS FROM CIP 89-506 WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF LIGHTS TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT. PROPOSED PROJECT FUNDING (1) PER CAPITA GRANT NO. 88-1-19025 (2) R -Z -H GRANT NO. BB -19-384 (3) 1986 PARKLANDS GRANT NO. 86-1-19095 $58,000 7,181 4,128 $69,309 Attachment -"B" K/W4e,t714.14..) V&Oat.A1511,0fr%, November 6, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 13, 1990 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE MANIACI INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. AS THE CITY'S HEALTH INSURANCE BROKER RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the attached Services Agreement with Maniaci Insurance Services, Inc. to provide employee health insurance brokerage services. BACKGROUND: The City provides group coverages for Medical, Dental, Vision, Psychological/Mental Health, Life, and Long Term Disability insurances to all civil service employees. These coverages renew each year in December. The level of benefits available to employees and contributions toward payment of premiums are governed by the individual Memoranda of Understanding with the bargaining units. Since approximately 1981, the City has placed its employee benefit coverages through Maniaci Insurance Services. Since the City had not considered other brokers during that time, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was circulated to interested health benefits insurance brokerage firms. Information regarding covered employees and the current benefits structure was also provided to the firms in order that they could approach insurance underwriters and obtain coverage quotations. ANALYSIS: Proposals were solicited from the following seven firms: - Associated Risk Services, Corp. - Robert French Insurance - Cal-Surance Associates, Inc. - Maniaci Insurance Services, Inc. - PGA Insurance Services, Inc. - TPF&C - A Towers Perrin Company - Western Group Agencies, Inc. Of those seven, four responded to the RFP by submitting the requested firm information and quotations for proposed coverages. The attached matrix describes the information contained in the proposals. Submitting firms were evaluated on their responses to the information requested in the RFP (copy attached) as well as comments relating to the level of service provided by the firm tc current and previous clients of the firm. th As the initial review of the proposals indicated that each of the submitting firms has access to the same provider markets with no difference in quoted rates for benefits, the ability to provide service to the City and employees became the primary rating factor. Again, this was determined by contacting the client referrals provided by the submitting agency. Particular focus was placed on the responsivness of the Broker in resolving billing/payment errors and employee complaints regarding service. In the area of service, two firms stood out: Maniaci Insurance Services, Inc. and PGA Insurance Services, Inc. After interviewing both firms, the decision was made to recommend the City maintain its relationship with Maniaci Insurance Services, Inc. It should be noted that it is a common practice of cities who place employee benefits through a broker to retain the same broker. The advantage of this approach is to allow the broker to negotiate with the insurance companies for the best premium rates. If more than one broker is soliciting quotations, companies provide a "published rate" to all brokers and are not willing to negotiate the rate. At the time of this writing the City is finalizing renewal coverages and premiums. Staff is also meeting with employee organization representatives toward making modifications to the benefit structure in order to minimize premium increases. With modifications, it appears that the City will be able to renew coverage at $50,000 less than initial renewal quotations. Respectfully subm•tted: Robert A. Blackwood Risk Manager Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager "P //-/.5-90 October 31, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 13, 1990 AWARD OF BID FOR PICKUP TRUCK AND UTILITY BODY Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council award a bid to Golden State Ford for the purchase of a 1991 1/2 ton pickup\truck at a cost of $11,496.00 (tax and license included). Background: In preparing the FY 1990-92 budget the staff requested an $18,000 appropriation to purchase a new 1/2 ton pickup truck with utility body. The City Council adopted the budget on June 26, 1990 which included a $15,000 appropriation in the Parks Division to purchase a used truck with a new utility'body for $15,000. Staff began the 'search for used truck but could not find an acceptable used truck. After discussions with the City Manager, the staff advertised for new truck and utility body, keeping in mind the $15,000 limit. A copy of all bid package information is available for review in the City Clerk's office. Analysis: The analysis is divided as follows: 1. Advertising For Pickup Truck 2. Utility Body 3. Fiscal Impact 4. Summary 1. Advertising For Pickup Truck The staff prepared specifications for purchase of a new truck and advertised the request for bids in the Easy Reader. Seven (7) sealed bids were received by the City Clerk on October 25, 1990. The bids were publicly opened and read aloud. The results of the pickup truck bids were as follows and include all applicable fees, taxes and manufacturer rebates: �i 1. Golden State Ford (1991) 2. •Clippinger Chevrolet (1991) 3. Good Buick -GMC Trucks, Inc. (1990) 4. Chaffee Motors (1991) 5. Thorson (1990) 6. Downey Auto Center (1991) 7. Camino Real Chevrolet (1991) $11,496.00 $12,096.23 $12,254.25 $12,384.60 $12,740.61 $13,086.48 $14,623.21 Mike Flaherty, Crewleader for the Parks Department, inspected the low bidder's pickup truck. This pickup truck from Golden State Ford meets or exceeds all specifications in the bid package. 2. Utility Body Thestaff obtained four (4) bids include all applicable and are as follows: 1. Royal Truck Body, Inc. 2. Trojan 3. Harbor 4. Douglass bids for a new utility body. The fees, taxes and manufacturer rebates Closed Top $ 2,132.86 $ 2,707.25 $ 2,484.13 $ 2,678.36 Open Top $ 2,346.36 $ 2,857.06 $ 2,631.81 $ 2,888.66 Pending City•Council approval of a new truck, staff will issue a purchase order to Royal Truck Body, Inc. (the low bidder) in the amount of $2,346.36 for an open top utility body. It has been determined by Mike Flaherty, of the Parks Department, that there is additional storage in the open top configuration and the access to the storage is easier in the open top utility body. Amount budgeted: Truck Utility Body Total: Amount under 3. Fiscal Impact $15,000.00 budget: $ 1,157.64 . Summary $11,496.00 $ 2,346.36 $13,842.36 The staff identified a need to replace a 1970 truck and had estimated a cost of $18,000. The City Manager also saw a need to replace the truck with a newer model, but because of budget constraints he suggested that the staff look at used trucks. To accomplish the goal of a new, lower maintenance vehicle, the staff prepared a bare bones specification package for a new truck and received a bid under the budgeted amount. It is recommended that it will be cost effective to purchase a new truck and utility body rather than continuing to search for a used 'vehicle which would require engine maintenance and body work. This recommendation is consistent with the City Council goals of: - Search for "cost-effective" improvements for City Departments. A new truck will reduce the mechanic maintenance workload. - Improve the image of Hermosa Beach. A visible representation that the City is upgrading its equipment. Alternatives: 1. Reject the low bidders. 2. Rebid the project. 3. Drop the project; however, this does not procure the necessary equipment. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Conklin Administrative Aide Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Sevin B. Northcraft Concur: A`'n-ti (ony Antich Director of Pubic Works 117 Finance Director City Manager Honorable Mayor and Members of Hermosa Beach City Council Ac -0-7071 96 -- SW November 01, 1990 Regular meeting of November 13, 1990 DESIGNATION OF THE LOS ANGLES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (LACTC) AS THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council adopt the accompanying resolution designating the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) as the Congestion Management Agency for Los Angeles County. Background The passage of Proposition 111 providing for an increase in the gas tax also triggered the passage of Assembly Bill No. 1791 which mandates the development and implementation of a Congestion Management Program (CMP) in all the State's urbanized counties. The State laws require the creation or designation of a Congestion Management Agency (CMA) to prepare the update the County -wide CMP and monitor its progress and implementation. State legislation requires that this agency will either be a County transportation commission, or some other agency designated by resolutions, adopted by the County Board of Supervisors and the city councils of a majority of the cities representing a plurality of the population in the incorporated area of the County. Analysis The analysis is divided as follows: 1. AB 1791 2. Who wants to be the Congestion Management Agency (CMA)? 3. Who has adopted resolution designating LACTC as CMA? 4. Potential Effects to Hermosa Beach 5. Summary 1. AB 1791 and the Congestion Management Program AB 1791 introduced by Assembly Members Nate and Clute was signed by the Governor on March 12, 1990. The legislative counsel's digest is available for review in the City Clerk's office. AB 1791 requires either the county transportation commission, or another designated public agency, to adopt a Congestion Management program (CMP) by December 1, 1991,, or risk losing state transportation funding. Five primary elements of the CMP are as follows: - Traffic level -of -service (LOS) standards; - Public transit service and coordination standards; - Trip reduction and travel demand requirements that promote alternative transportation methods, such as car pools, van pools, transit, bicycling, park-and-ride lots, flexible work hours, parking management strategies, as well as improvement in the jobs/housing balance; - Programs that analyze the impactsoflocal land -use decisions on roads, highways, and transit systems. - Seven-year capital improvement program consistent with the transportation -related air quality program to reduce vehicle emissions, maintain and improve the LOS and transit performance standards, and mitigate regional transportation impacts identified by the land use analysis. AB 1791 specifies that CMPs be developed in consultation with the regional planning agency (for the South Coast Air Basin, this organization is the Southern California Association of Governments), regional transportation providers, local governments, California Department of Transportation, and the air pollution control agency, (which is the AQMD in the South Coast Air Basin). 2. Who wants to be the Congestion Management Agency (CMA)? a) LACTC: At its July 25, 1990 meeting, the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) acknowledged that they would be willing to be the Congestion Management Agency for the Los Angeles County. The LACTC has in turn requested that all the incorporated cities in the County consider the adoption of a resolution supporting this resolve. Because LACTC is the County's Transportation Commission, which is a prerequisite to be named as a CMA, and they have the organizational capabilities plus experienced personnel, it is appropriate that they be designated as the Congestion Management Agency for Los Angeles. b) How about others? I spoke to Diane Perrine Project Manager, South Bay Area Team of(LACTC) on October 2, 1990 and she said no other agency is in the running. The three viable options are: 1. LACTC 2. LA County Public Works Department 3. Creation of a new agency 3. Who has adopted resolution designating LACTC as CMA? As of October 2, 1990, County Public Works says that the County Board of Supervisors has not designated LACTC as CMA at the present time. How about other City. Councils? See attachment listing all cities as of who have confirmed LACTC as CMA. 4. Potential Effects to Hermosa Beach On October 22, 1990, I sent a letter to LACTC requesting answers to the following questions. Answers from (LACTC) are attached. Should the City Council adopt the attached resolution 1. Does the City Council relinquish or diminish its sovereignty over Pacific Coast Highway? 2. Does the City Council relinquish or diminish its sovereignty over Artesia Boulevard? 3. Will the CMA demand and/or request or suggest any parking removals along the west side of Pacific Coast Highway? 4. What control will the CMA have over Pacific Coast Highway or the other City streets? 5. Summary LACTC appears to be the front runner in obtaining approval from other cities. Adoption of the attached resolution is consistent with the city's circulation element of the General Plan. Alternatives Other alternatives considered by staff and available, to City Council are: 1. Do not adopt the resolution 2. Modify the resolution Respectfully submitted Anthony Ant i ch Public Works Director Concur: Kevin B. North raft City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 90- 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ACKNOWLEDGING THE DESIGNATION OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2 TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AS THE LOS ANGELES CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) AGENCY FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65089 requires the development of a Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County which includes the County and every city in the County; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65089 provides that the Congestion Management Plan shall be developed either by the County Transportation Commission, or by another public agency, as designated bythe .County Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of a majority of the cities representing a majority the population in the incorporated area of the County; and WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission by action taken on July 25, 1990 has supported its designation as the Congestion Management Agency; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby acknowledge the designation of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission as the Congestion Management Program (CMP) Agency for Los Angeles County. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of November 1990. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 27City Clerk City Attorney 28 RECEIVED OCT 11990 PUBU(; WORKS DEPT, October 25, 1990 Mr. Anthony Antich Director of Public Works City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 Dear Mr. Antich: 404# g0 LACTC Los Angeles County Transportation Commission 818 West Seventh Street Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel 213 623-1194 Fax 213 236-4805 SUBJECT: LOCAL PARKING AND THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY Thank you for your letter asking for information about the rela- tionship of the Congestion Management Program (CMP) and the on - street parking on the Pacific Coast Highway in Hermosa Beach. We have answered your questions in the same order as you posed them. 1. Does the City Council relinquish or diminish its sovereignty over Pacific Coast Highway? The Congestion Management Program does not change the authori- ty or sovereignty of either the state or the city over any road. Because it is a state highway, the route will have to be monitored and a level of service will need to be adopted by the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) in consultation with the city and Caltrans. 2. Does the City Council relinquish or diminish it sovereignty over Artesia Boulevard? Same answer as above. 3. Will the CMA demand and/or request or suggest any parking removals along the west side of Pacific Coast Highway? The CMA does not have the authority to demand the removal of parking on any streets. 4. What control will the CMA have over Pacific Coast Highway or the other City Streets? The CMA will only become involved in the Pacific Coast High- way, Artesia Boulevard, or any city streets when a capital project is submitted for funding by your city or Caltrans for inclusion in the CMP seven year Capital Improvement Program or as part of a locally generated deficiency plan. Leading the Way to Greater Mobility Mr. Anthony Antich October 25, 1990 Page 2 We hope that the City of Hermosa Beach will join the other 56 Los Angeles County cities (representing over 6.5 million people) which have formally concurred with the designation of the LACTC as the CMA for the County. We will be happy to attend your council meet- ing to answer any further questions or address additional concerns you may have regarding the designation and a responsibilities of the Congestion Management Agency. If we can provide you with any additional information, please don't hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, VOM) VICTOR KAMHI Program Manager, South Bay Area HB1/vk4 vk:me CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY SAN GABRIEL VALLEY POPULATION 80,740 48,007 39,844 64,481 816 .32 699 42,453 28,053(1980) 20 104 47 36 30 34 60 129 129 51 32 36 12 ,536 1189 ,257 812 992 ,450 ,827 ,792 ,567 ,518 ,315 ,156 ,439 ,760 ,920 10,727 20,100 23,759 30,769 28,905 94,391 CITY Alhambra Arcadia Azusa Baldwin Park Bradbury Claremont Covina Diamond Bar Duarte El. Monte ' Glendora Industry Irwindale La Puente La Verne Monrovia Monterey Park Pasadena Pomona Rosemead San Dimas San Gabriel San Marino Sierra Madre South El Monte South Pasadena Temple City Walnut West Covina SAN FERNANDO VALLEY. 19,8'50 95,000 174,800 1,980 • Agoura Hills Burbank Glendale ,Hidden Hills STATUS Update 10/29/90 10:00 AM Passed Passed Passed Passed No (will reconsider) Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Pending Passed Passed Passed, conditioned on participation Scheduled 10/23 Passed To be scheduled Passed Passed Passed Passed Scheduled 10/23 -Passed Pull Council heard this on August 27th and took no action per • Cheria Paglia; it will not be heard again. �, -' '1'.L ? � :•s '.:'1 a;'; �w.•�:y:(S{,��t}': ••7(„•'!i�= `:i Z #. HOd29 VSOW83H J,lIOG1�-3LatrgcZe1Z Wd60c1, 06-9-LL:LLOL .1atdoaalal XO X :,19 AOS: Page 2. SAN FERNANDO VALLEY (Continued) 20,500 88,700 56,500 20,650 121,200 8.575 WESTSIDE 41,500 34,304 38,000 97,212 CENTRAL 3,433,600 SOUTH BAY 2,470 83,000 51,200 16,000 12,500 67,800 19,650 102,600 Lacanada- Flintridge Lancaster Palmdale San Fernando Santa Clarita Westlake Village Culver City Beverly Hills West Hollywood Santa Monica Los Angeles Avalon Carson Gardena El Segundo Hawaiian Gardens Hawthorne Hermosa Beach Inglewood _• Held. To be scheduled Passed Passed Passed No action Passed Scheduled for October. Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Not scheduled. No. Rescheduled. Passed Unscheduled Scheduled for October 9 ,tea-• _ �a•.1.:gg�t�A;!_i'. �✓N•�.i,,. - ... �� • #: HOb'39 VSOWa3H`AlI0+4L979E6£1,6 WdL:ti : 06-9-LL:6L0L .�a�do�a al X083X :,19 INS Page 3. SOUTH BAY (Continued) 27,650 Lawndale Passed 419,700 Long Beach Passed 20,950 Lomita Passed 35,100 Manhattan Beach Passed 15;000 Palos Verdes Estates Unscheduled 46,050 Rancho Palos Verdes Passed 8/21 65,100 Redondo Beach Scheduled for 11/6 2,090 Rolling Hills Asked for another packet for new CM to review 7,825 Rolling Hills Estates Passed 8,175 Signal Hill Scheduled for October 16 142,500 Torrance Passed SOUTHEAST 15,000 Artesia Waiting for copy of Norwalk's resolution. 28,650 Bell Passed 38,800 Bell Gardens Passed 61,300 Bellflower No action taken. 58,400 Cerritos Scheduled for November 11,850 Commerce Passed 93,400 Compton 20,400 Cudahy e ft: HOvqq denW=u 1ITe14-7.I.0170R7Rl7 Council action delayed Passed (Ali. :17 ' f1R-C—I6sInl iaTfinonl91 1111v7v'.ia lm7e Page SOUTHEAST (Continued) 87,200 Downey Scheduled for November 52,000 Huntington Park Passed A 5,450 La Habra Heights On agenda for 10/il 42,900 La Mirada Passed, 76,700 Lakewood No action taken. 54500 Lynwood Scheduled for 10/16 24,800 Maywood No action taken. 59,300 Montebello Passed. 91,600 Norwalk Passed. 45,700 Paramount Passed. 58,300 Pico Rivera Passed. 16,400 Santa Fe Springs Passed. 79,800 South Gate Passed. 80 Vernon Scheduled for 10/16 75,600 Whittier .Study session 11/13. Scheduled for action 11/20. L A County Referred to Public Works staff. JW2:CMA Not yet scheduled for Board action. 6/589 873 Population of cities that passed CMA (56) 955,201 Unincorporated population 7,770,135 Total incorporated population 8,725,336 Total population 5 n; Honorable Mayor and Members of November 6, 1990 Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 13, 1990 RECOMMENDATION TO REJECT CLAIM FILED AGAINST THE CITY BY POTLATCH CORPORATION AND SIMPSON PAPER COMPANY The following claim has been received by the Risk Manager's office: Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe on behalf of Potlatch Corporation and Simpson Paper Company alleged release of hazardous substances, filed October 3, 1990. RECOMMENDED ACTION: On the advise of counsel, it is recommended that the City Council reject the claim filed by. Potlatch Corporation and Simpson Paper Company on the basis that the claim was not filed within statutory limits. BACKGROUND: The above noted claim has also been filed with 76 other cities and is a result of Federal and State agencies filing suit against Potlatch Corporation and Simpson Paper Company for release of hazardous substances into the environment. Note: The above claim is available for review in the Risk Manager's office. Respectfully submitted: Robert A. Blackwood Risk Manager Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager In the Matter of Potlatch Corporation ) and Simpson Paper Company, ) ) Claimants, ) ) vs. ) ) CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND 76 OTHER CITIES, ) TOWNS, MUNICIPALITIES AND/OR ) INCORPORATED ENTITIES ) ) Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 900 et sea., the undersigned claimants, Potlatch Corporation and Simpson Paper Company (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Claimants"), without admitting any obligation to make such a claim, hereby make claim against the "Claimees" which include the City of Los Angeles and its various departments, offices and operations including, but not limited to, the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the City of Los Angeles Hyperion Treatment Plant, and the public employees and agents of the City of Los Angeles. (referred to hereinafter as "Los Angeles") and the 76 Cities, Municipalities, and/or Incorporated entities included on the list attached as Exhibit "A," and incorporated herein by reference (collectively referred to hereinafter as the "Claimees"), for all damages, costs, response costs, attorneysfees and related costs (collectively "damages") resulting from the release of hazardous substances including, but not limited to, dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane ("DDT") and. .f /1 I 14' • polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCBs"), into the waters constituting the Southern California Bight Area, including, but not limited to, the waters in and around Los Angeles, California, including those parts of the San Pedro Channel in and around the Palos Verdes Shelf, the Los Angeles-Long Beach. Harbors, the Los Angeles River and the Channel Islands (collectively referred to as the - —I "Bight Area"). Claimants assert a claim for partial and total indemnification, contribution, setoff and recoupment for some or all liabilities and damages which Claimants may incur, including without limitation the costs of litigation, experts' and attorneys' fees, as a result of having been named as a defendant in the action entitled United States of America. et al. v. Montrose Chemical Corporation of California. et al., Case No. CV 90-3122-AAH (JRx) ("the NOAA litigation"), filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 18, 1990, and amended in the same court on June 28, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the "First Amended Complaint"). Claimants accepted service of the First Amended Complaint through acknowledgement by counsel on July 18, 1990. 1. ClaimantsAddresses. Potlatch Corporation's business address is One Maritime Plaza, Suite 2400, San Francisco, California 94119-3591 and its telephone number is (415) 576-8800. Simpson Paper Company's business address is 1201 Third Street, Suite 4800, Seattle, Washington 98101-3009 and its telephone number is (206) 224-5045. 2. Addresses for Notices. Notices concerning this claim for Potlatch Corporation should be sent to Patrick W. Dennis, Esq., McClintock, Weston, Benshoof, Rochefort, Rubalcava & MacCuish, 444 S. Flower Street, 5th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071. Mr. Dennis' telephone number is (213) 623- 2322. Notices concerning this claim for Simpson Paper Company should be sent to Roger Lane Carrick, Esq., Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, 555 S. Flower Street, 25th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071-2306. Mr. Carrick's telephone number is (213) 689-0200. 3. Description of Occurrence. The information concerning the date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence and/or transactions which gave rise to this claim for partial and total indemnification, contribution, setoff and recoupment against the Claimees is alleged in the First Amended Complaint filed in the NOAA litigation. The First Amended Complaint (attached as Exhibit "B") is incorporated herein by reference, not as facts admitted by Claimants, but as alleged facts which, if proven true, mandate that the Claimees are jointly and severally liable for some or all alleged damages. Furthermore, Claimants are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that the Claimees are legally responsible for acts or omissions that have caused some or all alleged injuries to natural resources that have occurred in the areas at issue in the NOAA litigation. From roughly the 1930's to the present, the Claimees disposed of, and arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances including, but not limited to, DDT and PCBs in the Bight Area. n 4.: Claimees through their acts and omissions disposed of and arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances including, but not limited to, DDT and PCBs, proximately causing the injuries and damages alleged in the First Amended Complaint, and therefore, are jointly and severally liable for the damages that may have resulted. The Claimees' acts and omissions constitute negligence,Agross negligence, wilful misconduct, wilful negligence, negligence per la, negligence in the handling of ultrahazardous materials and a breach of mandatory duty. Claimees are therefore either fully or partially responsible for some or all injury which may have been sustained by plaintiffs, and, by reason of such responsibility, are each legally obligated to Claimants for any damages Claimants may incur as a result of the NOAA litigation. Claimants are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that the Claimees may have engaged in the same acts and/or omissions in concert with, and separate from, those attributed to the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County ("LACSD") with respect to discharges into the Bight Area. Moreover, Claimants are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Los Angeles has engaged in acts and/or omissions in the selection, design, ownership, operation, supervision and/or management of the Los Angeles Hyperion Treatment Plant. Claimants are informed and believe that with respect to injuries to natural resources alleged in the First Amended Complaint, that some or all such injuries were caused by the Claimees and the LACSD; LACSD's selection, design, ownership, operation, supervision and/or management of the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant ("JWPCP"), the Joint Outfall System ("JOS") and any and all sewage treatment and discharge systems or methods which are part of or related to the JWPCP or JOS and its operation (collectively referred to as "the sewer system"), which released hazardous substances into the environment, and by the LACSD's arrangements and issuing of permits and emission standards thereunder for the disposal of hazardous substances into the environment. Claimants are informed and believe that the LACSD has failed to comply with many of the laws, regulations and other legal requirements governing the handling, storage and disposal of hazardous substances in connection with the sewer system, enacted to ensure all sewage and other materials discharged via the sewer system are disposed of properly and in a safe manner, and thus failed to fulfill these responsibilities. The LACSD's operation of, and other activities related to the operation of, the sewer system constitutes negligence, negligence per se, negligence in the handling of ultrahazardous materials, gross negligence, wilful misconduct, wilful negligence, and a breach of mandatory duty. Based on the foregoing, Claimants are entitled to recover from the Claimees, jointly and severally, under the following legal theories, among others, for any damages Claimants may incur in the NOAA litigation: (a) equitable indemnity; (b) indemnity; (c) contribution; (d) negligence, negligence per gm, gross negligence, wilful misconduct and wilful negligence; (e) strict liability; (f) liability for ultrahazardous activities; (g) setoff and recoupment; (h) nuisance; (i) breach of mandatory duty; (j) contribution under CERCLA § 113(f), 42 U.S.C. S 9613(f); and (k) liability under CERCLA § 107, 42 O.S.C. § 9607. 4. Damage or Loss. A general description of the indebtedness, obligation, -injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it is known at present is set forth and alleged in the First Amended Complaint. As stated above, Claimants do not admit that the, allegations are true; but merely ifthey are proven true, that the Claimees are partially or completely responsible for some or all injury, damage or loss. Other than as described above, the exact manner in which the Claimees caused the damages or injuries alleged in the NOAA litigation and exactly when the acts occurred is presently unknown. The identities of the agencies and/or employees of the Claimees participating in the acts are also presently unknown. Because no specific dollar amount of damages has been asserted in the NOAA litigation, Claimants are not presently able to state the dollar amount being sought by this claim, nor do Claimants have an estimate of the attorneys' fees expended to defend against the NOAA litigation. Claimants deny that they are responsible or have any liability for any of the alleged damages or other relief requested in the NOAA litigation and assert that the Claimees are responsible and liable, jointly and severally, for some or all of such alleged. damages. 5. Authorization: The undersigned are authorized to sign and submit this claim on behalf of their respective Claimants. DATED: September 6 , 1990 HELLER, E ITE & McAULIFFE By S. I I4I. All /,og Lane arrick orneys for Claimant Simpson Paper Company DATED: September C , 1990 McCLINTOCK, WESTON, BENSHOOF, ROCHEFORT, RUBALCAVA & MACCUISH By Patrick W. Dennis Attorneys for Claimant Potlatch Corporation Y • CITY OF ALHAMBRA CITY OF ARCADIA CITY OF ARTESIA CITY OF AZUSA CITY OF BALDWIN PARK CITY OF BELL CITY OF BELLFLOWER CITY OF BELL GARDENS CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS CITY OF BRADBURY CITY OF CARSON CITY OF CERRITOS CITY OF CHINO CITY OF CLAREMONT CITY OF COMMERCE CITY OF COMPTON CITY OF COVINA CITY OF CUDAHY CITY OF CULVER CITY CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CITY OF DOWNEY CITY OF DUARTE CITY OF EL MONTE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO CITY OF GARDENA CITY OF GLENDORA CITY OF HAWAIIAN GARDENS CITY OF HAWTHORNE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK CITY OF INDUSTRY CITY OF INGLEWOOD CITY OF IRWINDALE CITY OF LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS CITY OF LAKEWOOD CITY OF LA MIRADA CITY OF LA PUENTE CITY OF LA VERNE CITY OF LAWNDALE CITY OF LOMITA CITY OF LONG BEACH CITY OF LYNWOOD CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH CITY OF MAYWOOD CITY OF MONROVIA CITY OF MONTCLAIR CITY OF MONTEBELLO EXHIBIT A • CITY OF MONTEREY PARK CITY OF NORWALK CITY OF PALMDALE CITY OF PALOS VERDES ESTATES CITY OF PICO RIVERA CITY OF POMONA CITY OF RANCHO•PALOS VERDES CITY OF REDONDO BEACH CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES CITY OF ROSEMEAD • CITY OF SAN DIMAS CITY OF SAN FERNANDO CITY OF SAN GABRIEL CITY OF SAN MARINO CITY OF SANTE FE SPRINGS CITY OF SANTA MONICA CITY OF SIERRA MADRE CITY OF SIGNAL HILL CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA CITY OF TEMPLE CITY CITY OF TORRANCE CITY OF UPLAND CITY OF VERNON CITY OF WALNUT CITY OF WEST COVINA CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD • 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 RICHARD R. STEWART Assistant Attorney General GERALD F. GEORGE Environmental Enforcement Section Environment and Natural Resources Division 301 Howard, Suite 870 United Sates Department of Justice 1 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 744-6491 a .1 ROBERT L. BROSIO United States Attorney FREDERICK M. BROSIO, JR. Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division IAN FAN Assistant United States Attorney 1100 United States Courthouse 312 North Spring Street Los Angeles, California 90012 Telephone: (213) 394-2445 FILED JUN 28 L930 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DIS I F CALIFORNIA BY DEPUTY Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America (For Additional Attorneys See Next Page) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ex rel., DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, STATE LANDS COMMISSION, and DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION, Plaintiffs, v. MONTROSE CHEMICAL CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA; ATKEMIX THIRTY-SEVEN, INC.; STAUFFER MANAGEMENT COMPANY; ICI AMERICAN HOLDINGS, INC.; CHRIS -CRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC.; WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP.; POTLATCH CORPORATION; SIMPSON PAPER COMPANY; and COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 OF LOS ANGELES, Defendants. No. CV 90-3122-AAH(JRx) Pcr r AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGES, RESPONSE COSTS, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a) 1 2 3 4 S 6. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP Attorney General of the State of California ROBERT H. CONNETT Assistant Attorney General JOHN SAURENMAN J. MATTHEW RODRIQUEZ SARA J. RUSSELL Deputy Attorneys General 2101 Webster Street Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (415) 464-1083 Attorneys for Plaintiff State of California, ex rel., Department of Fish and Game, State Lands Commission and Department of Parks and Recreation r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The United States of America, by authority of the Attorney General of the United States, on request and on behalf of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), and at the request and on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior and on behalf of the publicus trustee for natural resources under the trusteeship of their trusteeship, and the State of California ex rel. Department of Fish and Game, State Lands Commission, and Department of Parks and Recreation ("State") on behalf of the public as trustee for natural resources under the trusteeship of the Department of Fish and Game, the Department of Parks and Recreation and the State Lands Commission, allege: /// /// 1 i. II 2 3 p the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 4 NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is a civil action brought under Section 107(a) of Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA"), as amended by the Superfund. 5 Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ("SARA"), 42 U.S.C. =_ - 6 § 9607(a). The United States and the State seek declaratory 7• relief and recovery of response costs and damages for injury to 8 natural resources under their trusteeships on behalf of the 9 public pursuant to Section 107(f) of CERCLA. 42 U.S.C. § 9607(f), 10 in connection with releases of hazardous substances into the 11 environment in and around Los Angeles, California, including 12 those parts of the San Pedro Channel in and around the Palos 13 Verdes Shelf, the Los Angeles -Long Beach Harbors and the Channel 14 Islands 15 2. The United States also seeks in this action recovery 16 under Section 107(a) (4) (A) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a) (4) (A), 17 ; of costs incurred and to be incurred by the United States in 18 , response to the release or threatened release of hazardous 19 � substances into the environment from the Montrose Chemical 20 Corporation of California Site located, at 20201 South Normandie 21 I Avenue, Los Angeles, California ("Montrose Site"). II 22 23 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 24 1; Section 113(b) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9613(b), and 28 U.S.C. 25 i; §§ 1331(a) and 1345. I• 26 •i FORM ORD.I 3 ‘1 AR 83 2 4. Venue is proper in 113(b) CERCLA, 4U.S.C.2 U.S and (c), because there have this district pursuant to Section UL 3 § 9613(b), and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) been releases in this district of hazardous substances from locations in and around the City of Los Angeles into the environment, including into the San Pedro Channel, the Palos Verdes Shelf, the Los Angeles -Long Beach Harbors and the Channel Islands. DEFENDANTS 5. Defendant Montrose Chemical Corporation of California ("Montrose"), a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, operated a manufacturing plant at 20201 Normandie Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90044 ("Montrose plant"), at which, at least during the period from 1947 until 1982, Mohtrose was engaged in the manufacture of DDT (dichloro- diphenyl-trichloroethane). 6. Defendant Chris-Craft Industries, Inc.("Chris-Craft"), a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, is the 19 Jersey. 20 Chemical 4 5 6. 7 8 91 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 successor by merger to Montrose Chemical Company of New Montrose' Chemical Company of New Jersey and Stauffer 21 22 23 24 25 26 FORM OBD•III3 MAR 13 Corporation ("Stauffer Chemical") formed Montrose in 1946, with each company holding 50% of the stock of Montrose. Montrose Chemical Company of New Jersey and its successor Chris- Craft actively participated with Montrose in the operation of the Montrose plant during periods in which -there have been releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment from the Montrose plant and facility. 4 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7. Defendant ICI American Holdings, Inc., a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, through its ownership, dominance and control of Stauffer Management Company and Atkemix Thirty -Seven, Incorporated, is current owner of the Montrose facility and successor by merger to the liabilities of =_ Stauffer Chemical arising out of Stauffer Chemical's active participation in the operation of the Montrose plant, and Stauffer Chemical's ownership of the land at 20201 South 9 Normandie Avenue on which the Montrose plant was located. 8.. Defendant Atkemix Thirty -Seven, Incorporated ("Atkemix"), a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Stauffer 10 11 12 13 Management Company. Atkemix is the current holder of the title 14 to the landat 20201 South Normandie Avenue on which the Montrose 15 plant was located, and is successor to Stauffer Chemical as 16 holder of that title. 17 9. Defendant Stauffer Management Company ("Stauffer 18 Management"), a corporation incorporated under the laws of the 19 State of Delaware, is a successor by merger to Stauffer Chemical., 20 and dominates and controls Atkemix, a wholly-owned subsidiary of 21 Stauffer Management. Stauffer Management is a wholly-owned 22 subsidiary of ICI American Holdings, Inc. Stauffer Chemical 23 owned the land at 20201 South Normandie in Los Angeles, 24 California at times during which there have been releases and 25 threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment 26 from that facility. Stauffer Chemical also actively participated FORM 080.111 MAR I) A• 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 • h with Montrose in the operation of the Montrose plant during the period in which there were releases and threatened releases hazardous substances into the environment from the Montrose plant. 10. Defendant Westinghouse Electric Corporation ("Westinghouse"), a corporation incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and doing business in the State of California, has operated from 1956 to the present a plant at of 18020 South Santa Fe Avenue ("Westinghouse plant"), in an unincorporated part of Los Angeles County, California. At that plant, Westinghouse has engaged in the manufacture and repair of electrical equipment, including transformers. 11. Defendant Potlatch Corporation ("Potlatch"), a corporation incorporated under the laws of Delaware, owned and operated a plant in Pomona, California ("Potlatch plant"), during the period from 1952 until 1979, at which it engaged in the manufacture of paper products. 12. Defendant Simpson Paper Company ("Simpson"), a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of 20 Washington, purchased the Potlatch plant from Potlatch in 1979 21 it and is the current owner of the Potlatch plant, where it is 22 � engaged in the manufacture of paper products. 23 13. Defendant County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los 24 Angeles County (hereafter "District No. 2") is a publicly owned 25 j treatment works ("POTW") established pursuant to the laws of the I I • ii 26 FORM OBD•IR? '1t1K NI State of California. District No. 2, acting on its own behalf 6 w1• 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9: 10 the Joint Outfall Agreement, as most recently amended July 1, and on behalf of fourteen other county sanitation districts in Los Angeles County (collectively "'LACSD"), pursuantto an agreement titled the Joint Outfall Agreement, operates the Joint Outfall System. The Joint Outfall System consists of a collection and treatment system for wastewater from areas within Los Angeles County and includes the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant ("JWPCP") which discharges treated effluent into the the San Pedro Channel through a Vstem of outfall pipes located at White's Point (White's1Point Outfall"). The other signatories to 11 -' 1980, are County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 3, 5, 8, 15, 16, 12 . 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 29 of Los Angeles County and South 13 Bay Cities Sanitation District of Los Angeles County. .I 14 15 GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 14. The terms "DDT", "MCB" (monochlorobenzene) and "PCBs" 16 (I (polychlorinated biphenyls) refer to groups of chemical compounds 17 '; found generically within the category of chlorinated 18 hydrocarbons. DDT and DDT metabolites, including DDD and DDE, 19 ;, (collectively "DDT"), MCB and PCBs have toxic effects on humans 20 and other species, and are listed as hazardous substances under 21 CERCLA, 40 C.F.R. § 302.4. They are suspected carcinogens in 22 Ij humans and are associated in other organisms with skin diseases 23 and abnormalities, diminished reproductive capacity,' and other 24 i conditions associated with reduced viability. 25 ; 15. PCBs and DDT are highly persistent in the environment 26 i and are bioaccumulative. DDT and PCBs present in the 1 7 FORM OBO.I!) M4R 83 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Shelf"), the Los Angeles -Long Beach Harbor, and the Channel 10'. 11 12 13 14 environment, either suspended in water or attached to sediments in the water, will accumulate in living organisms in concentrations substantially higher than the concentrations o those compounds found in the environment to which the organisms are exposed. 16. The San Pedro Channel is located off the coast of California near the City of Los Angeles, and includes the waters surrounding the Palos Verdes Peninsula ("the Palos Verdes 15 16 r 17 I. 18 Islands, including the Channel Islands National Park managed by the U. S. Park Service. The San Pedro Channel lies partially with the Exclusive Economic Zone ("EEZ") as defined in Section 101 of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1974, as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 1811. All of these areas lie within the Coastal Zone as that term is defined by Section 304 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 1453. 17. Areas within the San Pedro Channel provide habitat for finfish and other organisms, and are areas for commercial and recreational fishing. These areas•ar"so include breeding and feeding grounds for wildlife, including species of migratory birds, and for threatened and endangered species, such as the brown pelican, bald eagle and peregrine falcon. 18. On information and belief, Montrose operated the Montrose plant at a thirteen acre site located in Los Angeles, 19 shellfish, 20 21 ii 22 23 24 25 i. 26 California near Torrance from 1947 to 1982, and during that !I FORM tlen.113 I: AlK 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 acid process wastes that contained DDT, MCB and other hazardous period Montrose was the largest producer of DDT in the United States. After 1972, when agricultural use of DDT was banned in. the United States, Montrose continued production of DDT at the Montrose plant for export, and it was the only producer of DDT in the United States from that time until 1982, when the Montrose plant was closed. 19. On information and belief, the DDT manufacturing process employed by Montrose at the Montrose plant involved MCB, chloral and concentrated sulphuric acid, and produced caustic and 11 substances. Process wastes from the Montrose plant were disposed 12 13 , 14 I the sewer system and through deposit at landfills and at ocean 15 II. dumping sites. 16 I 20. On information and belief, Montrose, from 1947 until 17'� 1961, arranged for the disposal of acid waste containing 18 1 hazardous substances, including DDT and MCB, from the Montrose of in various ways, including through disposal in an unlined settling and recycling pond on the Montrose Site, discharge to 19 I plant at ocean dump sites in and around the San Pedro Channel, 20 ; near the Channel Islands. 21 ' 21. On information and belief, Montrose, from 1953 until 22 � 1971, discharged wastewater containing hazardous substances, 23 1 including DDT, from the Montrose manufacturing plant into the 24 LACSD collection system feeding into the Los Angeles County 25 ! JWPCP. After treatment at the JWPCP, wastewater containing 26 hazardous substances, including DDT, from the Montrose plant was FORM OBO.I*3 MAR *3 T • w 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14: 15 18 191. 20i 21 22 discharged through the White's Point outfall into the waters of the San Pedro Channel at the Palos Verdes Shelf. 22. On information and belief, hazardous substances, including DDT and MCB, were released into the San Pedro Channel from the Montrose plant through storm water runoff from the land -- at the Montrose plant and through aerial deposition of hazardous substances released from the Montrose plant during manufacturing and grinding operations. 23. On information and belief, Stauffer Chemical, Montrose Chemical Company of New Jersey, and Chris-Craftas successor to Montrose Chemical of New Jersey, actively participated with Montrose in the operation of the Montrose manufacturing plant during times at which there have been releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, including DDT and MCB, from that facility into the environment. 24. On information and belief, Stauffer Chemical was owner of the land at 20201 South Normandie Avenue on which the Montrose plant was located at times during which there have been releases or threatened releases into the environment of hazardous substances, including DDT and MCB, from that plant and from the land on which that plant was located. 25. On information, and belief, ICI American Holdings, Inc., 23 I through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Stauffer Management and 24 Atkemix Thirty -Seven, Inc., is the current owner of the land at 25 120201 South Normandie Avenue on which the Montrose plant was 26 located during times atwhich there have been releases and FORM 0813.113 1 MAR 13 10 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 • threatened releases of hazardous substances, including DDT and MCB, into the environment from that facility. 26. On information and belief, Westinghouse, in the operation of the Westinghouse plant released wastewater containing hazardous substances, including PCBs, into the environment through discharge from its plant into the LACSD 7 collection system that feeds into the JWPCP, and from there into 8 the San Pedro Channel through the White's Point outfall. 9 27. On information and belief, Potlatch, in the operation 10 ,. of the Potlatch plant, prior to its sale of the facility in 1979, 11 released wastewater containing hazardous substances, including PCBs, into the environment through discharge from its plant into the LACSD collection system feeding into the JWPCP and from there into the San Pedro Channel through the White's Point outfall. 28. On information and belief,. Simpson purchased the Potlatch facility in 1979, and'is the current owner of that 17 facility. Simpson, during its operation of that facility, has .18 releases PCBs into. the environment through discharge from its 12 13 14 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 FORM ORO.113 MAR 0 .plant into the LACSD collection system feeding into the JWPCP and from there into the San Pedro Channel through the White's Point Outfall. 29. On information and belief, District No. 2, on its own behalf and, pursuant to the Joint Outfall Agreement, on behalf of the other signatories to the Joint Outfall Agreement, released hazardous substances, including DDT and PCBs, into the environment, including through discharge -of wastewater containing 11 • $ 1 2• 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 • such hazardous substances through the White's Point Outfall into the San Pedro Channel. 30. Concentrations of DDT found in fish caught at locations in the San Pedro Channel along the Palos Verdes Shelf and within the Los Angeles -Long Beach Harbors have exceeded the action level -- for food established for that chemical compound by the United States Food and Drug Administration. The State of California,, based on its assessment of the health risk associated with the .'concentrations of PCBs and DDT found in fish caught at those locations has issued a health advisory regarding consumption of fishcaught in those areas. 31. Species of migratory birds and threatened and endangered species of birds within the trusteeshipof the United i States, •including the brown pelican, bald eagle and peregrine it falcon populations inhabiting, breeding and feeding in the areas II near the San Pedro Channel, including the Channel Islands, have ,j been eliminated or substantially reduced in population, or otherwise injured through the effects of increased levels of DDT 19 and PCBs on the health, reproductive capacity and survival of 20 r those species. 21 ,, 32. DDT and PCBs exist now and will remain available in the 22 future in sediments and in the water column in the San Pedro 23 Channel, the Palos Verdes Shelf, the Los Angeles -Long Beach 24 I! Harbors, and within the food chain in .those areas, in 25 26 11 FORM O8D•I113 MAK *% concentrations that have caused and will continue to cause injury 12 1 !. to natural resources, including fish, birds and marine mammals, 2 r subject to the trusteeship of the United States and the State. 3 33. DDT and its metabolites, including DDE and DDD 4 )(collectively "DDT"), and MCB are hazardous substances within the 5 meaning of Section 101(14) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14). 6 34. PCBs are hazardous substances within the meaning of 7 section 101(14) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14). 35. Each named defendant is a "person" within the meaning of Section 101(21) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(21). 8 9 10 11 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 12 36. The United States the State reallege and incorporate by 13 reference paragraphs 1 through 35. 14 37.,- Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), provides 15 .' that the current owner and operator of a facility; the owner or 16 1, operator, at the time of disposal of hazardous substances, of a 17 facility at which such hazardous substances were disposed of; and 18 any person who, by contract, agreement or otherwise, arranged for 19 ,; disposal or treatment of hazardous substances owned or possessed 20 by such person, by any other person or entity, at any facility 21 j owned or operated by another party or entity and containing such 22 Ii hazardous substances, shall be liable for damages for injury to, 23 I, destruction of, or loss of natural resources, including the 24 reasonable costs of assessing such injury, destruction, or loss 25 I; resulting from such release. 26 II 13 FORM OBD•I$) MAR x; • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 outfall), and the San Pedro Channel, including the Palos Verdes 12 38. Section 107(f)(1) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(f)(1), provides that liability under Section 107(a)(4O(C) of CERCLA, 42 UCSCCG § 9607(a)(4)(C), for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources shall be to the United States Government and` to r• i any State for natural resources within the State or belonging td7'. managed by, controlled by, or appertaining to such State. 39. The Montrose, Westinghouse, and Potlatch/Simpson plants and the land on which_ they are located, the LACSD Joint Outfall System (including the JOS collection, treatment and disposal system leading to the San Pedro Channel through the White's Point 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 FORM 080.1*3 MAR i3 shelf area surrounding the White's Point outfall, the environs of the Channel Islands and the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor, are "facilities" within the meaning of Section 101(9) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(9). 40. Montrose and Chris-Craft are operators of a facility within the meaning of Section 107(a)(1) and (2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(1) and (2), and persons who arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances by another entity at a facility within the meaning of Section 107(a)(3) of CERCLA', 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3). 41. ICI American Holdings, Inc., and its subsidiaries, Stauffer Management, Inc. and Atkemix Thirty -Seven, Inc., are owners of a facility, within the meaning of Section 107(a)(1) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(1). 14 S. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 FORM 080.133 MAR ,33 42. ICI American Holdings, Inc., and Stauffer Management, and Atkemix Thirty -Seven, Inc. are successors to the liabilities of Stauffer Chemical.. Inc., as an owner and operator of the Montrose facility at a time at which hazardous substances were disposed of at that facility, within the meaning of Section 107(a)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(2), and as a person who arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances by another entity at a facility, within the meaning of Section 107(a)(3) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3). 43. Potlatch is an owner and operator of a facility at the time of disposal of hazardous substances, within the meaning of Section 107(x)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(2), and a person who arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances by another entity at a facility, within the meaning of Section 107(a)(3) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3). 44.. Simpson is an owner of a facility within the meaning of Section 107(a)(1) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(1), and a person who arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances by another entity at a facility, within the meaning of Section 107(a)(3) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3). 45. District No. 2, acting on its own behalf and' on behalf of the other sanitation districts signatory to the Joint Outfall Agreement with respect to the Joint Outfall System, is an owner and operator of ar acf ilityithin the., meaning. of Sections 107(a)(1) and (2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607(a) (1), (2). 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 17 18 ; 19 j 20 46. Hazardous substances have been and continue to be released to the environment from the facilities identified in paragraph 39 above, within the meaning of Section 101(22) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(22). 47. There has been and continues to be 'injury to, destruction of and loss of natural resources for which the United States and the State are trustees, within the meaning of Section 101(16) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(16), from the releases of hazardous substances by defendants alleged herein, and resulting damages to those resources, within the meaning of Section 107(a) (4) (C) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a) (4) (C). 48. The United States and the State have incurred and continue to incur response costs in connection with the releases of hazardous substances by defendants and resulting injury, destruction and loss to natural resources for which said sovereigns are trustees, and the assessment of such injury, destruction and loss, including resulting damages. 49. The United States and the State have satisfied all conditions precedent to the initiation of this action. 50.. Pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 21 § 9607(a), defendants are jointly and severally liable for all 22 23 24 25. 26 FORM OBO.133 MAX 11 damages, including loss of use and cost of restoration, resulting from injury to, destruction of or loss of natural resources for which the United States and the State are trustees, caused by hazardous substances released by defendants, and for all response costs incurred by the United States and the State in connection 16 • 1 2 3 I! 4 5 11 II 6 ,. .7 : 8 9 surface water sampling of locations at and around the plant site 10 show DDT and MCB contamination of the soil at and around the with such damage, and the costs of assessing such injury and damages. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 51;. The United States realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 35. - 52. EPA began an investigation in 1982 of hazardous substance contamination at the thirteen acre Montrose plant site at 20201 Normandie Avenue. The results of soil, groundwater and 11 Montrose site, of the surface water runoff from the facility and 12 of the groundwater underlying the facility. 13 53. EPA proposed the Montrose Sitefor the National • 14 Priorities List ("NPL") on October 15, 1984. The final 15 rulemaking placing the Montrose Site on the NPL was published in 16 the Federal Register on October 4, 1989 (54 Fed. Reg. 41015). 17 ;, 54. Section 107 a of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), ( ) provides 18 that thecurrent owner of a facility, and the owner or operator, • - II 19 `i at the time of disposal of hazardous substances, of a facility at 20 :. which such hazardous substances were disposed of, shall be liable 21 jj for all costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the 22 United States government not inconsistent with the national 23 contingency plan. 24 !I 55. The Montrose NPL Site is a "facility " within the 25 meaning of Section 101(9) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(9). 260 FORM 080.1111 %RM I) 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. 10 11 12 13 14 15 i. 16 1i 17 56.. At times relevant to this Complaint, hazardous substances within the meaning of Section 101(14) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14), including DDT and MCB, were•treated, disposed of, released, or presented the threat of release at the Montrose Site. 57. At times relevant to this Complaint, releases into the environment or a substantial threat of such releases of hazardous substances, including DDT and MCB, have occurred from the Montrose Site. 58. Montrose and Chris-Craft are operators of a facility within the meaning of Section 107(a)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (a) (2) . 59. ICI American Holdings, Inc., and its subsidiaries, Stauffer -Management, Inc. and Atkemix Thirty -Seven, Inc., are owners of a facility, within the meaning of Section 107(a)(1) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §.9607(a)(1). 60. ICI American Holdings, Inc., and Stauffer Management, 18 and Atkemix Thirty -Seven, Inc. are successors to the liabilities 19 of Stauffer Chemical Inc., as an owner and operator of the 20 Montrose Site at a time at which hazardous substances were 21 disposed of, within the meaning of Section 107(a) (2) of CERCLA, 22 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a) (2) . 23 61. The United States has incurred response costs not 24 inconsistent with the NCP in connection with removal and remedial 25 i actions at the Montrose Site, within the meaning of Section 26 101(23) and 101(24) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(23), (24), at t, 18 FORM 080.1t! • MAR t! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 least in the amount of $1,855,767.78, and will incur future costs in response to the release and threatened release into the environment of hazardous substances including DDT and MCB, from the Montrose Site. 62. The United States has satisfied all conditions precedent to the initiation of this claim for recovery of costs under Section 107(a)(4)(A) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(A). 63. Pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9 1 § 9607(a), defendants Montrose, ICIAH, Stauffer Management, 10 I .Atkemix Thirty -Seven, and Chris-Craft are jointly and severally 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 FORM 0130.1113 MAR 23 liable for all costs not inconsistent with the NCP incurred or to be incurred by the United States in connection with removal and remedial actions taken at the Montrose NPL Site. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, the United States of America and State, respectfully request that the Court issue relief: 1) Entering a declaratory judgment holding all defendants jointly and severally liable under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), for all response costs incurred or to be incurred by the United States and the State, 'all damages that have resulted or that will result from injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources within the trusteeship of the United States and the State, and all reasonable costs incurred or to be incurred by the United States and the State in assessing such injury to, destruction of, or loss, resulting from defendants' releases of hazardous substances into the environment 19 i4 6. 1. 2) Ordering that defendants pay to the United States and 2 the State the reasonable costs of assessing the injury to, 3 destruction of and/or loss of natural resources within the 4 5 6 7 8 ; destruction of and/or loss of natural resources within the trusteeship of the United States and the State caused by defendants' releases of hazardous substances into the environment; 3) Ordering that defendants pay damages for the injury to, 9 trusteeship of the United States and the State resulting from 10 ' defendants' releases of hazardous substances; 11 4) Ordering that defendants reimburse the United States 12 and the State for all response and damage assessment costs, 13 ': including enforcement fees, costs and expenses, incurred in 14 connection with the First Claim for Relief in this action, with 15 prejudgment interest; 16 .5) Entering a declaratory judgment holding defendants 17,` Montrose, ICIAH, Stauffer Management, Atkemix Thirty -Seven, and 18 Chris-Craft Industries jointly and severally liable to the United 19 States, under Section 107(a)(4)(A) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 20 i § 9607(a)(4)(A), for all response costs not inconsistent with the it 21 NCP, incurred and to be incurred by the United States in 22 i, connection with removal or remedial actions taken or to be taken 23 by the United States with respect to the Montrose NPL Site; 24 6) Ordering defendants Montrose', ICIAH, Stauffer 25 I. Management, Atkemix Thirty -Seven, and Chris-Craft Industries to 26 � pay to the United States all costs not inconsistent with the NCP ii FORM 080.113 LIAR 13 20 .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 FORM 080.1$3 ALAR I3 incurred in connection with removal and remedial actions at the Montrose NPL Site: 7) Awarding the United States and the State such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate. Respectfully submitted, RICHARD B. STEWART Assistant Attorney General Environment and Natural Resources Division U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 GERALD F. GEORGE Senior Counsel Environmental Enforcement Section Environment and Natural Resources Division U.S. Department of Justice 301 Howard Street, Suite 870 San Francisco, California 94105 ROBERT L. BROSIO United States Attorney FREDERICK M. BROSIO, JR. Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division IAN FAN Assistant United States Attorney 1100 U.S. Courthouse 312 North Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 21 Y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 FORM O8D•1l3 MAK 13 tt JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP Attorney General of the State of California ROBERT H. CONNETT Assistant Attorney General JOHN SAURENMAN SARA J. RUSSELL J. MATTHEW RODRIQUEZ Deputy Attorneys General 2101 Webster Street Oakland, CA 94612 By: t/-t,..�.Z. �� . ..41_JOHN SAURENMAN Attorneys for Plaintiff State of California ex rel. Department of Fish and Game, State Lands 'Commission, and Department of Parks and Recreation Of Counsel: Craig O'Conner, Esquire Mark Eames, Esquire National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of. General Counsel, S.W. Region 300 Ferry Street, Room 2013 Terminal Island, California 90731 John Burke, Esquire Department of the Interior Field Solicitor's Office 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Allan Zabel, Esquire U.S.E.P.A., Region 9 1235 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94103 22 October 24, 1990 City Council Meeting November 13, 1990 Mayor and Members of the City Council /1 -13- ORDINANCE NO. 90-1049 - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT TO ADD MOTORCYCLE SALES AND MOTORCYCLE PARTS SALES AS -PERMITTED USES IN THE C-3 ZONE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION" "Submitted for adoption is Ordinance No. 90-1049, relating to the above subject." At the meeting of October 23, 1990, this ordinance was introduced by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: • Concur: Creighton, Essertier, Midstokke, Wiemans, Mayor Sheldon None None None Respectfully submitted, evin B. Northc a t, City Manager Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 90- 1049 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT TO ADD MOTORCYCLE SALES AND MOTORCYCLE PARTS SALES AS PERMITTED USES IN THE C-3 ZONE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on October 23, 1990, and made the following Findings: A. Motorcycle sales and motorcycle parts sales are not specifically listed as a permitted use in any zone while motorcycle repair is listed subject to a conditional use permit; B. Businesses which sell motorcycles and motorcycle parts create a potential noise problem to adjacent property owners and. residents because of the noise impact of the customers use of motorcycles, potential test driving, and testing of engines on the site; C. Restricting this business activity to the C-3 zone and requiring a conditional use permit will ensure that environmental impacts associated with this activity will be minimized; D. The subject amendment will clarify an ambiguity in the existing code in regards to the subject use, and will subject said uses to the proper regulation to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses; E. Approval of this amendment is not in conflict 'with the General Plan and is necessary to carry out the general purpose of the zoning ordinance to serve the public health, safety, and welfare; 1 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain that the zoning ordinance text be amended as follows, and recommends adoption of an environmental negative declaration: SECTION 1. Amend Section 8-4. C-3 Restricted Commercial zone by adding the following to the permitted use list in alphabetical order: "Motorcycle parts and accessories (new) retail sales; Conditional Use Permit required subject to Article 10 Motorcycle sales, new and used: Conditional Use Permit required subject to Article, 10" SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. SECTION 3. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the, passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1990, by following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY •p/persauto November 6, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council of November 13, 1990 HERMOSA BEACH ROTARY CLUB TREE DECORATION RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by staff that Council approve the decorating of the Rotary Tree located on the Community Center Lawn for the holiday season. BACKGROUND In 1963, the Rotary Club of Hermosa Beach donated the pine tree located on Community Center lawn (Pacific Coast Highway side) in honor of the "children of Hermosa Beach." In years past, this tree has been decorated for the holiday season with lights and ornaments made by the children. ANALYSIS The Hermosa Beach Rotary Club is prepared to donate the funds necessary to provide lights for the tree and have already trimmed the tree in preparation for the decorations. The plan for 1990 would be to have the Rotary Club purchase the lights; to have students in Hermosa Beach schools and park programs make decorations for the tree and to have City Public Works staff hang the lights and ornaments on the tree prior to the City's Tree Lighting Ceremony on December 4. Both staff and the Rotary Club feel that renewing the tradition of decorating the tree would add to the festive appearance of the City and would provide a spirited and fun eventVHermosa Beach's youth. fen Anth• y Aritich, irector Public Works Dep rtment Respectfully Submitted, Mary C " ooney, Director Dep . •f Community Resources November 5, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council November 13, 1990 REQUEST FROM THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REGARDING HOLIDAY ACTIVITIES Recommendation: That the City Council approve: (1) the attached annual request from the Chamber of Commerce to; (a) place a bag over all silver post meter in the City to allow three hours free parking, (bags are purchased by the Chamber) from December 1, 1990 until January 1, 1990. (b) authorize the closure of Pier Avenue from Hermosa Avenue to the Pier Head, on Tuesday December 4, 1990 between the hours of 4:30pm and 7:30pm with enough barricades provided to block off both ends of Pier Avenue for the Holiday Lighting Ceremonies. Background: The Chamber of Commerce has made this now traditional request of the City Council for many years, in order to promote increased patronage of the business in the community, and citizen participation in the activities. Analysis: The City Council has traditionally granted this request. If approved, the City may need to purchase at an approximately cost of eighty dollars an additional 500 bags as replacements due to vandalism and weather. Alternatives: Deny this request. Respectfully submitted, Cynthia AQWilson General Services Director CONCUR: ( /4 b1/4/.1„ Cyri'thia A. Wilson, G.S. Director evin B. Nort craft City Manager A • ,ny Antich Public Works Director Steve Wisniewski Public Safety Director en r L. Staten. G.S. Coordinator Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director r.+ HERMOSA BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 323 PIER AVENUE/P.O. BOX 404 HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 (213) 376-0951 October 11, 1990 Mayor Chuck Sheldon and City Council Members City Hall/Civic Center Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Honorable Mayor and Council Members: The Christmas season is fast approaching and the Chamber of Commerce is planning events to make this a prosperous and enjoyable holiday season. To create goodwill and a worry free shopping atmosphere, we would like to request that all silver posted meters be bagged from December 1, until January 1, 1991. We also request that three hour free parking be allowed. This year once again, we are planning to have our annual Christmas mixer and lighting ceremonies together as one event. On Tuesday, December 4 -from 5:00 to 7:30 pm the festivities will start with Santa setting up shop at Loretto Plaza for children's holiday wishes and refreshments. The remainder of the outside ceremonies will consist of an inspirational message, caroling and the mayor officially lighting up the downtown. In addition to the above festivities we are planning a mixer in the Bank of America, 90 Pier Ave. .from 5:30 to 8:00 pm. We will need permission from the City Council to close Pier Ave. from Hermosa Ave. to the Pier Head on the above date between the hours of 4:30 to 7:30. We will also need some barricades to block the flow of traffic in that area. • We look forward to your favorable consideration of these holiday plans. Sincerely, BJ Conte Special Event Coordinator cc: Tony Antich, Director Public Works Richard Contreras, General Services November 6, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 13, 1990 SUBJECT: WAVE DIAL -A -RIDE ANNUAL SUMMARY REPORT INITIATED BY STAFF PURPOSE: FOR CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION Recommendation Receive and file. Background The City is now receiving an annual report on the City's Dial -A -Ride program from the contractor. Analysis Attached is the annual report concerning various aspects of the City's Dial--A-Ride program. Several items are of concern: 1. The accident rate is high. The Redondo / Hermosa Beach staff have discussed this matter as well as other problems with the contractor and requested termination of certain employees. These employees have been terminated. Also a new manager will be employed with which the staff is satisfied. Also other problems are being resolved regarding service quality, and staff is looking forward to better service in the future which should increase riderships. 2. Ridership is down in Hermosa Beach for the first quarter of this year. This factor is probably a result of in and out migration and death rate for the year and as noted above quality of service. The ridership will fluctuate from year to year. More advertisement may be necessary to inform new arrivals, and individuals, who recently lost use of their personnel vehicles for a variety of reasons, to become aware of the program. Staff will be placing a notice in the City newsletter, and looking for other ways of advertising. However, it should be noted that ridership in 89-90 was higher than 88-8.9. 3. The miles per gallon of gas is low, and at this time the possible use of other fuels has not been examined. Staff will contact the Redondo Beach staff, and the contractor to explore alternate fuel possibilities in the future. CONCUR: 4;0K irAr.j/ 4111W ,491.L4. evin B. North' aft City Manager �Resp`c�,tf ly s Michael Schubach Planning Director 1;rT ►. iggn ANNUAL SUMMARY REPORT THE WAVE July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1990 Submitted to: CITY. OF REDONDO BEACH 415 Diamond Street Redondo Beach, California 90277. By: COMMUNITY '1'RANSIT SERVICES, INC. . 201 East Sandpointe, Suite, 800 Santa Ana, California 92707 COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES, INC. z- COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES, INC. A Subsidiary of DAVE Transportation Services, Inc. 201 E. Sandpointe, Suite 800 • Santa Ana, CA 92707 • (714) 549-3283 • FAX (714) 755-5552 August 30, 1990 File: C:CA-Redondo Beach RJW-09050-WP/GS-FC Ms. Cara Rice Transportation Grants Manager CITY OF REDONDO BEACH 415 Diamond Street Post Office Box 20 Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Dear Cara: In accordance with the terms of our agreement, enclosed is the Annual Summary Report on the operation of The WAVE for the period July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1990. If you have any questions or comments on the report, please let us know. Very truly ours, obe ice RJW/gs Enclosure xc: Wilson esident/Chief Operating Officer W. Fritz M. Jackson T. Slimmer ANNUAL SUMMARY REPORT THE WAVE SUMMARY During the past fiscal year (July 1, 1989 through June 30; 1990), 13,195 revenue hours were provided to the residents of Hermosa and Redondo Beach. This level of service produced transportation for 69,620 passengers. While the total passengers during this period were only 2 percent higher than the previous fiscal year, productivity increased significantly during the past year. Productivity -- the number of passengers carried per in-service revenue hour -- increased from 4.89 to 5.25. While this 8 percent increase is meaningful in itself, the most important significance is that the system meets and exceeds the productivity standard of 5.0 established by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission for demand -responsive systems. The majority of passengers are from Redondo Beach and the system is predominately used by senior citizens. The satellite locations, used mainly for medical trips, are used quite frequently. The fleet traveled a total of 182,562 in-service revenue miles and was involved in 9 preventable accidents. The ratio of immediate -response trips has decreased, and most trip requests are for deferred or reservation service. This ratio of scheduled/unscheduled trips may effect on-time performance. The performance standard of 90 percent of all pre -scheduled trips being picked up within the window of no more than 10 minutes early to not more than 15 minutes late is being met. However, the standard that all immediate response trips be picked up within 30 minutes has not been met on a consistent basis. Overall, during the past year we feel that the system has performed well and has met, and in some instances exceeded, expectations. An in-depth analysis of many aspects of this service is presented in this report. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The WAVE is a general public dial -a -ride system serving the cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, and 'selected satellite points outside of the service area. The service is provided utilizing 2 lift -equipped vehicles, 2 standard vans, 3 sedans and 1 stationwagon. the service is available to the general public Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Transportation services are available for senior citizens and disabled passengers seven days a week from 6:00 a.m. to midnight. It is the intent of the cities and CTS to provide the maximum level of service to the maximum number of passengers in the most cost-effective and efficient manner. Although the service has an allocation of 16,500 service hours, 13,195 revenue hours were provided. This efficient use of scheduling vehicle hours has resulted in higher productivity and overall lower cost of the WAVE operation. COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES, INC. 4- The WAVE offers four types of service: • Reservation Service =` Trips can be 'scheduled 24 hours in advance up to one week in advance. • Deferred Service - A specific time request made the same day. Subscription Service - Standing order for request at a specific time and/or day. • Immediate Response Service - Same day service. There are also goals and objectives associated with the various levels of service. Performance standards have been established for the various types of service. For immediate -response service, a maximum wait time has been established. For all other advance reservation type service, a 25 minute pick-up window has been incorporated as a goal of the system. The latter . objective has been consistently met. However, the goal of all immediate -responsive requests being picked up within 30 minutes 90 percent of the time has been less consistent. A more detailed discussion on these performance standards appears elsewhere in this report. Ridership during the past year slightly exceeded the previous year's total. The system carried 69,620 passengers during fiscal year 1989-90, compared to 68,446 passengers the previous year. Perhaps the most significant goal and objective that was achieved this past year was the productivity rate of 5.25 passengers per in-service vehicle hour. This exceeds the standard of 5.0 passengers per hour as established by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission. REVENUE Farebox revenue for the fiscal year totalled $45,198. Approximately 51 percent of the revenues are generated by the senior citizen fare of 50 cents. The seniors, however, account for approximately 66 percent of the total ridership. The second highest source of farebox revenue is from the general public fare of $1.00. A total of $16,392 was collected from the basic general public fare. Coupons, the satellite fare of $1.50, and group fares account for approximately 7 percent of revenue. The average fare collected from the farebox for all passengers is 65 cents. PRODUCTIVITY Productivity is the number of passenger trips per service hour. It is perhaps the single most important measure for; a demand -responsive system. Productivity generally develops over the course of a project and then stabilizes after a certain period. Since the inception of The WAVE program, productivity has increased on an annual basis from 3.5 the first year to 4.89 during fiscal year 1988-89. During fiscal year 1989-90, the average monthly productivity was 5.25, with a high of 6.3 in July of 1989. Productivity met or exceeded the 5.0 standard each Month with the exception of May when a productivity rate of 4.95 passengers per hour was achieved. COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES, INC. —5— The achieved increases in productivity during the past year are due to several factors. During the summer months, The WAVE participates actively in transporting groups to recreational facilities in the service area. Productivity was highest during July and August when it reached 6.3 and 5.75 passengers per hour, respectively. Increases in productivity can be attributed to, several other factors -- more efficient allocation of service hours and scheduling. Unlike scheduled transit, dial -a -ride programs should be flexible enough to meet customer demand. When requests for service is high, the maximum number of vehicles should be placed into service. Conversely, when demand is low, vehicles should be removed from service. This serves two purposes. First it ensures that a high level of productivity is maintained, and, secondly, removing vehicles from service reduces costs. These hours can then either be treated as a cost -reducing method or saved hours can be utilized during future heavy demand periods. The key in any demand -responsive, dial -a -ride type service is in the ability to group passengers traveling in the same direction in the same time periods. It is also helpful that the service area has one or more high trip generators. There are several in the Redondo/Hermosa Beach service area. They include the Galleria Shopping Mall, El Camino College, and several of the satellite facilities including Skypark and Del Amo medical facilities. Dispatch staff strive to coordinate the scheduling of trip requests to accommodate the maximum number of passengers and attempt to organize these trips at certain times. It is felt that given the constraints on the service area, high percentage 'of senior riders, number and distance of satellite points, and traffic pattern in the area, the productivity rate of 5.25 is close to pushing the upper limits of what can reasonably be achieved. Control room staff will, however, continue to maximize fleet efficiency and effective scheduling. RIDERSHIP Total ridership for The WAVE during fiscal year 1989-90 totalled 69,620 passengers. Senior citizens are the predominate users of the service, accounting for 66 percent of total passengers. General public ridership traveling within the service area amounts to approximately 24 percent. The percent of trips traveling out of the service area to the various satellite points accounts for approximately 7 percent of all trip requests. The remaining 3 percent are passengers utilizing the various group rates. Ridership during the past year was highest during the first two months of the fiscal year. Average monthly ridership during the months of July and August was 7,031 riders. Average monthly ridership during the balance of the year. was 5,556 passengers (see Table 1). This increase during the summer months can be attributed to the high number of group trips. These group trips are utilized by day care centers and several schools in the area. The most frequently traveled . destinations are the Redondo Pier, Hermosa Pier, and a local swimming lesson program. These trips can normally be accommodated without causing undo hardship on the general public and senior ridership. These trips are accommodated using additional vehicles, often driven by dispatch staff, using the larger capacity vans. During the past year, 826 wheelchair passengers were transported. This amounts to approximately 1.2 percent of the total ridership. The majority of wheelchair trips take place during the week and average approximately 3 trips per day. COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES, INC. TABLE 1 MONTHLY RIDERSHIP AND PRODUCTIVITY THE WAVE July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1990 Month Ridership Productivity July 1989 7,042 6.3 August 7,020 5.75 September 5,587 5.0 October 5,431 5.05 November 5,456 5.15 December 5,352 5.25 January 1990 5,784 5.2 February 5,516 5.0 March 5,745 5.1 April 5,493 5.1 May 5,647 4.95 June 5.554 5.15 TOTAL 69,620 AVG 5.25 COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES, INC. — 7— There are seven satellite points, outside of the service area, that are utilized by WAVE passengers. Five are medical facilities, one is the Manhattan Beach Social Security Office, and El Camino College. The most popular satellite point is the Skypark/Lomita medical facility, and the least utilized is El Camino College. Considering that the majority of the ridership is from the senior populace, this utilization to medical facilities is not surprising. Approximately 6.8 percent of all trips are outside of the area. A total of 4,735 trips were made to satellite locations during the past fiscal year. One of the types of service offered to the public is subscription, or periodic service. Passengers that make the same trip on a frequent basis are eligible to utilize subscription service. Passengers do not need to call for their ride but have a "standing order" to be picked up. Passengers need only to call to cancel or make changes to their schedule. During the past year, there were an average of 55 passengers per month utilizing this type of service. The majority of these periodic requests are for medical, work, and some school trips. Approximately 40 percent of subscription trips occur between the hours of 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. Although the system was designed as an immediate -response type of service, many of the trip requests are placed in advance. This transition evolved as a result of passengers having to wait longer than the system goal of all passengers being picked up within 30 minutes of their requests. During peak demand periods, the average wait time will often exceed 30 minutes. Wait time is the elapsed time from when a customer calls to the actual time that they are picked up. Wait time is largely a function of supply and demand. When demand is high, there is less supply and wait times increase. When demand is low, there is a plentiful supply of vehicles and wait times are usually lower. Through experience with these fluctuations, passengers who would previously call 30 minutes before their desired pickup time only to be told it may be longer, now call either the day before or several hours prior to their desired pickup to make a reservation for a specific time. Based upon the sampling in the monthly management reports, reservation requests account for 62 percent of all trips. While, from the passenger's point of view, this results in not having to "wait" for their ride, it can have a limiting effect on the flexibility and efficiency of the service. It is felt that this ratio is ;tolerable as long as productivity exceeds 5.0 passengers per hour. If productivity decreases along with an increase in reservation trips, this procedure should be evaluated. ON-TIME PERFORMANCE On-time performance is an extremely important factor in demand -responsive transit. From the rider's point of view, it is usually the single most important element ... does the vehicle arrive when scheduled? There are two performance measures in The WAVE -CTS agreement. The first standard is that 90 percent of all deferred and periodic trips are to be picked up within a 25 -minute window. The vehicle should arrive no more than 10 minutes early, nor more than 15 minutes late. Based upon the sampling reported in the monthly management report, this standard, on the average, has been met. The actual percentage is 89.6. V� COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES, INC. • Reservation trips are the predominate type of request on The WAVE system, accounting for approximately 62 percent of all trips. On several of the individual days that were sampled, reservation requests accounted for more than 90 percent of the total trips. While this type of service results in a high degree of reliability and on-time performance, it can have a limiting effect on the overall efficiency of the system. The second performance standard for the system is that 90 percent of all immediate -responsive trips be picked -up within 30 minutes of the passenger's request. This standard is not as easily achieved as meeting the window for reservation trips. One of the contributing factors is the high percentage of deferred and periodic requests. On some days, immediate response calls account for less than 10 percent of all trip requests. With such a high number of timed calls, it is often difficult to respond to immediate requests due to pre -scheduled commitments. Based upon the monthly sampling during the past fiscal year, the 30 -minute on-time performance standard was achieved 77.5 percent of the time. The standard was actually achieved 4 of the 12 months sampled. This performance measurement may not always be representative due to several factors. One of them is the dual reporting of statistics for the combined Hermosa/Redondo system and a separate accounting for Redondo Beach. Since the Redondo Beach statistics reflect only one vehicle's performance, it is possible that the low number of trips creates a less than representative picture of overall performance. For example, there may be only 4 to 5 immediate -response trips reported on the Redondo vehicle. If 3 out of A trips are picked up within the 30 minute standard, then the rate is 75 percent, which then lowers the overall percentage. When examining this standard, it is necessary to put the number of trips into perspective. The other contributing factor is that sample days are selected at the start of the fiscal year. It may be that on the designated day there were some contributing factors such as weather, high demand, vehicle allocation, etc., that would adversely effect performance. Under these conditions, a different or additional day should be sampled and reported. We do not believe that this procedure has been implemented . on a routine basis. Trip ticket analyses for the coming fiscal year will take these factors into consideration and statistics reported will reflect a more representative accounting of system performance. SYSTEM STATISTICS During fiscal year 1989-90, a total of 16,089 billing hours were provided. Deducting the deadhead hours from the garage to the first pickup and the last drop off back to the garage, a total of 13,195 revenue vehicle hours were provided. The vehicles traveled a total of 193,627 miles. Deducting the deadhead miles resulted in revenue miles of 182,562. The fleet consumed 25,750 gallons of fuel averaging 7.4 miles per gallon. The vans averaged 5.6 miles per gallon and the sedans and stationwagon 13.0 miles per gallon. There were a total of nine preventable accidents. Our accident frequency rate for the past year was one preventable accident per 21,512 miles driven. There were 6 months during the year when no preventable accidents occurred. The average wait and ride time from the monthly sampling revealed an average wait time of 19.7 minutes and an average ride time of 16.9 minutes. The WAVE system experienced a no-show rate of 4.2 percent and a cancellation rate of 5.5 percent for a combined no-show/ COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES, INC. -6- cancellation , rate of 9.7 percent. The ideal would be a percentage no greater than 5 percent. Anything higher than 10 percent can be considered excessive, and can have a negative impact on system efficiency. A high no-show/cancellation rate can certainly effect productivity. We believe that the number of no-shows and cancellations is higher on The WAVE system due to several factors. Systems with a high percentage of senior citizens tend to have higher no-show/cancellation frequencies than general public systems. Elderly and Handicapped systems in turn can experience frequencies of 18 to 20 percent. The other contributing factor is the number of pre -scheduled trips on The WAVE. As discussed earlier, reservation requests can amount to 70 to 90 percent of the daily requests. There appears to be a correlation between the duration of time when a trip request is made and the instances of no-shows and cancellations. We do not recommend any corrective action be taken at this time. MAINTENANCE Maintenance for The WAVE vehicles are performed at CTS' location in Long Beach. CTS' comprehensive preventive maintenance program has resulted in a minimum of downtime and infrequent number of road calls during the past year. The average number of days out -of - service per vehicle per month is 1.6 days. There were a total of 4 road calls as a result of mechanical causes. The vehicles have performed well over the past four years while in WAVE service. During the month of June, delivery was taken on 8 new vehicles and several were placed into limited service. It is expected that the new, larger vehicles will provide a higher degree of reliability and service to WAVE riders. COMMUNITY TRANSIT SERVICES, INC. November 6, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council of November 13, 1990 .SOUTH BAY HOMELESS COALITION RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by staff that Council direct staff to contact the City's service clubs in an effort to request funds for the South Bay Homeless Coalition. BACKGROUND On October 30, 1990, the Mayor and City Manager both. received a request from Bernard Laverty from the South Bay Homeless Coalition to assist them in obtaining financial support for their efforts to house the homeless during conditions of extreme cold weather (attached). The Mayor requested that the subject be agendized. When the weather is predicted to be 40 degrees or less or 50 degrees with a 50 percent chance of rain, the Inglewood National Guard Armory and other facilities are used to house the homeless people. ANALYSIS In order to staff the emergency cold weather program for the LAX / South Bay area, the Coalition projects that close to $7,000 in funds will be necessary. They have asked that local city governments support this need by providing funds to assist in meeting the overall projected budget of $7,000. As the funding request is modest, itmay be possible for Hermosa Beach to provide an appropriate share of dollars via private donations. The most efficient vehicles for gathering these donations are the service clubs (i.e., Women's Club, Kiwanis, Rotary). With Council's direction, staff will contact the clubs and forward the request from Mr. Laverty to them. It is apparent that the funds would be used to provide a much needed service for the South Bay's homeless population and Hermosa Beach would serve its community wellby contributing to this vital program. Other alternatives available to Council include: 1. Deny request 2. Appropriate City funds for this program 3. Request additional information Concur: evin B. North aft City Manager Respectfully Submitted, Mary 'C.- Rooney, Director Dept. of Community Resources City o f 2iermosaTeacly 1,4 Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 November 1, 1990 Bernard Laverty South Bay Homeless Coalition P. 0. Box 7257 Torrance, CA 90504 Dear Mr. Laverty: We are in receipt of your letter received October 30, 1990, regarding funds needed for the South Bay Homeless Coalition. Your letter has been referred to our Community Resources Department for necessary action and response. That depart- ment will be contacting you with the results of your inquiry. If you wish to check on the status, the department's number is 318-0280. At Mayor Sheldon's direction, your request has been scheduled for consideration by our City Council at their November 13, 1990 meeting, which begins at 7:30 p.m. You are welcome to send a representative to that, meeting. Thank you for your interest in improving our community. Sincerely yours, Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager KBN/ld cc: Community Resources Department Mr. Kevin B. Northcraft City Administrator 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 October 8, 1990 Dear Mr. Northcraft, RECEIVED OCT 3 01990 As you are probably aware, the' County of Los Angeles has been involved in a countywide effort to house the homeless during extreme cold weather conditions for the past three years. National Guard Armories are utilized as group shelters for homeless individuals, and motel vouchers are distributed to families and individuals who are mentally or physically ill whenever the weather is predicted to be 40° or less, or 50 with a 50% chance of rain, during the months of November through March. The program is administered by the County of Los Angeles Department ,of Community and Senior Citizens Services' Homeless Coordination Office, and is operated through a network of city and community based organizations. Its implementation involves a community communication network which relies upon contact with participating service providers, police, churches, govern- ment entities, etc. This past winter the Salvation Army of Inglewood staffed and operated the Inglewood National Guard Armory on cold/wet weather nights, and St. Margaret's Center of Catholic Charities in Lennox provided intake, vouchering, and transportation to and from the Armory. A bus was used to pick up homeless people from local parks and transpprt them to the intake site and Armory. While the program functioned fairly smoothly last year, many improvements can and should be made in planning for the winter of '90-'91. The South Bay is an unique region in Los Angeles County. It is comprised of many different jurisdictions, which individually may not be equipped to tackle a countywide problem. But a combined effort at the regional level may make the difference in identifying the homeless, safeguarding them in harsh winter weather, and providing them with the means to break the cycle of homelessness. The South Bay Homeless Coalition, which was instrumental in the implementation of last year's program, in conjunction with local social service agencies, has made the following recommendation: Involve local city governments withal appeal for support in staffing the program. The program is funded by F.E.M.A. (Federal Emergency Management Agency), which does not allow administrative/ personnel costs. In the past three years it has become increasingly apparent that social service agencies which provide the vital link in this program lack sufficient staff and resources to adequately administer it. Volunteers provide crucial support but cannot be expected to coordinate the program. Adequate security has not been provided for this after-hours program. We are therefore appealing to you to assist us in implementing next winter's program. We have collected $ 1,800 from private donors for staffing costs. We calculate that the cost for hiring a coordinator, intake worker, case manager at the Armory and two part-time security guards for an estimated 30 cold/wet weather nights will be approximately $7,000. That is a small price to pay for the possibility of providing shelter to every homeless person in our communities during the winter months. Some of the additional benefits for your city may be: * a reduction in police time spent dealing with homeless people and problems attributed to them. * the establishment of a regional network that will garner community support and provide a model for future regional projects. * the establishment of a more effective system for referring people in need of emergency services to agencies/ programs best suited to respond to those needs. Homelessness is a tragedy that touches us all. While the Emergency Cold Weather Homeless Program may not always alleviate homelessness, it does introduce some warmth and humanity into a bleak picture, and may save lives. In order to maintain, and improve, this program we need your city's support. Please consider our request; we will contact you next week to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your time and interest. Sincerely Yours, Bernard Laverty South Bay Homeless Coalition EMERGENCY COLD WEATHER PROGRAM FOR THE HOMELESS LAX/SOUTH BAY AREA WINTER, 1990-91 PERSONNEL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS Number of Workers Position Monthly Salary* Months to be Hired Total Costs 1 Coordinator 480 5 2,400 1 Intake Worker 180 5 900 2 Security 270. 5. 2,700 Guards 1 Case Manager 162 5 810 TOTAL SALARIES 6,810 * based on a projected 30 days of activation per program period. 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 (213) 250-3043 MEMORANDUM To Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers City of Hermosa Beach From - harles S. Vose, City Attorney Date Re November 2, 1990 Referendum Against Ordinance No. 90-1043 (Residential Zoning for Biltmore Site) - Invalid Referendum 94) TELECOPIER (213) 482-5336 At a recent City Council meeting, I presented my oral opinion that the referendum against Ordinance No. 90-1043 was invalid in that it would constitute a zoning action which would be inconsistent with the General Plan. Based upon the recent review of signature verification by the Registrar=Recorder of the County of Los Angeles, the City Clerk has submitted her certification of results of signature verification and the matter is now before the City Council for action. The primary basis for my legal opinion that the referendum is invalid, is the case of deBottari v. Norco City Council (1985) 171 Cal.App.' 3d 124, wherein the Court of Appeal held that a proposed referendum which would have rejected a zoning ordinance was invalid because, if passed, the resulting zoning would be inconsistent with the City's General Plan. In the' deBottari case, a referendum was submitted which sought to repeal an amended zoning ordinance but did not attempt to likewise undo the amendment to the General Plan. The court held that the voters do not have the right to reject zoning ordinances which would result in zoning inconsistent with the General Plan. As previously noted, the facts of the deBottari case are remarkably similar to the referendum which is currently before the City of Hermosa Beach. It is recognized that preelection review of referendums and initiatives are generally not favored by the courts. "However, where the requisite showing of -invalidity has been made, departure from the general rule is compelled." (Emphasis 5a "OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE Memo To Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers November 2, 1990 Page 2. added) Legislature vs. Deukmejian (1983) 34 Cal. 3d 658, 665. In deBottari, the Court of Appeal considered the questions of when an electorate may act and when a court may review a proposed measure in connection with a referendum. In that case, the City Council had refused to repeal the ordinance or submit the referendum to the voters on the grounds that the repeal of the ordinances would result in zoning inconsistent with the City's general plan. In considering the matter, the court held that the invalidity of the proposed referendum had been clearly and compellingly demonstrated and that judicial deference to the electoral process does not compel judicial apathy towards patently invalid legislative acts and, therefore, the court refused to order the referendum to be placed on the ballot. Considering the similarities between the deBottari case and the referendum currently before the City Council, it is my opinion that there is a clear and immediate inconsistency between the intent of the referendum and the general plan. It has been suggested that due to the necessity to obtain Coastal Commission approval, this referendum should be distinguished from the holding set forth in the deBottari case. However, Coastal Commission review does not eliminate the statutory requirements for consistency between the General Plan and local zoning designations. When a valid referendum has been certified by the City Clerk, Election Code Section 4055 requires the legislative body (City Council) to submit the matter to the voters either at a regular or special election or repeal the ordinance. Since the referendum is invalid, the City Council cannot unilaterally repeal the ordinance at this time. Should the City' Council desire to reconsider the ordinance, it must be referred to the Planning Commission for public hearing for zoning and general plan conformance. Since the City Council cannot repeal the ordinance without further public hearings, it would appear that the following alternatives are available: 1. Submit the referendum to the voters at a regular or a special election. (This would likely subject the City to litigation exposure 'since the referendum appears to be invalid - deBottari case.) 2. Take no action on the initiative at this time and seek a judicial declaration from the superior court as to the validity of the referendum. "-` OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE Memo To Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers November 2, 1990 Page 3. 3. Determine that the referendum is invalid and refuse to set election date. 4. Determine that referendum is invalid and place the matter before the voters at the next regular election or a special election as a City Council sponsored initiative. (Both zoning and general plan designation) 5. Initiate new public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council to reconsider the zoning and general plan designation fors the subject property. In considering the various alternatives which are available, the invalidity of the referendum does not suspend the legal effect of Ordinance No. 90-1043 and, therefore, the residential zoning and general plan designation shall remain in effect until such time that it is altered by vote of the City Council or by the people at a subsequent election. CSV:ilf cc: Kevin Northcraft, City Manager October 17, 1990 City Council Meeting October 23, 1990 Mayor and Members of City Council CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF SIGNATURE VERIFICATION OF REFERENDUM PETITION PROTESTING ORDINANCE NO. 90-1043 (RE: ZONING OF BILTMORE SITE) Attached is the Certificate of Sufficiency for a Referendum protesting the passage of ORDINANCE NO. 90-1043, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR THE BILTMORE SITE TO CHANGE THE PERMITTED USE FROM A HOTEL TO RESIDENTIAL, AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE. PARKING LOT "C" FROM SAID SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO C-2 - RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. The referendum petition requests that the ordinance be repealed by Council or submitted to a vote of the people pursuant to Chapter 3 Municipal Elections, Article 2 Referendum, 4050 et seq of the Election Code of the State of California. At the meeting of October 9, 1990, an informational report was presented to Council by the City Clerk pertaining to this matter, in which it was noted that October 25, 1990 would end the 30 -day time period for signature verification, and that the petition, if sufficient, would then be presented to Council at its next regular meeting of November 13, 1990. At that meeting, the City Attorney expressed concern about the validity of the petition. Since the signature verification was completed by the County Registrar -Recorder's office on Monday,. October 15, 1990 (see attached letter), and the City Clerk has completed the review and signature verification process of the petition, it seems appropriate to place the certification on this agenda. However, since November 13, .1990 is the date that was publicly announced for consideration of this matter, and the Election Code does not require Council action at the time the certification is presented to Council, it seems inappropriate to act on the matter prior to that date. . Recommendation: Continue the item to the meeting of November 13, 1990, at which time options will be presented for Council consideration. Noted: Elaine Doerflincv, City Clerk Kevin B. Nor`thcr, ft, City Manager 14 a 9/a (� 5. /J� g_ ) 6 1)/59) /6/ /_5 /b//s) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY Referendum Petition protesting the passage of ORDINANCE NO. 90-1043, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR THE BILTMORE SITE TO CHANGE THE PERMITTED USE FROM A HOTEL TO RESIDENTIAL, AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE PARKING LOT "C" FROM SAID SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO C-2 - RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION." I, ELAINE DOERFLING, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALFORNIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT SAID PETITION IS SUFFICIENT, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The number of registered voters for determining the signatures needed to qualify the referendum petition was, according to the County Clerk's report to the Secretary of State: 11,985. 2. The number of signatures needed to qualify the referendum petition is 10%, or 1,199. 3. The results of the signature verification by the Office of the L.A. County Registrar -Recorder is as follows: Number of unverified signatures 1,798 Number of signatures verified 1,650 a. Number of signatures qualified 1,326 b. Number of signatures not qualified 324 c. Percentage of those verified 80.36% THEREFORE, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. Dated: October 17, 1990 fl'n Cit le Elaine Doe r 1 g, y rk REGISTRAR -RECORDER COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 5557 FERGUSON DRIVE - P.O. BOX 30450, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90030 CHARLES WEISSBURD REGISTRAR -RECORDER October 15, 1990 Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 Dear Mrs. Doerfling: Enclosed are 196 petition sections pertaining to a referendum submitted for signature verification on October 3. The results of the signature verification are as follows: Number of signatures filed 1,798 Number of signatures verified 1,650 - Number of signatures qualified 1,326 (80.36%) - Number of signatures not qualified 324 (19.64%) Total 1,650 Please call Alice. Rivers of the Election Coordination and Legislation Section at (213) 725-5813 if you need any additional information. Very truly yours„ C=%c oft.tm —1/4A.% -LP -S.. CHARLES WEISSBURD Registrar -Recorder D4:I/1 I Enclosures PARKER R. HERRIOTT 224 - 24th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213) 379-7196 October 23, 1990 City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Referendum Petition Ordinance No. 90-1043 regarding the Biltmore Site and Public Parking Lot C Dear Sirs: I disagree with the city attorney's interpretation of the City of Norco case that was mentioned at our last city council meeting on October 9, 1990. In doing the little bit of research I have done so far in the Norco case, there were, of course, similarities but also some great dissimilarities. It is important to realize that, in the Norco case, there was no Coastal Commission approval needed before the General Plan amendment would become effective, as it is in the referendum regarding the Biltmore Site in Hermosa. See attached Exhibit "A", copy of letter to Mr. Weber from the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission, Peter Douglas, wherein he described the problems with residential development for the Biltmore Site and where he explained that the General Plan amendment would not become effective until reviewed and approved by the Coastal Commission. Of course, we know that the Coastal Commission goals are to have the Biltmore Site visitor -serving and to change the general plan and the zoning from visitor -serving to residential would be inconsistent with the Coastal Commission goals. I would like to point out that there is a great inequity with regard to the way the referendum process has been more or less done away with. .I say this because the way the Norco case was handled by the Appellate Court and the Supreme Court, and another case in Corona relating to the referendum problems with petitions qualifying for the ballot, the thing is why in the world would anyone take a general plan and have it amended by resolution. The resolution regarding the Biltmore Site was effective, allegedly, the night it was adopted. Therefore, no one could possibly circulate a petition since there would be no time to gather signatures before it became effective. So, who is kidding whom? And, how can voters be treated in such a manner? I knew about the resolution, but I also believed (and still believe) that there was no need to do a referendum on the resolution. If the City Council wants to correct the situation, they should in the future have the general plan amended and made part of the ordinance so a referendum would be possible in California. I;believe an Appellate Court would have to agree that under the present state of affairs regarding referendums, in certain cases like the Norco, the Corona, and now Hermosa Beach, something has to be changed to correct the inequity. A general plan amendment can and should be done by an ordinance instead of by resolution, since it is more permanent by nature than other matters that are generally dealt with in resolutions. The general plan is supposedly the constitution for the cities to plan their growth. There is a solution to our immediate problem, instead of having this matter drawn out or argued in a court of law. You, members of the City Council, can do one of many things. 1) As requested in the referendum petition, the Council can repeal or put to a vote of the people at the next general election, the referendum as written and as presented and certified as being sufficient by the County Registrar of Voters. 2) The Council can repeal the resolution you passed regarding the Biltmore Site and allow the referendum petition to be repealed or put on the ballot so the voters can vote on the matter --since over 1,400 qualified registered voters did sign the referendum petition. And/or, 3) The Council could place on the ballot the general plan amendment for the voters to vote on along with the referendum petition that qualified for the ballot by the people. I want everybody to remember --this legal question regarding the validity of the referendum does not in any way, shape or form have anything to do with the 100% Open Space Park petition that is circulating regarding the Biltmore Site. No one has raised any legal questions about that initiative, and in that initiative the general plan and the zoning are both dealt with at the same time. Respectfully, Parker R. Herriott TATE Or, CA;IFORNiA=TME Kt:OuRCES AGENCY :ALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 31 HOWARD STREET. 4TH FLOOR AN FRANCISCO, CA 54105 I IS) 543.8555 M'arch if., 1988 GEORGE DEUKMEJ'4N, Gcr.•nor Mr ;3rian Weber Santa Fe Pacific Realty Corporation Suite 550 2 North Lake Avenue Pasadena CA 91101 Dear Mr. Weber: You have asked for our comments about possible changes in zoning of the "Biltmore" site within the City of Hermosa Beach from visitor -serving to residential and whether such a change in use designation can be authorized by voter initiative or referendum. The City of Hermosa Beach has not yet completed all work on its local coastal•program (LCP) and thus most development within the coastal zone of. the City .requires a coastal Permit from the Coastal Commission, in addition to the normal local permits from the City. To date, only the City's land use. plan (LOP)portion of its LCP :;as been certified. Once the implementation portion of the City'scp is effectively certified by the Commission, the City will assume coastal development permit issuing responsibilities and the policies .and uses designated in the certified LCP will be the standards ay which the permissibility of new development will be determined. -However, until the LCP is ef.fectivelycertified, the policies of _ he California Coastal Act constitute the standards against which En-,• development proposal must be evaluated. The LOP portion of the City's LCP was reviewed using those same Coastal.Act policies. Any amendments to the City's certified LUP must also be found to be consistent with Coastal Act policies before they can go into effect and. become part of the. certified LCP. On October 12, 1984, Commission unanimously approved an LUP amendment which specifically: designates the use of the Biltmore site for visitor -serving purposes. It is my understanding that .the City is currently reviewing the implementation portion of its LCP and intends to submit this final component of the LCP to the Commission for re•:i,ew and approval sometime in late spring or early summer. Given the current status and provisions of the City's`LUP, residential uses on the Biltmore site could'not be allowed unless • the certified LUP is amended be permit such use. If such a change in use designation were to he submitted to the Commission as'an LOP amendment, I would find it difficult to see how such a change would be consistent with Coastal Act policies. Coastal Act goals and • �X 11A" Mr. Brian weber March 6 '1988 Page Two policies encourage public access P•aDd ::uJ f ea n front properties 0ICT for visitor -serving use. :_hat •"eahance, p+:bi i c opportunities for coastal recreation." In fact, visitor -serving uses are given priority under the Coastal Act over other uses such as residential.. Recelling.the Commission's Fi.ndiags for its action on the 1984 amendment and in view'of the neer for visitor -serving uses in areas such as Hermosa Beach, I see no basis for recommending that the Commission approve a change to r'�sidential uses. Commission staff has already communicated its con..erns about such a potential change in land use designation to the City's Planning director. You have also'asked whether the voters of the City could mandate a use change from visitor= serving +-.o residential by initiative.or referendum. The answer is no. However, the voters can propose such a change just as the City Council can. In either case, the proposed use change does not._go_ into effect unless and until reviewed and approved by the Coastal Commission as being consistent with Coastal Act policies. A recent opinion by .the Attorney General makes clear that any action by a local 'government acting through either its duly elected governing body or ply vote of the people which directly or indirectly •amends. a previously certified LC? does not become effective for purposes of altering permissible land uses unless and until reviewed and approved by the Commission as being.consistent with Coastal Act policies. Accordingly, if the voters in the City of Hermosa Beach are going to be, asked to change the land use designation of the Biltmore site. they' shou_:'also be informed that such a change cannot become effective until reviewed and approved by the Commission; I hope that I have answered'our.q Y questions on this matter. Finally, I would ask you and other recipients` -of 'this letter t� understand that it is not normally our practice to voice opinions such as I have' done here without first havng discussed the matter with the affected local government. In this case ,however, time constraints were such that no time for such discussions ::_; availab.le. Please let me know if we can provide you any further information. -elYK••--) / J • i ETER Executive director cc: Ma or Etta Simpson, City of -Hermosa Bear:; Chuck Dam Wayne Woodroof Ralph Faust 0380E October 17, 1990 City Council Meeting October 23, 1990 Mayor and Members of City Council CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF SIGNATURE VERIFICATION OF REFERENDUM PETITION PROTESTING ORDINANCE NO. 90-1043 (RE: ZONING OF BILTMORE SITE) Attached is the Certificate of Sufficiency for a Referendum protesting the passage of ORDINANCE NO. 90-1043, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR THE BILTMORE SITE TO CHANGE THE PERMITTED USE FROM A HOTEL TO RESIDENTIAL, AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE PARKING LOT "C" FROM SAID SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO C-2 - RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. The referendum petition requests that the ordinance be repealed by Council or submitted to a vote of the people pursuant to Chapter 3 Municipal Elections, Article 2 Referendum, 4050 et seq of the Election Code of the State of California. At the meeting of October 9, 1990, an informational report was presented to Council by the City Clerk pertaining to this matter, in which it was noted that October 25, 1990 would end the 30 -day time period for signature verification, and that the petition, if sufficient, would then be presented to Council at its next regular meeting of November 13, 1990. At that meeting, the City Attorney expressed concern about the validity of the petition. Since the signature verification was completed by the County Registrar -Recorder's office on Monday, October 15, 1990 (see attached letter), and the City Clerk has completed the review and signature verification process of the petition, it seems appropriate to place the certification on this agenda. However, since November 13, 1990 is the date that was publicly announced for consideration of this matter, and the Election Code does not require Council action at the time the certification is presented to Council, it seems inappropriate to act on the matter prior to that date. Recommendation: Continue the item to the meeting of November 13, 1990, at which time options will be presented for Council consideration. Elaine Doerflin Noted: Kevin B. NorthcrAft, City Manager City Clerk 14 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 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY Referendum Petition protesting the passage of ORDINANCE NO. 90-1043, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR THE BILTMORE SITE TO CHANGE THE PERMITTED USE FROM A HOTEL TO RESIDENTIAL, AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE PARKING LOT "C" FROM SAID SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO C-2 - RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION." I, ELAINE DOERFLING, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CALFORNIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT SAID PETITION IS SUFFICIENT, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The number of registered voters for determining the signatures needed to. qualify the referendum petition was, according to the County Clerk's report to the Secretary of State: 11,985. 2. The number of signatures needed to qualify the referendum petition is 10%, or 1,199. 3. The results of the signature verification by the Office of the L.A. County Registrar -Recorder is as follows: Number of unverified signatures Number of signatures verified a. Number of signatures qualified b. Number of signatures not qualified c. Percentage of those verified THEREFORE, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET THE SEAL OF THE HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. Dated: October 17, 1990 1,798 1,650 1,326 324 80.36% CITY OF Elaine Doerfling, REGISTRAR -RECORDER COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 5557 FERGUSON DRIVE - P.O. BOX 30450, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90030 CHARLES WEISSBURD REGISTRAR -RECORDER October 15, 1990 Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 Dear Mrs. Doerfling: Enclosed are 196 petition sections pertaining to a referendum submitted for signature verification on October 3. The results of the signature verification are as follows: Number of signatures filed 1,798 Number of signatures verified 1,650 - Number of signatures qualified 1,326 (80.36%) - Number of signatures not qualified 324 (19.64%) Total 1,650 Please call Alice Rivers of the Election Coordination and Legislation Section at (213) 725-5813 if you need any additional information. D4:1/i. Enclosures Very truly yours,. W°°1•••JL)4, CHARLES WEISSBURD Registrar -Recorder JRY V REFERENDUM Referendo singula singulis /refarendow sing(y)ala sigg(y)alas/. ' Lat. Referring individual or separate words to separate subjects; making a distributive reference of words in an instrument; a rule of con- struction. Referendum /refarendam/. The process of referring to the electorate for approval a proposed new State constitution or amendment (constitutional referen- dum) or of a law passed by the legislature (statutory referendum). Reservation by people of state, or local subdivision thereof, of right to have submitted for their approval or rejection, under prescribed condi- tions, any law or part of law passed by lawmaking body. Anne Arundel County v. McDonough, 277 Md. 271, 354 A.2d 788, 796. Not all state constitutions make provision for referendum. See also Initiative; Plebiscite; Proposition. In international law, a communication sent by a diplomatic representative to his home government, in regard to matters presented to him which he is un- able or unwilling to decide without further instruc- tions. Refinance. To finance again or anew; to pay off exist- ing debts with funds secured from new debt. The discharge of an obligation with funds acquired through the creation of a new debt. See also Debt adjustment; Recapitalization. Reform. To correct, rectify, amend, remodel. Instru- ments inter partes may be reformed, when defective, by a court. By this is meant that the court, after ascertaining the real and original intention of the parties to a deed or other instrument (which intention they failed to sufficiently express, through some er- ror, mistake of fact, or inadvertence), will decree that the instrument be held and construed as if it fully and technically expressed that intention. See also Refor- mation. bring more distinctly to his recollection the'detaild past events or transactions, concerning which..iie testifying. See also Recollection; Recorded pasta ollection; Refreshing the memory. Refund, n. That which is refunded. United States Wurts, 303 U.S. 414, 58 S.Ct. 637, 639, 82 L.Ed, 932 Refund, v. To repay or restore; to return. money restitution or repayment; e.g. to refund overpaid tax:" es; to refund purchase price of returned goods. also Rebate; Refund claim; Refunds. -; To fund again or anew; specifically, finance, to' borrow, usually by the sale of bonds, in order to pay off an existing loan with the proceeds. Street Im- provement Dist. No. 315 v. Arkansas Highway Com- mission, 190 Ark. 1045, 83 S.W.2d 81, 82. See also Recapitalization; Refinance. Refund annuity contract. A contract by which an in:. surance company agrees to repay to the annuitant, in installments during his life, amount paid in by him to company, and if at his death there be a balance unpaid, to pay that balance to person designated by annuitant. In re Atkins' Estate, 129 N.J.Eq. 186, 18 A.2d 45, 49. Refund claim. A request directed to the Internal Reve- nue Service for repayment (i.e. refund) of taxes over- paid. Refunding. Type of. refinancing (q.v.) in which the issuer of bonds replaces outstanding bonds with a new issue. In general, any act of repayment of a loan or money advanced. See also Recapitalization; Refi- nance. Refunding bond. A bond which replaces or pays off; outstanding bond; which holder surrenders in ex- change for new security. Fore v. Alabama State Bridge Corporation, 242 Ala. 455, 6 So.2d 508, 512. Also a bond given to an executor by a legatee, upon` receiving payment of the legacy, conditioned to re- fund the same, or so much of it as may be necessary, if the assets prove deficient. Refunds. Money received by the government or its officers which, for any cause, are to be refunded ors restored to the parties paying them; such as exces- sive duties or taxes, duties paid on goods destroyed' by accident, duties received on goods which are re- exported, etc. See also Rebate; Refund. Refusal. The act of one who has, by law, a right and power of having or doing something of advantage, and declines it. Also, the declination of a request or;. demand, or the omission to comply with some re quirement of law, as the result of a positive intention to disobey. In the latter sense, the word is often; coupled with "neglect," as if a party shall "neglect or refuse" to pay.a tax, file an official bond, obey an. order of court, etc. But ."neglect" signifies a mere: omission of a duty, which may happen through inat4. tention, dilatoriness, mistake, or inability to perforin; while "refusal" implies the positive denial of an appli=}, cation or command, or at least a mental determina tion not to comply. A rejection, a denial of what is;: asked. Board of. Public Instruction of Palm Beach. County, Fla. v. Cohen, C.A.Fla., 413 F.2d 1201, 12031 See also Renunciation; Repudiation; Rescind. Reformation. Equitable remedy used to reframe writ- ten contracts to reflect accurately real agreement between contracting parties when, either through mu- tual mistake or unilateral mistake coupled with actu- al or equitable fraud by other party, the writing does not embody contract as actually made. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. v. Russell, C.A.Kan., 402 F.2d 339, 344. If by mistake of fact as to the contents of a written agreement or conveyance, or by mistake of law as to its legal effect, the writing does not conform to the agreement of the parties to it, the writing can be reformed to accord with the agreement. Restate- ment, Second, Agency, § 8D. Reformation means doing over to bring about a better result, correction or rectification. Tuel v. Gladden, 234 Or. 1, 379 P.2d 553, 555: See also Reform. Reformatory. A penal institution for youthful offend- ers where the emphasis is on reformation of the juvenile's behavior. Refreshing recollection. See Recollection; Recorded past recollection; Refreshing the memory. Refreshing the memory. The act of a witness who consults his documents, memoranda, or books, to RES INTER ALIOS ACTA as to acts, transactions or occurrences to which ac- cused is not a party or is not connected is inadmissi- ble. State v. McCarty, Iowa, 179 N.W.2d 548, 550. In law of evidence, a thing or event which occurs at a time different from the time in issue is generally not admissible to prove what occurred at the time in issue. Also events which involve those not parties to an action are generally not admissible because they are immaterial and commonly not relevant. Res Inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet /riyz intar eyl(i)yows akta oltaray nasiriy non debat/. Things done between strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties to them. Res inter allos judicatie nullum anis prs'judicium faciunt /riyz fntar eyl(i)yows juwdakeydiy nalam eyliyas prejuwdfsh(iy)am fxshiyanti. Matters adjudged in a cause do not prejudice those who were not parties to it. Res ipso loquitur. See Res. Resist. To oppose. This word properly describes an opposition by direct action and quasi forcible means. Resistance. The act of resisting opposition. The em- ployment of forcible means to prevent the execution of an endeavor in which force is employed; standing against; obstructing. Withstanding the force or ef- fect of or the exertion of' oneself to counteract or defeat. Landry v. Daley, D.C.III., 280 F.Supp. 938, 959. See Self defense. Resisting an officer. In criminal law, the offense of obstructing, opposing, and endeavoring to prevent (with or without actual force) a peace officer in the execution of a writ or in the lawful discharge of his duty while making an arrest or otherwise enforcing the peace. Res judicata. See Res. Res judicata tacit ex albo nigrum; ex nigro, album; ex curvo, rectum; ex recto, curvum /riyz juwdakeyda feyshad eks a;lbow naygram, eks naygrow a'lbam, eks kfrvow rektam, eks rektow k5rvam/. A thing ad- judged [the solemn judgment of a court] makes white, black; black, white; the crooked, straight; the straight, crooked. Res judkata pro veritate accipitur /riyz juwdakeyda prow vehrateytiy aksfpadar/. A matter adjudged is taken for truth. A matter decided or passed upon by a court of competent jurisdiction is received as evi- dence of truth. Res nulllus naturallter fit priml occupantis /riyz nalayas ne;chareyladar fit praymay okyapaentas/. A thing which has no owner naturally belongs to the first finder. Resolution. A formal expression of the opinion or will of an official body or a public assembly, adopted by vote; as a legislative resolution. Such may be either a simple, joint or concurrent resolution. The term is usually employed to denote the adoption of a motion, the subject -matter of which would not properly constitute a statute, such as a mere expression of opinion; an alteration of the rules; a vote of thanks or of censure, etc. Such is Y not law but merely a form in which a legislatlye?, expresses an opinion. Baker v. City of Milwaa 271 Or. 500, 533 P.2d 772, 775. The chief distinction between a "resolufaion"'an "law" is that the former is used whenever the legis tive body passing it wishes merely to express' opinion as to some given matter or thing and Is'o to have a temporary effect on such particular Phing while by a "law" it is intended to permanently dire and control matters applying to persons or things h; general. Concurret.: resolution. An action of Congress pass in the form of a resolution of one house, the other concurring, which expresses the sense of Congress on a particular subject. Joint resolution. A resolution adopted by both hoi es of congress or a legislature. When such a iesol tion has been approved by the president or passE with his approval, it has the effect of a law. The distinction between a joint resolution ,and concurrent resolution of congress, is that the foriner requires the approval of the president while the latter. I', does not. Ordinance distinguished. "Resolution" denotes something less formal than "ordinance"; generally, it is mere expression of opinion or mind of council'':: concerning some matter of administration, within its ; official cognizance, and provides for disposition of :- particular item of administrative business of a munie.' ipality; it is not a law, and in substance there is no ''• difference between resolution, order and motion. City of Salisbury v. Nagel, Mo.App., 420 S.W.2d 37, 43. Resoluto jure concedentis resolvitur jus concessum;• 1,. /rezal(y)uwdow juriy kon(t)sadentas razGlvadar j3s : •: kan(t)sesam/. The right of the grantor being extin- guished, the right granted is extinguished. Resolutory condition /razdlyat(a)riy kandfshan/. See Condition. Resort, v. To frequent; to go, especially to go fre, quently, customarily, or usually. To have recourse; to look to for relief or help. Resort, n. Recourse; a person or thing that is looedked:'. to for help. A place of frequent assembly; a haunt; U. S. ex rel. Dobra v. Lindsey, D.C.Tex., 51 F.2d 141c i 142. Court of last resort. A court whose decision is final" and without further appeal in reference to the panic?; ular case; e.g. Supreme Court of the United States Resources. Money or any property that can be con=. verted to meet needs; means of raising money; or supplies; capabilities of raising wealth or to supply necessary wants; available means or capability, of: any kind. Cerenzia v. Department of Social Security; of Washington, 18 Wash.2d 230, 138 P.2d 868, 871 See also Natural resources. RESPA (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act).".,;:. federal statute governing disclosure of settlement. costs in the sale of residential (one to four family),. improved property which is to be financed by a feller=;: ally insured lender. 12 U.S.C.A. § 2601 et seq. Seed: also Closing. F 1 r: e certainty, 1- h persons jointly ccession, U.C, Y nate a rank, cic ,r of nobles, 0h Decree; Decision; der; Judgment, j ntage order; Rest mer to a broker to lar day and such the end of that actic:e, an order, re nature of a d_� n enter in a char rise not at the re•Syj , t of _ an interlocutor' the cause, so fat d of it. frons a customer to ce deemed accent terminates the tatter litigated by t some right; Or`.otNt_ xe subject -matter qM so Final decision Ma; of court, promo] inners and the rept*, or in some genersJ posed to a rule of a* se. General order'' rules of court. ,j /hick. decides Mt tht -; rvening matter Cbo*` Cry relief (e.g. tern stomer to a broker er limit on the pri i and a ceilvag"pn'' be bought. ustomer to a brolu ie market price tli,k•al must be leXecutid tomer to a broker to order remain! or cancelled by ich may issue U n injunction forbid eatened act until1. ie had. Though the/ rmonymof "ini` erly distingtdsiu►? former is into rdant until the granting an injunction, ternporar or perpet- ar. 7e determined, and it does no more than the proceedings until such determination. rrti,. ✓ivit P. 65. :i,,;{King order, An order which contains matter •hic.h is explanatory or illustrative of the mere di- rction which is given by it is sometimes thus called. t.�p order. Order to stockbroker to wait until the t.uket price of the particular security reaches a .prcified figure, and then to "stop" the transaction by tther selling or buying, as the case may he, as well as »rssible. t„p payment order. Order from the drawer of a hrck to the drawee bank to stop payment on a check which has been drawn and given to the payee or lost, txdrr, bill of lading. A negotiable bill of lading direct that the goods be delivered to the person named r his order upon indorsement. order nisi. A provisional or conditional order, allowing. certain time within which to do some required act, Ai failure of which the order will be made absolute. s)Idrr of coif. See Coif. order of filiation. An order made by a court or judge hnving jurisdiction, fixing the paternity of a bastard child upon a given man, and requiring him to provide lur its support. oelers. The directions as to the course and purpose or voyage given by the owner of the vessel to the aptain or master. For other meanings, see Order. Order to show cause. See Show cause order. ordinance. A rule established by authority; a perma- nent rule of action; a law or statute. in its most ommon meaning, the term is used to designate the enactments of the legislative body of a municipal a orporation. An ordinance is the equivalent of a municipal statute, passed by the city council, or equivalent body, and governing matters not already covered by federal or state law. Ordinances com- monly govern zoning, building, safety, etc. matters of municipality, The name has also been given to certain enact- ments, more general in their character than ordinary 'statutes, and serving as organic laws, yet not exactly to be called "constitutions." Such was the "Ordi- nance for the government of the North-West Territo- ry.” enacted by congress in 1787. See also Municipal ordinance. Ordinance of 1647. A law passed by the Colony of Massachusetts, still in force, in a modified form, whereby the state owns the great ponds within its Confines, which are held in trust for public uses. Watuppa Reservoir Co. v, Fall River, 147 Mass. 548, 18 N.E. 465, Ordinance of 1787. A statute for the government of the Northwest Territory. Religious and legal freedom, encouragement of education, just treatment of the Indians, the future division into States, and the exclu- sion of slavery were ordained. ORDINARY lydinanda lex ,'ordana nday leks/. Lat. The law of procedure, as distinguished from the substantial part of the law. Ordinarius ita dcitur qwa habet ordinarlam Jurisdiction - em, in jure proprio, et non propter deputationem nrdane ry ayda disadsr kwaya heyhat ordaneriyam jOrasdikshiyownam in ,jiiriy prowpriyow et non proptar depyateyshiyownam . The ordinary is se called because he has an ordinary jurisdiction in his own right, and not a deputed one. Ordinary, n. At common law, one who had exempt and immediate jurisdiction in causes ecclesiastical. Also a bishop; a td an archbishop is the ordinary of the whole province, to visit and receive appeals from inferior jurisdictions., Also a commissary or official of a bishop or other ecclesiastical judge having judi- cial power; an archdeacon; officer of the royal household, In American law, a judicial officer, in several of the states, clothed by statute with powers in regard to wills, probate, administration, guardianship, etc. See also Court of Ordinary. Former term for a public house where food and lodging were furnished to the traveler and his beast, at fixed rates, open to whoever may apply for accom- modation, and where intoxicating liquor was sold at retail. In the civil law, a judge who has authority to take cognizance of causes in his own right, and not by deputation. Ordinary, adj. Regular; usual; normal; common; of- ten recurring; according to established order; set - tied; customary; reasonable; not characterized by peculiar o; unusual circumstances; belonging to, ex- ercised by, or characteristic of, the normal or average individual, As to ordinary Care; Diligence; Negligence, see those titles, Ordinary calling Those things which are repeated daily or weekly in the course of business. Ordinary care. That degree of care which ordinarily prudent and competent person engaged in same line of business or endeavor should exercise under similar circumstances, and in law means same as "due care" and "reasonable care." Warner v. Kiowa County Hospital Authority, Okl.App., 551 P.2d 1179, 1188. That care which reasonably prudent persons exercise in the management of their own affairs, in order to avoid injury to themselves or their property, or the persons or property of others. Ordinary care is not an absolute term, but a relative one. That is to say, in deciding whether ordinary care was exercised in a given case, the conduct in question must be viewed in the light of all the surrounding circumstances, as shown by the evidence in the case. See also Caine. Ordinary course of business. The transaction of busi- ness according to the usages and customs of the commercial world generally or of the particular com- munity or (in some cases) of the particular individual whose acts are under consideration, Term used in connection with sales made by a merchant as part of his regular business and in contrast with a sale in bulk which is regulated by statute, e.g. U.C.C. 6--102(1). In general, any matter which transpires as a matter of daily custom in business. Insert to Coastal Application between Pages Nine & Ten Consequently the sale of the subject property will result in a potential opportunity to acquire property fifteen times the size of the subject property. Valley Park which is within the coastal zone, and approximately two blocks from the sand beach is of regional significance. The 5 °KC SUPPLEMENTAL MNTAL INFORMATION Complete report with appendices in City Clerk's Office, Police Dept., Planning Dept. and Hermosa Beach Library for review November 5, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 13, 1990 SUBJECT: CERTIFIED LAND USE PLAN (L.U.P.) AMENDMENT NO. 3 PUBLIC HEARING INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL PURPOSE: 1. RESOLUTION TO REQUEST MODIFICATION OF THE CERTIFIED LAND USE PLAN (L.U.P.) BY COASTAL COMMISSION 2. REVIEW APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED TO COASTAL COMMISSION FOR LAND USE AMENDMENT NO. 3 BILTMORE SITE AND LOT C Recommendation 1. Adopt the attached resolution. 2. Direct staff to submit L.U.P. amendment application to the Coastal Commission, and to inform the Coastal Commission that this matter will be a ballot measure prior to becoming effective. Background At the August 8, 1990 meeting the City Council adopted a resolution amending the General Plan from S.P.A. for a Hotel to Medium Density Residential. The staff then proceeded to prepare the amendment request to be submitted to the Coastal Commission. Analysis Since the subject property is within the Coastal Zone, it is necessary to recommend amendment to the Certified Land Use Plan. Pursuant to Section 13551B of .the Coastal Commission Administrative Regulations, the Commission can either adopt a land use amendment whereby it becomes effective immediately upon adoption, or it can approve an amendment prior to the local jurisdiction (City. Council) approval, and the 'jurisdiction can approve at a later date. In the case of Hermosa Beach, the Coastal Commission can first approve the amendment and then by election the amendment can become effective; or since the City Council has already approved a resolution and ordinance, the request to the Coastal Commission can be for approval and become immediately effective. The attached application is according to the Coastal Commission staff the necessary information required for submittal to the Commission. CONCUR: evin B. Nortb`craft City Manager Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution. 2. Application to the Coastal espectfully submit�ed, Michael- Schubach.' Planning Director Commission p/ccsrbilt .g 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, TO REQUEST AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CERTIFIED LAND USE PLAN FOR THE "BILTMORE SITE" TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF PARKING LOT "C" TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND TO AMEND THE TEXT OF SAID PLAN, AND TO OFFICIALLY TRANSMIT SAID REQUEST TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION • WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council held duly noticed public hearings on Hermosa Beach General Plan Amendment 90-2 for the Biltmore Site/Parking Lot "C" on June 5, and July 10, 1990, to receive oral and written testimony on said amendment; and, WHEREAS, on July 10, 1990, the City Council adopted the amendment, and adopted an ordinance to rezone the Biltmore Site property to a Specific Plan Area allowing a maximum of 14 units, and adopted an environmental negative declaration; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on November 13, 1990, to consider oral and written testimony regarding amending the California Coastal Commission certified Land Use Plan; and, WHEREAS, all interested parties have been notified and given opportunity to be heard in accordance with Section 13515 of the California Coastal Commission Administrative Regulations and Public Resources Code Section 35303; and WHEREAS, the City Council made the following Findings: A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) of the Public 2 3 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resources Code, and is intended to be implemented in full conformity with the Public Resources Code, Division 20, California Coastal Act; B. The proposed amendment will not result in a significant impact on the environment as it involves a change to a lower intensity use on the Biltmore Site, and returns Parking .Lot "C" to its previous designation; C. Residential use of the Biltmore Site is consistent with adjacent and •surrounding land uses which to the north and east are predominantly multi -family residential uses; D. The citizens of the City of Hermosa Beach have expressed their general opposition to non-residential use of the site by voting against proposals to use the Biltmore Site for visitor oriented commercial purposes such as a hotel or retail commercial uses; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, hereby officially requests amendment to the California Coastal Commission Certified Land Use Plan for the Biltmore Site and Parking Lot "C" as shown on the attached map and described as follows: 1. Amend the designation for the property commonly known as the "Biltmore Site" from Specific Plan Area for a.Hotel to Medium Density Residential, legally described as follows: Lots 1 through 9, inclusive, and lots 19 and 20, Hermosa Beach Tract; and including the vacated portion of Beach Drive between 14th and 15th Street and the vacated portion of 15th Court extending 60 feet eastward of. Beach Drive. 2. Amend the designation for the property commonly known as Parking Lot "C" from Specific Plan Area to General Commercial, legally described as 'follows Lots 19 through 29, inclusive, and lots 32 and 33, Hermosa Beach Tract 3. Amend page 11, the second paragraph, by, eliminating the exception to the height limits of the zoning ordinance for the hotel site between Thirteenth and Fifteenth Streets. 4 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. Amend the seventh policy under Item 2 on page 12 to read as follows: The Policy: The Biltmore Site is a vital asset of the people of Hermosa Beach which will play a substantial role in maintaining the City as a financially feasible entity The City has determined that the most beneficial, economic and environmental use for this site is a combination of residential, commercial, and public parking. 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 p/ccrsgpa8 APPROVED AS TO FORM: .10'/4;s CITY A ORNE-Y November 1, 1990 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CERTIFIED LAND USE PLAN (L.U.P.) AMENDMENT NO. 3 Request 1. To amend the current Specific Plan Area (S.P.A.) No. 1 from hotel use to Medium Density residential uses for the vacant portion and Parking Lot "F". Location: East side of Strand extending to 14th Street. on the south and 15th Street on the north, and extending easterly from the Strand approximately 190 feet (refer to maps, Appendix I) 2. To amend the S.P.A. from hotel to General Commercial for public parking purposes for the portion currently used for public parking (Lot "C") Location: Northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and 13th Street 3. To amend L.U.P. text regarding Biltmore Site. Background On June 12, 1984, the City Council of Hermosa Beach adopted an ordinance changing the .General Plan and zoning to Specific Plan Area which would allow a hotel on the property. Subsequently (10-21-84) the Coastal Commission granted approval of the S.P.A. and L.U.P. text changes (refer to Appendix I for original (S.P.A. Ordinance and text changes). On April 25, 1989, the City council repealed the S.P.A. on a portion of the original S.P.A. No. 1 site to the south of the subject property, and rezoned the property to C-2, and designated it General Commercial in the General Plan. Subsequently (3-15-90) the Coastal Commission granted the repeal and approved a 172 unit hotel on this property adjacent to the subject property. On August 28, 1990 the City Council adopted a resolution and ordinance changing the designation and zoning from Hotel S.P.A. to Medium Density residential and R-2 zoning for the subject portion of the property, and returned the easterly portion of the subject property back to General Commercial and C-2 zoning with the intention that it would remain public parking. Existing Status At this time, the original area designated Hotel S.P.A. No. 1 is divided into three areas as follows: 1. The southwest portion between 13th Street and 14th Street abutting the Strand is ,designated and zoned for C-2 commercial and a hotel has been recently approved for this portion by both the City and Coastal Commission. It is currently in Building Department plan check prior to receiving a Building Permit. 2. The easterly portion, at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and 13th Street, is currently a public parking lot and has been changed to General Commercial, C-2 zoning; it is part of this L.U.P. amendment request. 3. The northwest portion consist of 10 vacant lots and Public Parking Lot "F", and has been designated Medium Density residential, and zoned S.P.A.; it also is part of this L.U.P. amendment request. Analysis MEDIUM DENSITY DESIGNATION AND S.P.A. ZONING FOR NORTHERLY PORTION After examining the vacant portion of the property and parking lot in relation to the surrounding land uses, General Plan designations, zoning, lot sizes, maximum units permitted by each designation, a medium density designation, and S.P.A. zoning was determined to be the most logical and legal use. The actual number of units will be well below the maximum of 25; the total will be 16.5 units per acre (refer to Appendix III for further staff analysis and Appendix II for location and site maps) . GENERAL COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION AND C-2 ZONING FOR EASTERLY PORTION; PARKING LOT "C" The original Hotel S.P.A. allowed the use of a public parking lot with a shared parking arrangement whereby hotel guests as well as the public would be able to utilize the parking. The C-2 zoning was the original zoning, and it is intended that by returning to the C-2 zoning, the public parking will remain; thereby visitor access to the beach is preserved (refer to.,a Appendix III for more analysis, and Appendix II for location and site maps). L.U.P. TEXT CHANGE Since the City has now determined that the highest and best use of the subject property overall including the southwest portion which has already been approved for a hotel by the Coastal Commission, the text on pages 11 and 12 should be amended to identify the property for residential, commercial, and public parking purposes. Also, there is no need for any exception to the height of the hotel since it will be within zoning ordinance standards (refer to Appendix I for L.U.P. text amendment resolution and Appendix III for land use analysis). VISITOR SERVING USES Demonstrative Effort: The City has attempted since 1972 to develop the subject property with visitor serving uses; six hotels, and one time-share condominium proposal were either placed on the ballot by the City Council, or resulted from a ballot measure via a voter petition. All attempts have failed to develop the publicly owned portion of the Hotel S.P.A. designation area (refer to Appendix V for actual vote). Further, when the matter of rezoning the subject property to residential was placed on the ballot, 66% of the impacted precinct (immediate area), voted for residential. Most recently a task force of 11 citizens were asked to develop a recommendation as to the use of the subject property. The recommendation was to designate the westerly half of the vacant portion as open space, and develop it with a "hard-scape", and "soft-scape" plaza development. The easterly portion including Parking Lot "F" and several vacant lots were proposed for commercial development. The recommendation was placed on the ballot and failed. Approved Hotel: As noted in the. Background, a 172 unit hotel has been approved for the southerly, privately owned portion of the original Hotel S.P.A. The proposed 172 room hotel with all on-site parking is currently in the structural plan check stage, and the issuance of building permits is expected in the near future. Thus a portion of the original site is expected to be visitor serving. Hotel Rooms Now vs. in the Past: At the time the Hotel S.P.A. was adopted, there were far less hotel rooms available near the coast Since the original hotel proposal, there has been an. increase of 776 rooms for a total of 892 rooms. With the proposed hotel noted above, the future total will be 1,064 rooms in Redondo and Hermosa Beach alone. The following is a list of new hotels since 1984: Sheraton, Redondo Beach - 348 Sunrise Inn, Redondo Beach - 111 Portofino Inn, Redondo Beach 169 Hotel Hermosa, Hermosa Beach - 80 Travelodge. Hermosa Beach - 68 Total 776 Based on a survey of vacancy rates the supply of hotel rooms is reaching demand levels. Commercial Use Demand: Downtown Hermosa Beach has experienced a shrinking clientele since the 1950's as a result of the creation of the "shopping center". From the business license records, it can be seen that there is a constant turnover of businesses in the downtown, and during the winter, spring and autumn months, several business along the Strand are closed. This factor is attributed to the lack of business. The original hotel proposal was an attempt to bring more business back into the downtown area. The size, shape, value and access of the property also limits its use for commercial development. To develop the property for example as a full size, restaurant would not be viable according to commercial land brokers based upon the value per sq. ft. and the requirement to have undesirable subterranean or an above -grade parking structure. Small retail shops are already plentiful in the area, and would only be an economic drain to the existing businesses. Large retail, as noted for a restaurant, would have the same problems. Access would also be a hindrance since the area is serviced by a two lane local street. VISITOR ACCESS Parking Lot "C": As noted above this parking area was originally part of the hotel S.P.A. and would have had a significantly reduced capacity for beach visitors with hotel/beach visitor shared parking status. A total of 134 spaces under the current proposal will be maintained for general public use. Therefore, even though a much smaller parking lot (lot F) with 20 spaces will be eliminated under this proposed amendment, the overall amount of parking spaces will exceed the Hotel S.P.A. arrangement by 87 assuming a conservative estimate that 50%.of the shared hotel/beach visitor parking would be occupied by beach visitors and considering the fact that Lot F was also eliminated under the Hotel S.P.A. Maintenance of Beach Access: Currently there are three access points to the beach within the subject area, 13th Street, 14th Street, and 15th Street; none of these access points will be affected by the proposed amendment. The Hotel S.P.A. resulted in the vacation of a portion of 14th Street cutting off access to the beach from that street. SALE OF PROPERTY / USE OF FUNDS The funds made available through the sale of the subject property for residential development are intended for the purchase of open space. Various surplus school sites which are currently zoned for open space purposes are available from. the school district at this time, but may not be available in the future. The City needs funds to purchase the property. The benefit of selling the subject property for the purchase of other sites is the immense difference in value. The beach front residential property has an estimated appraisal value of between $218 and $257 per sq. ft. Whereas the school open space zoned property is estimated to be worth $12.00 to $14.56 per sq. ft. Community Resources Department estimated that 50% of the visitors to this park are from surrounding cities. A large portion of this park is actually surplus school property (2.82 acres) which could be acquired if the City had funds to purchase it (refer to Appendix II for school and park property). Other school property which is zoned open space is the South School Site (4.43 acres) which is also within the coastal zone (Appendix II). This site is adequate in size for a baseball and soccer field and at one time was used for regional purposes (baseball, and soccer), but is no longer available under school district ownership. Outside of the coastal, zone is Hermosa View School (2.42 acres). This site is in the northeast quadrant of the City where open space parkland is clearly deficient. One additional open space area of regional significance which connects the beach cities via a jogger's path, could also be acquired without the current added tax burden which voters approved to purchase the property from the railroad. This area runs the entire length of the City and is approximately 19 acres. In conclusion, the sale of the subject property could not only pay for the 3 above noted school sites and a portion of the previous railroad right-of-way, it could also more equally distribute parkland throughout the City. Currently, the westerly portion of the City has the immediate benefit of the sand beach within walking distance. Whereas the easterly portion of the City is clearly deficient in open space within walking distance. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - RESIDENTIAL VS. HOTEL Under the Hotel S.P.A., such impacts as increased traffic, air pollution, parking demand, view blockage, shadows, noise, dust during construction, and public service demands -- sewer, water, etc. would all occur to a much greater degree with the Hotel S.P.A. versus the proposed Residential S.P.A. which would result in 12 single family residences. Appendices Adopted Resolutions and Ordinances Maps and Aerial Photographs Staff Reports and Analysis Minutes of Public Hearings Biltmore Site Ballot Measures Public Noticing Communication from Public Environmental Assessment and Notice of Determination -Ic- p/coastal APPENDIX I 1 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 �; 27 28 RESOLUTION 90-5397 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE BILTMORE SITE FROM A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR A HOTEL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND FOR PARKING LOT "C" FROM SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on General Plan Amendment 90-2 for the Biltmore site and Parking Lot "C" on `July 10, 1990, to receive oral and written testimony, and made the following Findings: A. The proposed amendment will not result in a significant impact on the environment as it involves a change to a lower intensity use on the Biltmore Site and a change back to the previous designation for Parking Lot "C," prior to its incorporation into the hotel plan; B. Residential use of the Biltmore Site is consistent with adjacent and surrounding land uses which to the north and east are predominantly multi -family residential uses; C. The Medium Density General Plan designation is consistent with surrounding residential designations and such a density is consistent with the character of surrounding uses; D. Thecitizens of the City of Hermosa Beach have expressed their general opposition to non-residential use of the site by voting against proposals to use the Biltmore Site for visitor oriented commercial purposes such as a hotel or retail commercial uses; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, hereby amends the Land Use Map of the General Plan as shown on the attached map: C r 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 1. General Plan Amend the property commonly known as the "Biltmore Site" from Specific Plan Area to Medium Density Residential, legally described as follows: - Lots 1 through 9, inclusive, and lots 1.9 and 20, Hermosa Beach Tract; and including the vacated portion. of Beach Drive between 14th and 15th Street.. and the vacated portion of 15th Court extending 60 f'eet eastward -of -Beach Drive. ' SECTION 2. General Plan amend the property commonly known as Parking Lot "C" from Specific Plan Area to General Commercial, legally described as follows:. Lots 19 through 29, inclusive, and lots 32 and 33; '•Hermosa•Beach-Tract • PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this August , 1990, by following vote: 14th day of "'AYES: Essertie Midstokke yor Creighton '' _NOES: Sheldon, Xiemans _r,. . ABSTAIN: None`s �/ ABSENT; No PRESIDENT"o ie Ci on and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, Californias p/ccrsgpab CITY ATTORNEY • C Location a.. Address: Biltmore Site publicly owned portion - Lots 19..-29 inclusive, ,32 & 33,.. Block -14, Hermosa Beach Tract and Lots b.--Legal:-1-9 inclusive, 19, 20 & 32, 'Block 15. Hermosa RPac-h mrar-r Description To consider General Plan redesignation. and.. rezoning from a Specific Plan .. - . - . .. •u11*- . - . • _ - - 3. Sponsor a. Name: City of Hermosa Beach b. ,-Mailing Address: 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Phone: .(213) 318-0242 " .NEGATIVE DECLARATION In accordance with Resolution = t9:5229 of -the- City of Hermosa beach, which Ari, plements the California Environmentalquality Act of 1970 in Hermosa Beach, the Environmental Review Committee must make an environmental review of all private projects proposed to be•undertaken-within the City, and the Planning Commission must make an.environmental review of all public projects proposes to be undertaken within the City,- which are subject to the Environmental quality Act. 'This declaration is documentation of the review and, if 'it be- comes final, no comprehensive Enviromnental Impact Report is required for this project. , FINDING..OF ENV_IRONMENTAL...REVIEW COMMITTEE -We have undertaken and completed.an Environmental Impact Review of this pre posed project in accordance with Resolution 89-5229 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report because, -- - - - •--- uraG fir@ imrtuaed . in the project-, .it would not have a significant effect on the environment: -`°Documentation suppoi'tingthis finding is on file in the. Building Department. • 4=19-90 Date of Finding irman, ironmental Review Committee FINDING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this pro- ject in accordance with Resolution 89-5229 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a -comprehensive Environ- mental Impact Report because, -pr -o -vi -e3 the at 1 ehad mitigM inn TrieRs_n-r-os are included in the project, it woul t hav9/a significant effect on the en- vironment. Documentation sup ng th4,a/finc�ing, is on file in the Build- ing Department. Date of Finding Ping Commission FINDING OF THECITY COUNCIL We have undertaken and completed an environmental Impact Review of this pro- posed project in accordance with Resolution 89-5229'of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find this project does not require a comprehensive En- vironmental Impact Report because, provided the attached mitigation meas - • - - - ' - - it.-wot�1d not have,a significant effect on s ppo ting t 's !finding is on -file .in the the environment. Documentation. Building, Department. 'Date of. Fa nding rmo a Beac t Co cil ... - STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) - CITY. OF HERMOSA BEACH Deputy City- Clerk Council. .of the - City of:, Hermosa .Beach,„, California,, do, hereby, .certify that. the .foregoing Resolution. No. .90-539.7 was ..duly::and regularly_, passed,. approved_ ` and. adopted by the : City ..Council. hof the City. of Hermosa jBeach at a Regular ,_mee•ting of said Council at the regular meeting place thereof on August 14, 1990. =The --vote ,wae as -follows: AYES: Es'ssrti'er, Midstokke Mayor Creighton ;...., . - ._.._-.,M.NOES.:....:..j.•�:�: -:-Sheldon;.._Wemans . .... ' ABSENTNone 'ABSTAIN: None. - DATED: August 15,;1990 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 ORDINANCE 90-1043 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR THE 'BILTMORE SITE TO CHANGE THE PERMITTED USE FROM A HOTEL TO RESIDENTIAL, AND AMENDING THE ZONING -MAP TO -REZONE PARKING LOT "C" FROM SAID SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO C-2 - RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, the City, Council held a, public hearing. on .Zone Change 90-2 for the Biltmore site and Parking Lot "C" on July 10, •. . _ _. 1990, to receive oral and written testimony, and made the following Findings: A. The -proposed rezoning will not cause a significant impact on the 'environment as it involves a change to a lower intensity use on the Biltmore Site and a change back to the previous `''zoning := of� Parking Lot "C," prior to its incorporation into Y1]::- 'the hot-ei:4p'Ian; ''B. Resident'ial',• use ---of ,-the Biltmore Site is consistent with adjacent and surrounding land uses which to the north and east are predominantly multi -family residential uses; . : The Specific Plan Area zone will allow a density consistent with the. Medium Density General Plan designation and the provisions of the Specific Plan Area will ensure that the development of the site is consistent with the character of surrounding uses and of an appropriate density given the existing congestion of the area; T D. The citizens of the City of Hermosa Beach, have expressed their general opposition to non-residential use of the site 27 by voting against proposals to use the Biltmore Site for 28 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 visitor oriented commercial purposes such as a hotel or retail commercial uses; NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, hereby amends zoning map - as - shown on the attached .-map, ..and amends:.: the zoning ordinance text,described as follows:• SECTION 1. The following text shall be "Added to the zoning ordinance: Article 9.6, Chapter 1, Specific Plan Area No. 1 Section 9.61-1. Authority. This Specific Plan Area is an instrument for implementing the General plan pursuant to Article 8, - Chapter 3, of the State of California Planning and Zoning Law (California Government Code Section 65450 et. Seq.) Section 9.61-2 -.Location and Description The subject area is located on the . east' side .. of :. the Strand generally between 14th Street and 15th Street, and extending to approximately 350 feet west of Hermosa Avenue. Section 9.61-3 Purpose. The purpose of the Specific Plan Area is to set forth. r'the.:..development irequirements, standards and permitted. uses for the subject area. Section 9.61-4 Permitted Uses and Density. A. Any use permitted.in the R-1 (One -Family) Residential Zone to a maximum of 12 dwelling units. ._ B. Condominium developments consistent with the•provisions of the Condominium Ordinance of the City. of Hermosa Beach to a.maximum of 14 dwelling units. Section 9.61-5 Development Standards A. A minimum of three (3) off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit. B. Lot coverage shall not exceed 50% of the entire Specific Plan Area.. _. ... C. ,.::.. A "minimum ;.setback of •.10 feet •shall be .provided from - the Strand. D. The development of condominiums shall require the merging of the existing lots into one parcel. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 '26 27 28 E. ::Development standards shall be as set forth in ARTICLE 5. R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, except pertaining -to ,.lot - coverage and a -setbacks as stated in Section 9.61-5(B) and 5(C). F. All other standards shall be as set forth in the City -of Hermosa Beach.: Zoning Ordinance, except .pertainingto -required.. parking spaces as stated. in Section 9.61-5A. SECTION 2. -Rezone the property commonly -known as Parking --Lot "C" from Specific Plan Area to C-2 Restricted Commercial, legally described as follows: Lots 19 through 29, inclusive, and lots 32 and 33, Hermosa Beach Tract SECTION 3 .;? This ordinance shall become ''effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. r. - 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. r 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.:- c_ PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 28th day of August, 1990, by following vote: AYES::'... Creighton, Essertier, Midstokke NOES:%. Wiemans, Mayor Sheldon ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None PRESIf the GCity Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California APPROVED AS. TO FORM: 06,etAie P/ccordblt j-.ijc Je CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY STATE OF CALIFORNIA ),.. COUNTY OF; LOS ANGELES;..) CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ) ti Naoma Valdes, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, California;: do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. ;.90-1043 .:•.,was ;:duly and,regularly passed,; approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach at a : regular meeting held .. at: the ..regular meeting place thereof - on } the 28th day.ofAugust, 1990.and was published in the. Easy. Reader on September 6, 1990. -The vote was as follows: AYES: Creighton, Essertier, Midstokke NOES: Wiemans, Mayor Sheldon ABSENT: None:.. t:., ABSTAIN: None : DATED: September 6, 1990 tuernt Deputy City Clerk - 8 9 10 :11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 90 - 5341 A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY REZONING AND DISPOSITION OF THE BILTMORE SITE. WHEREAS, the City Council discussed this matter at the City Council meeting on January 23,. 1990; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to have the Planning Commission study rezoning the Biltmore Site to residential; -and WHEREAS, The City Council intends, after the rezoning, to - sell the site and use the proceeds to pay off the financing of the Railroad right-of-way, therefore eliminating the 4% Utility User's Tax; and also acquire available excess School properties for Open Space Parkland purposes; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to present this as a "package" to the Coastal Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The .City Council requests the Planning Commission to study rezoning the Biltmore Site to Residential and amending the General Plan appropriately. They are to study this issue as a "package", using the monies to acquire excess available properties for Open Space Parkland uses and any remainder to pay off the railroad right-of-way. SECTION 2. This matter is a high priority item to the City Council, and they request the study as soon as possible. // // 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 C., '-27 28 . SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify- to the adoption of this resolution; and shall cause the action of the City Council in adoptinsame tO7be entered in the official minutesofkaid City Council. 23RD.DAY OF JANUARY, 1990. PRISIDr4 o the ity ouncil and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: p/ccrsbilt • . • :"'. -• :•. APPRFE6 AS TO FO ATTORNEY • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH I, LINDA RIDDLE, Deputy City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 90-5341 was duly and regularly .;.passed, approvedand adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach at a Regular meeting of said Council at the regular .meeting place thereof on January 23, 1990. 'The vote was as follows: AYES: Essertier, Midstokke, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton NOES: None ABSENT: Sheldon ABSTAIN: None DATED: February 6, 1990 • Chief Deputy Cit Clerk • C 1 2 3 4 5 -6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 EXHIBIT H " , PgE.AiKy j sP`cZtfic. ORDINANCE •444-751 'LAS Co(2... A 401 Si— AN ORDINANCE OF THE. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH WHICH ADOPTS A SPECIFIC PLAN TO REGULATE DEVELOPMENT IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA BETWEEN 15TH o AND 13TH STREETS AND THE STRAND AND HERMOSA AVENUE AS INDICATED ON EXHIBIT 1 MAP AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT 2. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing on April 12, and April 19, 1984; and WHEREAS, the City Council hald a public hearing on June -12;1984;. and WHEREAS, implementation of the Specific Plan described herein will further the goals of.the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Plan; and WHEREAS, the City desires to achieve a systematic execution of the goals and policies of the General Plan in this downtown area which can only be achieved through detailed regulations and conditions; and WHEREAS, the City desires to only specifically regulate that area indicated on Exhibit 1 and 2; NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa does hereby ordain: Section 1. A hotel/convention center complex built pursuant to this specific plan accomplish the following General Plan policies: a) Land Use Element The designation of commercial/recreation which meets the needs of local residents and beach visitors, b) Urban Design Element Upgrade the visual character of the area, convert under-utilized street space to ped- estrian -oriented activity areas and other public uses, address building scale and form and the revitalization of the business district c) Transportation and Circulation Element Provide for improved pedestrian circulation and opportunities for Iandscaping. d) Parking Provide parking necessary for the project. as well as additional parking to meet future demands. e) Economic Element Revitalize commercial district, provide economic stability, provide policy for future 1 2 3 4 5 commercial growth. Section 2. The development standards and uses for the Specific Plan area as identi- fied in Exhibit 1 shall be the following: 1) the same as those for the C-2 zone described in Section 800-C, 801, 803, 804, and 805. 6 2) Section 802 regulate the height of 45' but an exception shall be made to the 7 story limit. Up to 'five- (5) ' =. _' stories shall be allowed. 8 Section 3. • Public streets may be altered to accommodate the project in a manner 9 consistent with the project as finally approved by the City. 10 Section 4. The local Coastal Plan shall be amended to included this Specific Plan. 11 Section 5. That a development agreement and appropriate Conditional Use permit 12 be enacted pursuant to this Specific Plan. 13 Section 6. That any project approved pursuant to this Specific Plan shall comply 14 with the following conditions: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a. that the additional levels of parking be constructed on Lot C. (a fifth level at 36') and on Lot B (a fourth level) if economically feasible for City/VPD to build. The parking spaces to be built on Lot C and Lot B will be sufficient to accommodate the general public, conference center,. and hotel demand, however any future development in the downtown area will require additional parking. There is an in -lieu fee provision within the VPD which allows new development to purchase spaces from the VPD rather than provide them on site. However if additional levels are built on Lot C and B, then those spaces could accommodate new development. b. that realignment of loading dock be updated on the plans and the trash storage areas be screened so as to minimize the view from the neigh- boring residential uses. c. that 15th Court be made one-way east bound to ensure a circular flow of traffic for the service vehicles. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 d. the parking spaces to be developed by the Developer are 390.. The total amount of. parking provided for the Project ( Hotel and Conference Center) will meet or exceed the current code requirements of the City by approximately tweity-fourpoi-tsixpercent(246%)The Developer anticipates a normal operating parking requirement of two hundred sixty (260) spaces for the Hotel and Conference Center, exclusive of parking provided in the project garage for public parking. To the extent that additional parking is needed for utilization by the project, the developer: agrees to provide shuttle service and/or valet service in order to utilize a new parking structure when built at the Communtiy Center or other available parking facilities. As part of the operational plan of the project and as suggested by the EIR, the Developer shall institute a free airport shuttle for hotel guests, provide for bicycle parking and storage, encourage off-site employee parking, and attempt to utilize bus services and/or off-site parking facilities whenever possible for large functions. The City and the Developer shall jointly agree on the standards by which the City will manage the Lot C parking garage. e. the parking facilities of the project may contain up to thirty percent (30%) compact car spaces, i.e. parking spaces which are 7 feet 6 inches wide by 15 feet in length. f. in order to buffer the neighboring uses from noise generated by a hotel use, the following conditions are recommended. 1. No public access on 15th Street or Beach Drive between 15th Street and 15th Court will.,. be part of project. 2. Windows on ground floor which face onto 15th Street will be non-operable. 3. Hotel rooms on north side will not be used as hospitality suites. g, the signage on the hotel project improvements shall not exceed that cur- • 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• CA) 28 rently permitted by .the relevent City Code. The calculation of allowable signage shall be based on the "Building Frontage" of the improvements fronting on to. the Strand on the Leased Property. In addition to the signage provided for above, the Developer shall have the right to place supplemental signage at the following locations and in the following manner: A. 13th Street and Hermosa Avenue: Signage may be located on any or all of the three (3) sides of the parking. garage. The size of such signage will be calculated under the relevant City Code assuming the parking garage as a separate commercial building, with its "Building Frontage" on 13th Street. The total allowed square footage may be distributed on the three (3) sides of the garage at Hermosa Avenue, at the Developer's discretion. B. Pacific Coast Highway and Pier Avenue (Community Center): the size and design of such signage will be jointly approved by the City and the Developer and costs will be shared equally by the City and the Developer. C. Other Locations: as may be agreed upon by City and the Develop- er, the costs of such additional signage will be borne by the De- . veloper. D. Reasonable "construction signs" shall be allowed during construc- tion, both on the Strand and at Hermosa Avenue. ORDINANCE 84-751, SECTION 7 shall be amended as follows: "The project shall not exceed 45 feet in height including any) mansard roof or similar structure and shall comply with Section 1201 of the Zoning Ordinance." 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 8. That this ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. Section 9. That prior to the expiration of fifteen days after the date of its adoption the City Clerk shall cause this ordinanceto be published in the Easy Reader,, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circu- lated in the City of Hermosa Beach. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED T IS26 DAY OF June,1984. PRESIDENT T of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FO / CITY CLERK V I / G4o., i/• J•16/-- (i/-- CITY ATTORNEY C Il irIky DATE -5- 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 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY -OF HERMOSA•BEACH I, KATHLEEN REVICZKY, City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 84-751 was duly .and regularly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach at a regular meeting of said Council held at the regular meeting place thereof on the 26th day of in the Easy Reader on as follows: June July and was published 5th, 1984 . The vote was AYES: Councilman Barks, Cioffi, De3ellis, Wood, .Mayor Brutsch NOES:None ABSENT:None ABSTAIN:None DATED: June 27, 1984 '...'0 Katrhleen Reviczky, J lerl 1 I).\ 'I ij .117 k ) I• /), MI_ APPENDIX II r rl SAN FERNANDO VALLEY v Es -I -URA FW'f SANTA MONICA/MOUNTAINS • PACIFIC OCEAN • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REGIONAL MAP • • PALOS VERDES\ c.3 IC 3 3 3 ST ST 1_03RD ST AV \ 7- 6.2.: • A VA.1 COMPTON 4 LVD' 0. Site RE , •-- '*--- z "r—GR --r ANT , : i4AV 7-N TIN 1TON ,. 2.4 9.e., • 1,C; . • ; • s•levoo Pt&LMAN LNt• rtti• PIU • v.._ •Stik. r LN LN LN .1 ST 6 <3,,rel4 HARBOR L_ Vicinity Map 1 • C. ST AMOBLVD ... 5300 1— ?di wo.U.LE ot di a OR HS SARAN PR 0 312 cT a. d — SPENCER — - - ',SHIPMAN< WHAM — "°';',1,;A° ASTERIA _,NAR1COP4 u .3E, 4 AFRCOPh 5 TORRAPICEt ccorr ST ' iT 0. • r_ •�. _.„ 11 • :1 J ill it -' , ), `w /,� ). /� ,�cn o COASTAL ZONE LOCATION MAP e GENE.L PLAN AMENDMENT & Z,./NE CHANGE AREAS BILTMORE SITE (PUBLICLY OWNED PORTION) OS: OPEN SPACE HD: HIGH DENSITY MD: MEDIUM DENSITY GC: GENERAL COMMERCIAL CR: COMMERCIAL RECREATION LOY• MD - HD Opt, C MONT ER. EY BLVD GC MD P • . Y MD .D MD MDLIJ MD MD W W h 4- rev F BEACH MD I MD l I JMDIHDJ (-)R GCI G W a GC I Y S TRAND —IZ-- .ame 1FIERMOS e tel: I P. AVENUE74 4,./.,6^1.4v-,....,5 • PROJECT SITE IL Aerial Photograph • C r i i } I a a 3 LEGEND NUMBER OF STORIES ® PARKING COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL/OFFICE MF RESIDENTIAL EXISTING LAND USE ilWaiiii I MEI I NI 1 al SF RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC PARKING LOT VACANT • • CITY OF. IIEI1110SA I3EACII CALIIFOU NUA. I. sCALt: 117401.4:0 1CCT kM31;----5 ;- % i , ffJ1]iV lH-iiffiiillq11 ti. kliuLf),.-protilL!_id,l,L,1-,:_ltfj(:_-1:311—. r � J 1. Valley Park 2. Di -Centennial Park. 3. Greenwood Park 4. Port Gots-of-Fun Park 5. Seaview Park • 6. Clark Stadium (field) 7. Ingleside Park 8. t ioondust Park h Street and Valley Drive Park rdmore Avenue at 5th Street Park Hermosa View School Prospect Heights School South School Hermosa Valley School North School APPENDIX III Honorable Mayor and Members .of.the Hermosa Beach City Council SUBJECT: LOCATIONS: PURPOSE: July 2, 1990 Regular Meeting of July 10, 1990 SECOND QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-2 AND ZONE CHANGE 90-2 1. THE BILTMORE SITE: PUBLICLY OWNED PORTION BETWEEN 14TH STREET AND 15TH STREET, ALONG THE STRAND 2. PUBLIC PARKING LOT "C" BOUNDED BY 14TH COURT AND 13TH STREET BETWEEN BEACH DRIVE AND HERMOSA AVE. TO CONSIDER A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE TO AMEND THE CURRENT SPECIFIC PLAN AREA DESIGNATION FOR A .HOTEL AND CHANGE IT TO A RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION FOR THE BILTMORE SITE AND TO RETURN IT TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND C-2 FOR PARKING LOT "C". INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission did not adopt a resolution and instead prepared a report for the Biltmore Site. In regards to Parking Lot "C" the Planning Commission recommended returning the designations to GC — General Commercial and C-2 Restricted Commercial zoning. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Biltmore site be redesignated on the General Plan to Medium Density Residential and rezoned to a residential specific plan area allowing a maximum of 14 units with a 30 foot height limit. The subject area would include the vacated portion of Beach. Drive and 15th Ct. It. is also recommended that the proceeds from the sale of the Biltmore site be used to buy excess school property and/or railroad right-of-way for open space purposes. Staff also recommends the redesignation and rezoning of the public parking lot back to GC - General Commercial and C-2 - Restricted Commercial zoning as appropriate. BILTMORE SITE Background The Planning Commission considered this issue at their meeting of June 5, 1990. Since they were unable to reach majority agreement on the issue,the attached report was adopted which shows that the vote was split 2-2-1. Two commissioners favored a medium density residential designation with a 25 -foot height limit; two �- c 1) favored a partial commercial and open space use, and one favored open space exclusively. The. previous election involving the Biltmore Site resulted in two failing initiatives. The initiative for a combination of urban public plaza, commercial, and residential failed by a 727 vote and the initiative for open space only on the Biltmore Site failed by a 537 vote. The City Council has requested staff and the Planning Commission to study the option of designating the property for residential purposes. For further background and site statistics please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report. Analysis Given the direction of Council to study the Biltmore Site for residential purposes, staff has focused only on the alternative of residential in this analysis. Residential is considered to be a preferable alternative because of the current high value of residential property and because of its limited environmental impact. Please refer to the attached Planning Commission report for further analysis. In response to comments raised at the Planning Commission public hearing in regards to the subdivision of the property, it should be noted that the recommended residential specific plan area does not limit the city to a specific layout of the buildings or lots on the property. Under the proposal, the property could be sold as one large parcel and the buyer would then have the choice of Utilizing the existing 12 -lot configuration for single-family units or, to develop the property as an integrated condominium project with up to 14 units. Additionally, rather than selling it as one large parcel the City could choose to sell the existing 12 lots individually. In the past, when single-family - R-1 zoning was being suggested, subdividing the property into 4000 square -foot lots was logical, but under medium density residential it serves no purpose since the larger lots could simply have two units per lot if developed individually. Eight lots as originally suggested would result in 16 units. Staff believes that structuring the specific plan area as proposed in this way provides an incentive for the buyer to develop an integrated project, but would allow for the use of the existing lots for individual dwellings if market conditions should prove it to be the best use of the property. Alternatives . 1. Redesignate/Rezone the site to Medium Density/R-2B which would keep the current lot configuration and allow a total of 12 units. 2 c 2. Redesignate/Rezone the site to Medium Density/R-2 which would allow up to 21 units on the site if the lots were merged, and the vacated portion of Beach Drive and 15th Court were included. 3. Impose a 25 -foot height limit as part of the residential specific plan area. PARKING LOT PC" Background The Planning Commission, at their meeting, recommended that Parking Lot "C be redesignated/rezoned to GC General Commercial and C-2 - Restricted Commercial. Analysis Parking lot "C" was originally a part of the specific plan area for .the defeated hotel project, and therefore retains that general plan and zoning classification. The proposed general plan amendment and zone change would return it to its previous GC C-2 designations. This would be consistent with its current use a commercial parking area, and consistent with the designation of the other downtown parking lot. Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report for more analysis. CONCUR;, Michael Schubach Planning Director %/ (eP �neno� Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager' Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution and Ordinance 2. Maps 3. P.C. Staff Report 6/5/90 4. P.C. Resos 90-43 and 90-44 and P.C. report 5. P.C. Minutes 6/19/90 6. C.C. Resolution 90-5341 7. Memo from City Attorney 8. Affidavit 9. Correspondence t/pcsrsite ter er.tson Associate Planner Honorable Mayor and Members July 5, 1990 City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of July 10, 1990 CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS ON GENERAL PLAN AND ZONE CHANGE RECOMMENDATION FOR BILTMORE SITE The Council is in a rare dual role to act both as a planning and zoning agency, as well as a property owner, regarding the re- designation and rezoning of the Biltmore site. From a planning perspective, certainly commercial, medium density residential, and open space are compatible with surrounding areas. While com- mercial has been the historical use and may have been the best long term revenue source for the City, it has been defeated the most times by the public. It is now probably the least likely solution to the long term project of resolving what to do with the Biltmore site. This leaves the viable options of residential and open space. Residential has been supported because it is compatible with the surrounding area, and has a low impact on the City and the neigh- borhood. It also results in the highest immediate revenue source for the City via sale of the property. Open space is a high and well recognized public priority through- out the community. However, the Biltmore site seems ill situated to respond to this need. Its .8+acres is immediately adjacent to 40 to 50 acres of beach area, and close to the pier head and pier area. Use of open space on the Biltmore site would likely be consistent with use of the Strand, which has a high regional use. It would also no doubt be a second gathering spot, similar to the pier head, for undesirable activity. For these reasons, there is a great deal of logic to the concept that the open space priority of our community would be best served by using the funds from sale of the site for residential to provide acres of open space throughout the City for use by our residents as well as visitors. A conservative estimate is that 15 times the land area would be available by purchasing surplus school sites in all four quadrants of the City through the pro- ceeds of the sale of the Biltmore site. The ability to get 15 times the land area, in better situated areas throughout the City, make sale of the Biltmore site for residential with use of the proceeds to purchase open space a win-win situation for our community. Only those who are immedi- ately adjacent to the site would not be given their best option. Their property values and views may not be as positively impacted with residential as with open space uses of the Biltmore site. Everyone else in the community would seem to benefit by sale of the Biltmore site for residential. In order for this option to be approved by the Coastal Commis- sion, as much consensus as possible in our community needs to be developed. Since sale forresidential°:serves both open space and residential interest, it is hoped that these two interests will combine to form abroad community consensus. Regarding height, it should be noted that the 30 ft. height recommended would be at or below the height to which surrounding properties have been built or can be built. The attached material includes a hand written -estimate of value of the proper- ty that was developed for the Biltmore Task Force by Jonathan Coleman, of Real Estate West. It was presented to the Task Force on February 22, 1989. Mr'. Coleman felt that the 30 ft. limit was an important factor in the valuing of the properties, so I am attaching a page from his report that provide his comments on height and other factors of value. --It should also be noted that a reduction of lot coverage from 65% to 50% and the requirement for 10 ft. setback from the Strand could be considered -a trade off for the added height, but may in -fact make the properties not as valuable as they would be at the current code requirements of 5 ft. setback and 65% lot coverage. • Kevin B. Northc,raft City Manager KBN/ld J�/��t �/T Peal ',57'-orte a on I feel that the best sub -division for marketing purposes, which will bring the highest dollar amount for total sales of the subject property is as it currently exists. The other options for sub division as illustrated will yeild a significantly smaller total purchase price. This property has distinct problems due to the proximity to commercial developement, and the generally high amount of.foot traffic. It is the -.antithesis of why someone would want to purchase on The Strand. By making these lots R-1 the height will be limited to 25 feet. This places a large portion of the living areas. on the Strand level. Most buyers would prefer to have these areas above the Strand level out of proximity. to the traffic and-, noise. The buyer could develope a. home -of larger size by approx- imately 1000 sq..ft. :However the'slightly increased value of the larger size lot is more than compensated for by the value of the two extra lots which could be marketed by keeping the size of the subdivision on The Strand at the existing 30X80 size and by allowing maximum developement as.R-2.=`Corner lots with the traditional 20 ft.'sideyard easement will always have more inherit value. Yet with the subject property the lot on the North corner of 14th St. will have the undesireable element of being situated next to a busy - restaurant. North corners have more value because of the exposure to sunlight, but in this -case I feel that the lot on the corner 15th St. will be more desireable even though it is a South corner lot. If the R-2 zoned lots in excess of 3500 sq.ft. on the East portion can be developed as condominiums, they will have the pot- ential of yeilding a higher sale price from a developer. Regardless of how the property is sub -divided, I strongly • advise that the individual lots be marketed on an individual basis as opposed to offering the site as a package to a developer. By selling them individually you will optimize the sales price. It might be more entailed, and require more administration, but if the transactions are all handled by the same escrow, in the same manner,, it should minimize the additional work involved. Also, individual offerings of each of the lots does not preclude a pot- ential developer from offering on all of the seperate lots. Most importantly, with the current rate of appreciation, it is very important to re-evaluate the potential pricing before marketing the property. I feel that the figures I have given you are conservative, and in fact,_that the site should be marketed at ahigher price. The market and offers will truly determine what the values are. Time and again I am surprised'by the new comparable sales data It is advantageous to test the. market. Any appraisal is merely an estimate of value, and no one can truly tell what that value is in a limited market such as The Strand, unless the market is tested. Please feel free to contact me at anytime for further information or for the marketing of the property. 2 3 4 5 6 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • PLANNING .COMMISSION REPORT ON BILTMORE SITE The Planning Commission, at their June 19, 1990 meeting, determined that no resolution regarding the General Plan designation and zoning could receive a majority vote of 'the Planning Commission; therefore, the Planning Commission by a majority vote opted to prepare this Report rather than a resolution. The following are the three differing recommendations of the Planning Commission 1. Residential Specific Plan area with the following conditions:. a. maximum height 25 feet `Proceeds from the'sale of the property to be buy open space within coastal zone. used to • Less dense; and intense use of property within medium _density parameters. • .Some. amount open space to be provided along the Strand.. VOTE: AYES: Comm.Rue,Chmn.Ingell NOES:-'C'omms.Ketz,Moore,Peirce . Open spacearea for park purposes VOTE: AYES: Comm.Peirce NOES: Comms.Ketz,Moore,Rue,Chmn.Ingell . Specific Plan Area with low intensive Commercial, and open space, similar to 1989 Biltmore Task Force recommendation. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ketz,Moore NOES: Comms.Peirce,Rue,Chmn.Ingell CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing report is a true and complete record"9f the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of H,eimosa Be Edi, Ca 'iforr�ia at their regular meeting of June 19, 1 96. cott Ing ll, airman J ( Date /(//( C Michael (V4/ /e.,? chubach, Secretary p/perbsite BILTtvMORE SITE TASK FORCE MINORITY REPORT It is the finding of the undersigned members of the Biltmore Site Task Force that the best disposition of the Site would be by auction, zoned. for Residential, R2, withthe lots so •configured as to permit 12 units. Attached is a diagram demonstrating the proposed method to subdivide the lots so as to limit the number of units to be .developed to 12, while permitting them to be built to the R2 limit in order to achieve a "vertical sound and traffic buffer". • The primary reasons underpinning the recommendation of residential are: 1. A Residential development is likely to generate at least $8 million, the optimum revenue for the city, long or short term, through a development that would create minimal impact. 2.. It is the proposal most likely to be well accepted bythe sector of the community most affected by the disposition of •the Site. In Precinct 4 (see attached), Proposition X,, the 1988 Residential Measure, was approved by almost 2/3 of the voters. It received 254 yes votes and only 163 no votes, as opposed to the unequivocal rejection of hotel SPA and commerciaLL The City would use alt proceeds from the sale in the following manner: 1. - Apply to the balance of the cost of the Greenbelt/Right-of-Way (within Coastal -Commission aegis) not already raised through the UUT. From the business owners within the Vehicle Parking District area, the city would '.,appoint five individuals who will spearhead the district. The city would direct the appointees to serve with two interested members of the community at large who would act as advocates for the residents. Of the remaining money, the greater of 20% or 1 million dollars would be given to the Vehicle Parking District to develop and/or construct parking within their sector. All proposals forthcoming would be subject to Council approval. 3. The balance of the proceeds would be earmarked for purchase of other available open space lands, primarily Valley Park. 4. This proposal would be submitted to a vote of the Hermosa Beach citizens. The sole point of concern relates to Coastal Commission approval. It is acknowledged by the undersigned that the city would have the responsibility of persuading the Commission of the feasibility of a nonpriority use. We believe demonstrating the workability of nonpriority residential use to be achievable and realistic. Trading .8 acre for possibly 25 times that amount to be dedicated to open space, recreational, and visitor serving use within the Coastal Commission territory is a powerful argument, which if presented cogently would be granted reasonable consideration. 1. Proposition Z, the hotel site specific plan received 83 yes votes and 327 no votes, failing by 80% , Proposition Y, Commercial, received 31 yes votes and 375 no votes. Commercial failed by 92%. s. 30 So • 1..17 -r A L 1 k 7s ---t • . Si • • , • I• f - • _1. • LL4H fr, . • tI . . • I -1--. •.,.•• + - , • i I • i .7 • 'e- 1 � ,. . , ' 1 ;- t• 1 - ±x11 ; . 1 _... 1 - r .- • • 1. --r.__ i• i i . THOMAS W. STOEVER WILLIAM B. BARR CHARLES S. VOSE CONNIE COOKE SANDIFER ROGER W. SPRINGER EDWARD W. LEE HERIBERTO F. DIAZ JAMES OUFF•MURPHY JANICE R. MIYAHIRA • LAW OFFICES OLIVER, STOEVER, •BARR & VOSE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1000 SUNSET BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 (213) 250-3043 • . • MEMORANDUM TO: KEVIN NORTHCRAFT, CITY MANAGER CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FROM: DATE: RE: FAX % 'on co Er 6coefgite- TELECOPIER (213) 482-5336 MAY 2 3 1990 EDWARD W. LEE, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYP—' May 21, 1990 Spot Zoning - Biltmore Site This office has been requested to issue an opinion regarding the potential for rezoning of the parcel of property more commonly known as the Biltmore Site. FACTS The Biltmore Site is that certain property currently owned by the City of Hermosa Beach and.generally bounded by 14th Street, 15th Street, Hermosa Avenue and fronting on the Strand. The Biltmore Site is currently designated under the General Plan and zoned, Specific Plan Area ("SPA"). The immediate surrounding properties are designated under the General Plan as: medium density, high density to the north; commercial recreation to the east; general commercial to the south; and open space to the west. The zoning of those same adjacent properties is: R-3, R -2B to the north; R-3, C-2 to the east; C-2 to the south; and O -S to the west. The City wishes to consider either an amendment.to the SPA or a rezoning of the Biltmore Site to insure the compatible use of the site with surrounding and existing properties. ISSUE Does the possible rezoning of the Biltmore Site to residential uses constitute spot zoning? OLIVER, STOEVER, BARR & VOSE MEMORANDUM Kevin Northcraft, City Manager May 21, 1990 Page 2 CONCLUSION It is this firm's opinion that the City has wide discretion to rezone the Biltmore Site and withstand an:attack based upon a claim of spot zoning. Based upon the surrounding current uses, ranging from multi -family residential to commercial to open space, the City could reasonably exercise its discretion within that spectrum of uses. The one limitation, as, noted in the discussion below, might be a consideration to rezone the property to single family residential. DISCUSSION Spot zoning occurs when *a 'small parcel of land or a single lot :is rezoned to treat that property differently than the surrounding properties. In other words, when rezoning allows permitted uses which differ significantly from existing or allowable uses of the - surrounding parcels, the City has created in essence an "island." See, e.g., Wilkins v. City of San Bernardino (1946) 29 Ca1.2d 332; Hamer V. Town of Ross (1963) 59 Ca1.2d 776. As a general rule, the,.smaller the piece of land at issue the more., likely a spot. zoning claim will be asserted. However, the mere fact that a•parcel's zoning is different from the zoning or uses on surrounding properties does not make the zoning unreasonable. See, e.g., Viso v. State of California (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 15. A finding of spot zoning turns on the issue of consistency or compatibility with the surrounding adjacent uses. This issue of "compatibility" is addressed in a number of court cases.. In Hamer-v.'Town of Ross, -the requirement of a one acre minimum lot size on a parcel surrounded by developed lots of less than one acre was determined by the California Supreme Court to be an invalid spot zoning. In Reynolds v. Barrett (1938) 12 Ca1.2d 244, residential zoning of a parcel which was surrounded by nonresidential uses was determined to be spot zoning. Finally, in Kissinger v. City of Los Angeles (1958) 161 Cal.App,2d 454, the down zoning of a parcel to single' family use, when the parcel was surrounded by multi -family residential and commercial uses, was determined to be invalid as spot zoning. EWL:mc May 29, 1990 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission June 5, 1990 SUBJECT: SECOND QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-2 AND ZONE CHANGE 90-2 LOCATIONS: 1. THE BILTMORE SITE: PUBLICLY OWNED PORTION BETWEEN 14TH STREET AND 15TH STREET, ALONG THE STRAND 2. PUBLIC PARKING -LOT "C" BOUNDED BY 14TH COURT AND 13TH STREET BETWEEN BEACH DRIVE AND HERMOSA AVE. PURPOSE: TO CONSIDER A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE TO AMEND THE CURRENT SPECIFIC PLAN AREA DESIGNATION FOR A HOTEL AND CHANGE IT TO A RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION FOR THE BILTMORE SITE AND TO RETURN IT TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND C-2 FOR PARKING LOT "C". Recommendation Staff recommends the following: 1. Redesignate the Biltmore site to Medium Density Residential and rezone the site to Residential Specific Plan Area allowing a maximum of 14 units with a 30.foot height limit, and include the vacated portion of Beach Drive and 15th Ct. 2. Redesignate/Rezone the public parking lot back to GC/C-2 3. Use the proceeds "f,r.oi .the sale of the Biltmore site to buy the most excess sschool property and/or railroad right-of-way for open space purposes. BILTMORE SITE ON THE STRAND Background The previous election involving the Biltmore Site resulted in two failing initiatives. The initiative for a combination of urban public plaza, commercial, and residential failed by a 72% vote and the initiative for open space only on the Biltmore Site failed by a 53% vote. The City Council has now requested staff and the Planning Commission to study the option of designating the property for residential purposes. On April 19, 1990, the Staff. Environmental Review Committee recommended an environmental negative declaration for the general plan amendment and rezoning because the change in designation would be to a lower intensity use than what is allowed under the currenteneral plan and zoningdesignation of S.P.A. for a hotel. When and if a specific residential project is consid arLF��e�: d � _15._ INFO�ft� ATLON for this site it will require precise development plan, and at. that time the project would be subject to environmental review. Site Statistics Site Area (including R -0-W) 36,923 sq. ft. (.85 acres) No. of existing lots 12 Lot sizes 2400 - 3263 sq. ft. Area in R -0-W 5400 sq. ft. Area excluding R -0-W 31,523 sq. ft. Adjacent Uses/General Plan/Zoning: Use GP Zone North: MF Res. HD R-3 East (along 15th St.): MF Res. HD R-3 East (along 14th St.): Comm. CR C-2 South: Comm. GC C-2 West: Beach OS OS Potential Number of Units/Density Potential Under Residential Zones: Current Lot Merged Lots Configuration Vacated R -O -W No. Density No. Density R-1 12 16.6 du/acre N/A R -2B 12 16.6 N/A R-2 12 16.6 21 24.7 du/acre R-3 17 23.5 27 31.8 Analysis Given the direction of Council to study the Biltmore Site for residential purposes, staff is focusing only on the alternative of residential in this analysis. Residential is considered to be a preferable alternative because of the current high value of residential property and because of its limited environmental impact. LOT CONFIGURATION In terms of the design and layout of a residential project two distinct approaches are available. One approach is to use the existing lot configuration of 12 substandard lots of 2400 — 3263 square feet and under an existing zoning category allow the development of these separate lots. This would also mean using the previously vacated alleys (Beach Drive and a portion of 14th Court). This approach was suggested by the minority report of the task force. Their suggestion was to use R-2 zoning, meaning that each lot could be developed with one unit to a height of 30 feet. The advantage of this approach from a developers perspective is that individual single-family lots could be sold rather than requiring a condominium form of ownership. The otheroption would be to merge all the lots and the vacated public rights-of-way into one large parcel, establish the density limits, and permit the buyer of the property several options for the layout of the units on the site. This could be accomplished either through a Specific Plan Area designation, or through one of the city's zoning categories. There are several advantages to the concept of merging the lots; for example, it would provide the developer the flexibility to design the units to maximize views for all units, including those that would not have Strand frontage; it would allow for a more efficient useof the property towards providing open space; and space would be available for a usable common recreation area. In general, the rather uniform appearance of row houses on 30 -foot wide lots would likely be avoided. In Staff's judgement the elimination of the substandard lots would be a benefit to the city as it would encourage a better more innovative design of the site, and would also make the site more valuable. However, as noted there are benefits to both approaches and staff believes the zoning for the site could allow either situation to occur, but provide an incentive to a developer wising to develop an integrated project. DENSITY The next issue is the determination of the number of units to be allowed on the site. In staff's judgement a density within the range of the Medium Density classification would be appropriate. This would not be significantly inconsistent with the multi -family character of the immediately adjacent areas, and it would be directly consistent with the density of surrounding residential areas to the north and east just beyond the limits of the High Density designated area. The Medium Density range is 14-25 units per acre. The following is a table of the density if the site is developed in a range between 12 to 20 units for both the area of the site excluding the right-of-way and the area including the right-of-way. Excluding R -O -W 12 units 16.6 du/acre 13 17.9 14 19.3 15 20.7 16 22.1 17 . 23.5 18 24.9 20 27.6 Including R -O -W 14.2 du/acre 15.3 16.5 17.7 18.9 20.0 21.2. 23.5 The surrounding residential areas are zoned for the following densities: R -2B zoned area between 15th Court and 21st Street west of Hermosa Avenue...16 du/acre (based on individual lot size) R-3 zoned areas directly to the east of the Biltmore Site on both sides of 15th Street...31 du/acre (based on individual lot size) Although its difficult to justify any. specific density appropriate for the Biltmore Site, staff believes that an amount consistent with the medium density character of the blocks north of 16th Court would make the most sense -- about 16 units/acre. This is both for the purpose of retaining the character and scale of the majority of surrounding residential areas, and to minimize the environmental impacts which could be generated from a high density residential development. According the density figures above, a density of 16 units/acre would be 12 units if the R -0-W. is excluded, or, 14 units if the R -O -W is included. In conclusion, staff is recommending a S.P.A. with a maximum of 14 units, and a 30 foot height limit, because of the advantage that would be gained by merging the lots. This proposal would also allow the city to sell or a buyer to develop 12 separate single family units on the existing parcels if its desired based on design and market considerations. However, the S.P.A. allows up to 14 units if the parcels are merged, which may be an adequate incentive for a developer to develop the site as one project and to pay a price higher than could be obtained selling 12 individual lots. However, it should be noted that utility lines exist under Beach Drive and either an easement, or relocation would be necessary. The recommended S.P.A. also includes provisions to require 3 parking spaces per unit, and a limit on the lot coverage to 507 of the entire site. SPOT ZONING? Attached with this report is an opinion from the Assistant City Attorney regarding the potential for this action to be considered "Spot Zoning." He concludes that the City has wide discretion to rezone the site and withstand an attack based upon a claim of spot zoning. One limitation, however, would be a consideration to rezone the property to single family residential. COASTAL COMMISSION The use of this site for residential purposes constitutes a significant 'change in the Coastal Commission adopted Land Use Plan. This has historically been identified for visitor oriented commercial. It has been argued, however, that the City may be able to justify this change because the proceeds gained from the sale of the property would be used to purchase the greenbelt property,and perhaps some additional open space property within the Coastal Zone. Alternatives 1. Redesignate/Rezone the site to Medium Density/R-2B which would keep the current lot configuration and allow a total of :12 units. 2. Redesignate/Rezone the site to Medium Density/R-2 which would allow up to 21 units on the site if the lots were merged., and the vacated portion of Beach Drive and 15th Court are o : included. PARKING LOT "C" Analysis This site was rezoned to Specific Plan Area for a hotel project along with the Biltmore Site proper, and the privately owned property between 13th and 14th Street. Since that time the privately owned portion has been redesignated and rezoned back to its original GC/C-2 designation. Staff believes it would also be appropriate at this time to redesignate this public parking lot to GC/C-2 which was its previous designation. This is appropriate designationfor a parking lot which ..serves commercial area. CONC an a Ken Robertson /. Associate Planner Mi-hael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Proposed Resolutions 2. Maps 3. C.C. Resolution 90-5341 4. Memo from City Attorney 5. Correspondence 6. Public Notice Affidavit t/pcsrsite 111111.1111. APPENDIX IV --4 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR ADOPTION OF COMPROMISZ SOLUTION FOR AREA 10 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND Z• E CHANGE, with resolution for adoption and ordinance for introduction. (Continued from July 24, 1990 meeti.•.) Mayor eighton declared a conflict of interest, due owning property ithin 300 feet of the subject area, and lef the dais and the room. Mayor Pro Tem Sheldon chaired this pc) ion of the meeting. Councilmember 'dstokke declared an apparent and left the dai and the room. Planning Director .chael Schubach presented Action: To -.opt RESOLUTION OF {HE BEACH, CALIFORN GENERAL PLAN BY AS DESCRIBED BELO Resolution No CITY COUNCIL AMENDING ANGING TH FROM conf ict of interest he staff report. . 90-5398, entitled, "A OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA E LAND USE MAP OF THE DESIGNATION FOR ',AREA 10" W DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO A AREA AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESIDENTIAL SPECIFI P SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED NEGATIVE DECLARATION." Motion Essertier, se on Wiemans. So ordered, noting the abstentions of dstok e and Mayor Creighton Further Action: Motion Esserti the abstentio o introduce Ordinance No. 90-1044. second Wiem:ns.;. So ordered, noting of Midstokke an• Mayor Creighton Final Acti• To waive full read ng of Ordinance No. 90-1044, ntitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF 'HE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, ALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONG MAP AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT BY CHANGING THE 1•REA 10" FROM R - 2B T SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NO. 2 AS DESC• BED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTING AN NVIRONMENTAL NE,ATIVE DECLARATION." tion Essertier, second Wiemans. AYES: Essertier, Wiemans, Mayor Pro Tem Shel•on NOES: None ABSTAIN: Midstokke, Mayor Creighton Creighton and Councilmember Midstokke returned to the dai . 7. ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE FOR BILTMORE SITE AND PARKING LOT C, AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGA- TIVE DECLARATION, with resolution for adoption and or- dinance for introduction. (Continued from July 24, 1990 meeting.) Supplemental letters from Alison McMahon, 436 Prospect Avenue, and from The Reverend Richard. I. S. Parker, 2110 Borden Avenue, dated August 14, 1990. Planning Director Schubach presented the staff report. Page 6 Minutes 08-14-90 The public hearing was opened. Coming forward to address the Council were: Jerry Compton - 832 Seventh Street, favored residential Parker Herriott - 222 Twenty -Fourth Street, favored open space Shirley Cassell - 611 Monterey Blvd., opposed open space Katherine Bergstrom - 32 Twenty -First Street, favored residential June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue, favored residential Merna Marshall - 360 Thirty -Third Place, favored a compromise, with open space in front Jerry Newton - 2041 Circle Drive, favored a compromise, open space and commercial W. H. Shaw - 49 Twentieth Street, favored waiting for property values to improve due to the pro- posed adjacent hotel before making a decision Jim Lissner - 2715 El Oeste Drive, favored residential Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place, favored residential Patricia Hill - 841 Manhattan Avenue, favored a compromise, open space and commercial Kathy McCurdy - 186 Second Street, favored a compromise, open space and residential Mary Lou Weiss - 2506 Ardmore Avenue, opposed open space and favored a designation that would al- low the property to be sold for the highest price by the City Julie Surowski - 1737 Valley Park Drive, opposed open space Jack Andren - 521 Gentry, favored residential The Reverend Richard Parker - 2110 Borden Avenue, favored open space The public hearing was closed. Action: To approve a residential designation for the Biltmore site, with discussion of building standards (SPA) to follow. Motion Essertier, second Midstokke. So ordered, noting the objections of Sheldon and Wiemans. Director Schubach responded to Council questions. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5397, entitled, ',A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE BILTMORE SITE FROM A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR A HOTEL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND FOR PARKING LOT "C" FROM SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION." Page 7 Minutes 08-14-90 (I. C Motion Essertier, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered, noting the objections of Sheldon and Wiemans. Further Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 90-1043. Motion Essertier, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered, noting the objections of Sheldon and Wiemans. Final Action: To waive full% reading of Ordinance No. 90-1043, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR THE BILTMORE SITE TO CHANGE THE PERMITTED USE FROM A HOTEL TO. RESIDENTIAL, AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE PARKING LOT "C" FROM SAID SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO C-2 - RESTRICTED COMMER- CIAL AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION." Motion Mayor Creighton, second Midstokke. AYES: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton NOES: None The Meeting was recessed at.10:55 P.M. .The Meeting was reconvened at 11:08 P.M. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 8. 2ND QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS: A. MODIFICATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN (to be continued to 3rd Quarter General Plan. amendments). Action: .To continue this item to the 3rd Quarter General Plan amendments. Motion Mayor Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered. B. ADOPTION OF FINAL CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN REVISION, AND ENVIRON- MENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, with resolution for adoption. (Continued from July 24, 1990 meeting.) Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5399, entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FINAL CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION AND PARK- ING ELEMENT AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION." Motion Essertier, second Mayor Creighton. So ordered, noting the objection of Sheldon. 9. RECOMMENDATION REGARDING. VEHICLE PARKING IN FRONT YARDS AND ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (NOT STREET SURFACES). Memo- randum from City Manager Kevin B.'Northcraft dated July 30, 1990. Page 8 Minutes 08-14-90 MUNICIPAL MATTERS 7. 2ND. QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS: A._ MODIFICATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PARKS`AND:;RECREAT.ION MASTER PLAN (to be continued to 3rd Quarter General Plan amendments) B. •ADOPTION -OF FINAL CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN REVISION, AND ENVIRON MENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, with resolution for adoption... -Supplemental memorandum from Planning "Director Schubach dated July 24, 1990 .. . ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE r,r kiv:I-- .. c.-1•,i—FOR. BILTMORE.--SITE AND 1PARKING LOT . C, AND ENVIRON- ; MENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, with resolution for adoption and ordinance for introduction. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach_.__. dated July 17, 1990. Three supplemental items: 1) Biltmore Site ballot measures, a history re quested by Councilmember•Essertier, 2) letter fromi- -� -------------Howard-Longacre, -"1221 Seventh Place, -dated..July 22; 1990, and 3) supplemental memorandum from Planning Director Schubach dated July 24, 1990. V The Assistant City Attorney informed the Council that a possible'` violation of the Brown 'Act had-odcurred due to a "serial meet- ing", via telephone, between three•Councilmembers, i.e. one Coun- cilmember had contacted two others by phone. The Council was.. advised" that items 6 and 7- were all part of the 2nd Quarter General Plan Amendments -and- must- be'acted uponatone time, or' deferred to the 3rd Quarter. Therefore, in order to legally act on these matters, the Council -was advised to reschedule items 6 and 7 to the August ' 14, 1990 meeting - and-, - renotice and reopen the (public hearing on.. item. 7(c). ... ,; ... ..._.. _ _ .. _ ... .. Action: To reschedule item 6 and item 7 (a), (b), and (c) to the Regular Meeting of August 14, 1990, and, to renotice and reopen the public hearing on item 7(c). .Motion Sheldoni-second Mayor Creighton. So ordered. Mayor Creighton recognized John Haddon, retiring District Manager for Southern California Edison Company, who introduced his suc- cessor, Walt Dougher. The Meting recessed at 8:47 P.M. The Meeti reconvened at 9:09 P.M. , !'8 ..._; v ; ;; ;1 _APPROVAL • AIR -;.QUALITY MANAGEMENT' DISTRI ULATION XV T -IP REDUCTION PLAN, AMY -APPROPRIATION OF -:$4,170 1 .FOR .INITTA YEAR'S COST.,/Memorandum from Per- sonnel Director Rober a ackwood-dated July 16, 1990.' -.- "Director.._Blackwoodpr nted- staff report—and 're sponded to Council estions. Proposed Act -i n: To approve the staff rec•mmendations with the.-eliCeption of the following incentives: . 7, to provide a $15.00 per month incentive (AQMD) REG - Page 7 Minutes 07-24-90 COMMENCING JULY 1, 1990", with the amendment to reduc thee` assessment to $180,000 per year, for a 39 perc- t red tion, as recommended by staff. Motio Essertier, second Mayor Creighton. So ord- ed. 7. CROSSIN GUARD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1990-1991 with or- dinance fir introduction. Memorandum from : blic Works Director An hony Antich dated June 28, 199.. The public hew ing was opened. There being no o — wishing to spea on this matter, the public hearing was closed. Action: To introduc- Ordina e No. 90-1040, with the amendment to reduce th- asse sment to $54,000 per year, for a 27 percent reducti• as recommended by staff. Motion Essertier, second }yor Creighton. So ordered. Further Action: To wive fu reading of Ordinance No. 90-1040, entitled,'1 ORDIN• E OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING T REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR - OF PUBLIC WORKS{ATED JUNE 19, 1 90, PREPARED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 90-5347 'AND PROVED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION N . 90-5374 OF SAID COU IL, AND THE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ESTIMATE, MAP AND AS ESSMENT CONTAINED IN SAID REPORT; ORDERING CERTAIN CROS ING GUARD MAIN- TENANCE/SERVICES TO BE FURNISHED AND MA TAINED FOR THE FISCAVf YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1990." Mot' 'n Mayor Creighton, second Sheldon. ES: Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiema , Mayor Creighton NOES: None Th- Meeting recessed at 8:38 P.M. e Meeting reconvened at 8:50 P.M. 8. SECOND QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS: The City Manager recommended that the City Council take only "Straw Votes" on all items under No. 8, with final action on all items at the meeting of July 24, 1990. A. 1. THE BILTMORE SITE: PUBLICLY OWNED PORTION BETWEEN 14TH AND 15TH STREETS, ALONG THE STRAND. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 2, 1990. Director Schubach presented the staff report and re- sponded to Council questions. Page ,7 Minutes 07-10-90 C The public hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak in opposition of the matter were: Parker Herriott - 222 Twenty -Fourth Street, who submitted a letter with attachments and a Dai- ly Breeze news article dated November 13, 1989. June Williams - 2065 Manhattan Avenue Jerry Newton - 2104 Circle Drive: W. H. Shaw - 49 Twentieth Street The Reverend Parker - 2110 Borden Avenue Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place Merna Marshall 360 Thirty -Third Place, who pre- sented a petition containing 33 signatures in opposition. Leslie Newton - 2104 Circle Drive Sheila Miller - 77 Seventeenth Street, submitted a letter to be read into the record. The public hearing was closed. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to amend the Zoning Ordinance text for the Specific Plan Area for the Biltmore Site to change the permitted use from Hotel - to Residential, and, to amend the Land Use Map of the General Plan for the Biltmore Site from a Specific Plan fora Hotel to Medium Density Residential. Motion Midstokke, second Essertier. The "Straw Vote" carried, with objections from Sheldon and Wiemans. Proposed Subsequent Action: To place an "Open Space" Proposition on the November, 1990, ballot for a vote of the people to decide if they want the Biltmore site zoned for open space/park land. Motion Essertier, second Wiemans. Motion withdrawn, no action. 2. PUBLIC PARKING LOT "C" BOUNDED BY 14TH COURT AND 13TH STREET BETWEEN BEACH DRIVE AND HERMOSA AVENUE. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated July 2, 1990. The public hearing was opened. There being no one wishing to speak on this matter., the public hearing was closed. Action: To approve the staff 'recommendation to amend the Zoning Map to rezone Parking Lot "C" from the Specific Plan Area to C-2, and, to amend the Land Use Map of the General Plan for Parking Lot "C" from Specific Plan Area to General Commercial. Motion Sheldon, second Essertier. The "Straw Vote" car- ried with no objections. Page 8 Minutes 07-10-90 GP 90-2/ ZON 90-2 -- TO CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION AND REZONING OF THE B]LTMORE SITE PUBLICLY OWNED PORTION FROM A SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR A HOTEL TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS OR TO SUCH OTHER DESIGNATIONS / ZONES AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PUBLICLY OWNED PORTION OF THE BILTMORE SITE 1.. , .... . Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 29, 1990. Staff made the following recommendations: (1) to redesignate the Biltmore Site to medium density residential and rezone the site to residential specific plan area allowing a maximum of 14 units with a 30 -foot height limit and include the vacated portion of. Beach Drive and 15th Court; • (2) to redesignate/rezone the public parking lot back to general commercial, C-2; (3) to use the proceeds from the sale of the Biltmore Site to buy the most excess school property and/ or railroad right-of-way for open space purposes. . The previous election involving the Biltmore Site resulted in two failing initiatives. The initiative for a combination of urban public plaza, commercial, and residential failed by a 72 percent vote and the initiative for open space only on the Biltmore Site failed by a 53 percent vote. The City Council has now requested staff and the Planning Commission to study the option of designating the property for residential purposes. On April 19, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration for the general plan amendment and rezoning because the change in designation would be to a lower intensity use -than what is allowed under the current general plan and zoning designation of SPA for a hotel. When and if a specific residential project is considered for this site, it will require a precise development plan, and at that time the project would be subject to environmental review. Hearing opened at 8:47 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Betty Ryan, 588 20th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked questions related to what size the lots would be if they are rezoned to R-2 and noted that if the sizes remain as is, they will be substandard sized lots; (2) discussed with staff and the Commission the required lots sizes for development; (3) asked about the proposed lot configurations and questioned what could be done with the properties if they are offered for sale; (4) asked about what will become of Beach Drive and the lots facing 14th Street; (5) questioned howthe lots would be accessed; (6) stated that if the zone is changed, there must be a practical use for that particular zoning; (7) stated that if the land is going to be sold, the City must know what it is selling; (8) asked about the sequence of events related to this property. June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked why anyone would want to sell open space in this City; (2) couldn't believe that anyone feels more condos should be built; (3) stated that the only reason this is being considered is because of money; (4) felt that the Commission should be concerned with good planning and the quality of life; (5) stated that the budget and financial issues should be handled by the City Council, not the Commission; (6) stressed that open space needs to be preserved; (7) said that many people want a place to sit and enjoy the ocean without having to go on the sand; (8) questioned whether it would be appropriate to develop this property and add to the problems of congestion, traffic, sewage, water, and contamination. Hearing closed at 8.58 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Peirce asked whether the parking lot and the Biltmore site itself must be voted upon together, to which Mr. Lee responded that the matters can be voted upon separately. • P.C. Minutes 6/19/90 C MOTION by Comm. Peirce. seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve staffs recommendation to rezone the public parking lot "C" bounded by 14th Court and 13th Street between Beach Drive and Hermosa, Avenue to C-2, general commercial. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None MOTION by Comm. Peirce to zone the Biltmore site,. publicly owned portion between 14th and 15th Street along the Strand, as open space. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Comm. Rue asked for clarification on the specific role of Planning Commissioners. He questioned whether it is the responsibility of commissioners to consider financial matters. He questioned whether their purpose is to look at issues solely from a planning standpoint or whether fiscal issues should also be considered. - Mr. Schubach stated that issues should be addressed economically, environmentally, socially, and politically. He stated that these are all real concerns in planning matters. Comm. Moore, noting .that he has read the minutes from the last meeting, stated that the motivations are clearly money and frustration as to what to do with the piece of property. He noted that there is the potential to get a fair amount of money for the property; however, the money will be gone in several years. Therefore, he felt it is important to focus on what will become of.the site in the long run. He stated that Hermosa Beach is quite unique insofar as beach cities are concerned. He. said that most -other successful beach towns have some type of barrier between the sand and the businesses and / or residences, stating that that is the striking key difference between Hermosa and other beach cities. He noted that Manhattan Beach has a hill, and Redondo Beach has a palisades or a very heavily developed commercial strip separating the town from the beach. Laguna has grassy areas for separation as well as a road separating the areas. He stated that the only other similar beach city is Venice. He commented that Hermosa Beach has a concrete sewer for a strand, and it should be an embarrassment that the City cannot do something creatiye with, that area. . , . Comm, Moore understood the. special.legal problems related to the sand portion and what can and cannot be done, but he felt that the situation is embarassing compared to the situations in the other beach towns along the coast. Comm. Moore stated that if a hotel is built to the a: residential use, since it is generally residential and he felt that would be very wrong. He felt that access to the beach and to provide usages at the conditions exist are a small pocket at 22nd Street, south of this site, the northern area would fit in the north and easterly surrounding sides, there is a duty upon the City' to provide public beach, noting that the only areas where such an area at 2nd Street, and at the pier head. Comm. Moore stated that "cookie cutter" condos next to a "cookie cutter" hotel will create a visual mess for the area. sit Comm. Moore explained that he did not second Comm. Moore's motion for open space because he did not feel it is appropriate to look at the site as open space, stating that he feels that makes no sense because. of its proximityto the beach. - . Comm. Moore stated that if he had his druthers, the City would buy up every house on the Strand, demo them, and move the Strand wall back eighty feet, and develop that area with multiple paths and parkways. However, he noted that that is merely his pipe dream. He felt that a park at that site would not be particularly useful. He could not support residential either. He could envision a mixture of uses such as open space coming back from the Strand and to balance that with additional open space going east from the Strand for 20 or 30 feet. He felt there should be public uses, such as a combination of commercial uses and parking at the P.C. Minutes 6/19/90 rear to continue the econor iC growth of downtown. . He stressed that he couldnot support residential or entirely open space. Churn. Ingell did not feel that commercial would be economically viable because there is not adequate square footage to provide the required parking. He said there is no economic value for another empty store on that site. .Comm. Moore hoped that parking could be addressed within the VPD because the City is strangling itself with unrealistic parking requirements. He said that the only time there are parking problemsis on summer weekends. He felt that rather dramatic loosening of the downtown parking requirements is necessary,.. noting that there are plenty of people in the area who would go to the stores if the stores could only be built. Churn.. Ingell felt it would be nice to have some green area in front of any proposed development at the site. He therefore favored the site to be zoned specific plan area. He felt that the only feasible development would be residential, and with the SPA, very specific conditions could be imposed for development. He opposed a mere rezoning to R-2 or R -2B, however, because there would then be no specific tailored conditions. Comm. Moore stated that he could support a specific plan area, but not for residential development. He felt that the .SPA would be appropriate for commercial development: or .a combination of commercial and open space. Comm. Ketz noted that the task force recommended a mixed use of commercial and open space; however, that option did not reach the voters. - - Churn. Ingell felt• that commercial use would not be viable unless the City were willing- to subsidize the purchase. . Churn. Ingell, noting that the Commission appears to be at an impasse, suggested that a partial recommendationbe sent to the City, Council outlining each Commissioners' opinion on . this matter. Chmn. ingell favored voting to approve the site as a specific plan area. Comms. Moore and Ketz both strongly opposed residential development, Comm. Ketz stating that she favors a combination of commercial and open space. Comm. Rue, discussing commercial uses, stated that there are severe parking restraints as well as economic restraints. He noted deep concern that a commercial building could sit empty or' have many tenants, one after the other. Comm.. Ketz stated that she has never seen any economic study related to whether commercial development would or would not be feasible in the downtown area. She continued by stating that residential is inappropriate because this is the busiest part of the Strand, it will be right next to the new hotel, and it is in the downtown area. She did not want to see more condos at that site. Comm. Rue, noting that Comm. Moore feared "cookie cutter" development onthe site, stated that it would be nice to have .upscale R-1 development. He said that the Strand lots could be carved out as open space, tand he five residential lots could be made larger, with possibly a specific plan.. Comm. Rue felt it is important to have more than just a park at this site. He felt that a specific plan and open space combination might be appropriate. Churn. Ingell felt that a park would not be. appropriate. He stated that there are other areas where benches and landscaping could be placed for people wanting to enjoy the beach. He P.C..Minutes 6/ 19/90 -25- favored extra large setbacks if the area is designated SPA. He noted frustration over deciding what to do with the property. He stated that this is a political issue, and it is a shame it is no longer merely a planning matter. Chun. Ingell noted that it appears the Commission cannot reach an agreement on its recommendation. Mr.. Schubach explained that if a decision cannot be reached, staff would prepare a`decision report for Council, rather than a resolution. Chun. Ingell favored the site as a residential... specific plan area.. He felt that if , such a designation were approved, specific standards could be addressed at a future time. MOTION by Chmn. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to recommend that the site be designated residential specific plan area. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Rue as second, to recommend that a portion be set aside for open space along the Strand; to recommend that less dense and less intense development be considered within the constraints of medium density: and to recommend that the proceeds from the sale of the property go toward buying additional open space in the coastal zone. Amendment accepted by Chun. Ingell as maker. . . . AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: (MOTION FAILS.) Comms. Rue and Moore felt that it would be most appropriate to send a report to the City Council, rather than a resolution, . Comm. Peirce favored open space at the site, stating that there is very little open space in the City._He felt that there.. is no compromising on this matter. Comm. Rue felt that the Commission has a fiscal responsibility, and his amendment to the motion was a compromise to the problem. Comm. Ketz favored a specific plan area with low -intensity commercial uses and open space. as recommended by the taskforce last year. Comm. Moore concurred. Comm. Moore discussed parking, stating that something must be done to address the parking problem in the downtown area. Recess taken from 9:23 P.M. until 9:30 P.M. Comm. Rue, Chun. Ingell Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce None None , CON 90-7 -- REVIEW OF THE ELEVATION. PLAN FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDO AT 829 15TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 14, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the elevations as revised. At, the 6/5/90 meeting, the Planning Commission approved a two -unit condominium, subject to the condition that the applicant return with revised elevations to be approved by the Commission. P.C. Minutes 6/19/90 The applicant has submitted revised elevations which depict a contemporary design using rounded corners on the buildings to soften the impact. This is an improvement over the previous elevations which had no theme or consistency. Although the design is simple, staff believes it is appropriate, given the lower scale of the building and the large setback. Also, the landscaping proposed should serve to complement the building. • The design could be enhanced with the addition of a limited amount of glass block or other features on the facade. The Planning Commission may wish to direct staff to work with the applicant to provide such enhancements where appropriate. Hearing opened at 9:33 P.M. by Churn. Ingell. Armando Pablo, 4747 W. El Segundo Boulevard, Hawthorne, representing the applicant, . addressed the Commission and: (1) explained that the elevations show that the corners have been rounded; (2) noted that trees have been added at three locations; (3) stated, in response to comments by Comm. Moore, that it is possible that the curb cut could be narrowed to provide additional space for landscaping. Hearing closed at 9:35 P.M. by Chmn.'Ingell. Churn. Ingell noted that the curb cut does not allow two parking spaces anyway. He questioned. however, the ramifications of requiring narrowing curb cuts to provide additional landscaping on all projects. • Comm. Ketz felt that additional landscaping would make the project more attractive from the street. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue. noted that staff recommended 'additional glass block to enhance the project's appearance. Comm. Rue favored allowing the applicant to have an option over the design, noting that the plans have been improved -since the last time they were seen by the Commission. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve the submitted elevations with one condition:. that the front flower bed be enhanced, and that approval shall be subject to Planning Director approval. Comm. Moore was happy with the design, and he did not feel glass block would be appropriate, noting that this is a very pure, simple design. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chinn. Ingell None None None. \ 1� P.C. Minutes 6/19/90 GP 90-2/ ZON 90-2 -- TO CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION AND REZONING OF THE BILTMORE SITE PUBLICLY OWNED PORTION FROM A SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR A HOTEL TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS OR TO SUCH OTHER, DESIGNATIONS/ ZONES AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY ruI , PLANNING COMMISSION AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PUBLICLY OWNED PORTION OF THE BILTMORE SITE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 29, 1990. Staff made the following recommendations: (1) to redesignate the Biltmore Site to medium density residential and rezone the site to residential specific plan area allowing a maximum of 14 units with a 30 -foot height limit and include the vacated portion of Beach Drive and 15th Court; (2) to redesignate/rezone the public parking lot back to general commercial, C-2; (3) to user the proceeds from the sale of the Biltmore Site to buy the most excess school property and/ or railroad right-of-way for open space purposes. The previous election involving the Biltmore Site resulted in two failing initiatives. The initiative for a combination of urban public plaza, commercial, and residential failed by a 72 percent vote and the initiative for open space only on the Biltmore Site failed by a 53 percent vote. The City Council has now requested staff and the Planning Commission to study the option of designating the property for residential purposes. On April 19, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration for the general plan amendment and rezoning because the change in designation would be to a lower intensity use than what is allowed under the current general plan and zoning designation of SPA for a hotel. When and if a specific residential project is considered for this site, it will require a precise development plan, and at that time the project would be subject to environmental review. Given the direction of the Council to study the Biltmore Site for residential purposes, staff is focussing only on the alternative of residential in this analysis. Residential is considered to be a preferable alternative because of the current high value of residential property and because of its limited environmental impact. In terms of the design and layout of a residential project, two distinct approaches are available. One approach is to use the existing lot configuration of 12 substandard lots of 2400 to 3263 square feet and under an existing zoning category allow the development of these separate lots. This would also mean using the previously vacated alleys. This approach was suggested by a minority report of the task force. Their suggestion was to use R-2 zoning, meaning that each lot could be developed with one unit to a height of 30 feet. The advantage of this approach from a developer's perspective is that individual single-family lots could be sold rather than requiring a condominium form of ownership. The other option would be to merge all the lots and the vacated public rights-of-way into one large parcel, establish the density limits, and permit the buyer of the property several options for the layout of the units on the site. This could be accomplished either through a specific plan area designation or through one of the City's zoning categories. There are several advantages to the concept of merging the lots; for example, it would provide the developer the flexibility to design the units to maximize views for all units, including those that would not have Strand frontage; it would allow for a more efficient use of the property towards providing open space; and space would be available for a usable common recreation area. In general, the rather uniform appearance of row houses on 30 -foot wide lots would likely be avoided. In staffs judgment, the elimination of the substandard lots would be a benefit to the City as it would encourage a better, more innovative design of the site, and would also make the -site more 19 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90 valuable.: However, as noted, there are benefits to both approaches and staff felt the zoning for the site could allow either situation to occur, but provide an incentive to a developer wishing to develop an integrated projects The next issue is the determination of the number of units to be allowed on the site. In staffs judgment, a density within the range of the medium density classification would be appropriate. This would not be significantly inconsistent with the multi -family character of the immediately adjacent areas, and it would be directly consistent with the density of surrounding residential areas to the north and east just beyond the limits of the high density designated area. The medium density range is 14 to 25 units per acre. The surrounding residential areas are zoned either R -2B or R-3. Although it is difficult to justify any specific density appropriate for the Biltmore Site, staff felt that an amount consistent with the medium density character of the blocks north of 16th Court would make the most sense, approximately 16 units per acre. This is both for the purpose of retaining the character and scale of the majority of surrounding residential areas and' to minimize the environmental impacts which could be generated from a high density residential development. According to density figures, a density of 16 units per acre would be 12 units if the right-of-way is excluded, or 14 units if the right-of-way is included. In conclusion, staff recommended an SPA with a maximum of 14 units and a 30 -foot height limit because of the advantage that would be gained by merging the lots. This proposal would also allow the City to sell or a buyer to develop 12 separate single-family units on the existing parcels if it is desired, based on design and market considerations. However, the SPA allows up to 14 units if the parcels are merged, which may be an adequate incentive for a developer to develop the site as one project and to pay a price higher than could be obtained selling 12 individual lots. However, it should be noted that utility lines exist under Beach Drive and either an easement or relocation would be necessary. . ,• The recommended SPA also includes provisions to require three parking spaces per unit and a limit on the lot coverage to 50 percent of the entire site. Also provided to the Commission was an opinion from the City Attorney regarding the potential for this action tobe considered "spot zoning." The attorney concludes that the City has wide discretion to rezone the site and withstand an attack based upon a claim of spot zoning. One limitation, however, would be a consideration to rezone the property to single- family residential. The use of this site for residential purposes constitutes a significant change in the Coastal Commission adopted land use plan. This has historically been identified for visitor -oriented commercial. It has been argued, however, that the City may be able to justify this change because the proceeds gained from the sale of the property would be used to purchase the greenbelt property and perhaps some additional open space property within the coastal zone. Staff proposed other alternatives: (1) to redesignate/rezone the site to medium density/R-2B, which would keep the . current. lot configuration and allow a total of 12 units; and, (2) to redesignate/rezone the site to medium density/R-2, which would allow up to 21 units on the site if the lots were merged and the vacated portion of Beach Drive and 15th Court are included. Parking Lot C was rezoned to specific plan area for a hotel project along with the Biltmore Site proper, and the privately owned property between 13th and 14th Streets. Since that time; the privately owned portion has been redesignated and rezoned back to its original GC/C-2 designation. Staff felt it would also be appropriate at this time to redesignate this public P.C. Minutes 6/5/90 1 parking lot to GC/.0-2, which was its previous designation. This is an appropriate designatipn for a parking lot which serves a commercial area. Comm. Peirce noted that staff has made no suggestion to recommend the Biltmore Site to be zoned as open space, and he asked whether that would be an alternative. Mr. Schubach explained that, according to the Resolution of Intent adopted by the City Council, open space is not an option at this time. The City Council has specifically requested that -the Planning Commission address the issue of redesignating the site to residential. He noted, however, that the Commission, if it so chooses, can reject the option of redesignating the site to residential and in turn recommend a designation to open space. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Rue related to the height, explained that a 30 -foot height limit is desirable since that height lends itself to loft areas, which in turn increases floor area.- Public Hearing opened at 9:27 P.M. by Chinn. Ingell. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussedthe issue • of lot mergers and the City's requirements to now have 40 -foot lots; (2) noted that many people who had their lots merged were not given the 30 -foot height limit; (3) felt that it is unfair to allow certain- things on the Biltmore Site which are not being allowed for other property owners in the City; (4) cautioned the Commission to address the issue of legal lot sizes; (5) stressed that the City has no right to propose single-family dwellings on 25 -foot lots on The Strand,.even if it is to pay for additional open space; (6) felt that R-2 zoning is illogical on those 25 -foot lots; (7) stated that only four houses would be allowed if the lots were reconfigured to currently -required lot sizes; (8) stated that there is already a tax in place to pay for the greenbelt. . Public Hearing closed at 9:33 P.M. by Chinn. Ingell. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, stated that the 12 lots could be sold and could either be developed individually, or one large. project could be developed. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz who asked how these lots were exempted from the 4000 square foot requirement, explained that the lots in question are existing lots and are therefore not subject to the 4000 square foot requirement; related to the lot mergers, he explained that the lots which were required to be merged had structures straddling the property line. Mr. Vose stated that the issue at hand is the zoning of property, rather than -subdivisions. He explained that the number of lots is not integral to the zoning; rather, it must be determined what zoning is appropriate for the area. Comm. Peirce stressed that this property should be open space and he would therefore vote against any other zoning designation. He stated that there is very little open space existing in the City. From a planning standpoint, he did not feel the area should be anything but open space. Comm. Ketz did not feel the: site should be residential, noting that it is downtown and is located on the busiest section of The Strand.. She further noted that a large hotel will be built nearby, and residential would not be appropriate. She did not feel that the City should be exempted from requirements which are being imposed upon private developers. She noted concern that these lots are not 4000 square feet. Comm. Peirce explained that the lots are preexisting and therefore are legal nonconforming and constitute valid size lots. 21 P.C. Minutes 6 / 5 / 90 Mr. Vose concurred that the lots are currently legal sized. Comm. Ketz was not certain that open space is the best use; however, she definitely felt that residential would not be appropriate. Chinn. Ingell noted that this issue has been voted upon several times, and the voters have rejected open space. He felt thatthe area should'ae utilized to generate funds to pay off the greenbelt. He noted that a tax has been imposed to pay for the greenbelt, and he favored getting rid of that debt, which is an extreme burden on the City. He felt it would be nice to look at this piece of property strictly from a planning standpoint; however, the voters of the City have made their feelings known, and they do not want open space. He felt that if residential had been an option ori the last ballot, it would have been approved. Chmn. Ingell favored residential zoning at this site. Noting concern over splitting of lots that srna11, he felt that a specific plan area would address that issue. Comm. Rue felt that the Commission should be addressing the issueof residential zoning at this site, regardless of personal feelings. Comm. Rue agreed with Chmn. Ingell's comments regarding the site, stating that he favors a specific plan area. He felt that staffs recommendations are appropriate related to parking and lot coverage. He noted concern over the proposed height of 30 feet and potential loss of views. He urged that caution be used in making a decision. Comm. Rue stated that his main concern is with the height. Even though no view ordinance' is in place, he felt that the issue should be addressed. Comm. Ketz felt that regardless of the height limit imposed at the site, residential would not be an appropriate use from a planning standpoint. Comm. Rue was not certain that residential is the best use; however, he felt that a good residential use can be created, and, some of the City's long-term goals can be accomplished by such a designation and the income it would generate. He cautioned that he did not want to see the area left open space and become a haven for transients. Comm. Rue felt that it is important to study the ramifications of residential zoning, as requested by the City Council. Chinn. Ingell commented on the proposed resolution, P.C. 90-43, Item D, and suggested that wording be added at the end of the paragraph "...such as a hotel or retail commercial uses, and open space." Comm. Peirce noted that he has never voted to designate this site as residential. Chmn. Ingell had no opposition to a height of either 25 or 30 feet, noting that a specific plan area would address that issue. He further noted that the property to the north is 35 feet, and the new hotel will be. 30 feet. He therefore favored approving staffs recommendation. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chinn. Ingell, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-44, with the following changes: (1) Item D shall include additional wording at the end of the paragraph stating "and open space"; (2) Item E shall be added stating that "-Proceeds to buy open space, railroad right-of-way, and excess school property in the coastal zone"; and (3) the development standards shall include a 25 -foot height limit. Comm. Rue felt that inclusion of a 25 -foot height limit in the development standards would be advantageous in that it would set a' good example and would possibly retain some of the white water views which would otherwise be lost. P.C. Minutes 6/5/90 AYES: , .- NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Rue, Chmn. Ingell Comms. Ketz. Peirce . None Comm. Moore (TIE VOTE; MOTION FAILS.) _ MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this item to the next meeting, when the fifth Commissioner is present. AYES:: Comms. Ketz, Peirce. Rue,, Chmn. Ingell NOES: None:. ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Moore .. Mr. Vose suggested that if a -consensus cannot be reached at the next meeting, the resolution be revised to reflect the fact that a, consensus could. not reached; however, if the area is to be rezoned residential, the Commission's recommendations should be included for conditions. Don Falkenstien, 30th Street, Hermosa Beach. addressed the Commission and complained that the past ballot measures have been too complicated. He suggested that the site be used for sorely needed parking. Chmn. Ingell suggested that Mr. Falkenstien return to the next meeting when the public hearing will be reopened .on this matter. Parker Herriott, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he is currently preparing his open space petition; (2) noted that he is trying to include a drawing with the November ballot; .(3.) said that he will soon be circulating his petition throughout the. City; (4) hoped that a park would ultimately be at this site. P.C. Minutes 6/5/90 2 3 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26' C 27 28 SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption Apf this resolution; and shall cause the action of the City Council in adopting same to be entered in:_the official minutes of said City Council. PASS APPROVED ADOP D,)11 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 1990. PR IDo the ity 'ounci and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: p/ccrsbilt APPR VED AS TO FO (.I 1—L� Vvc ATTORNEY Action: Mayor requested that Councilmembers prioritize the list of fourteen (14) items and give to City Manager Northcraft to pass on to the Chamber for them to priori- tize prior to the meeting. 10. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Request by Councilmember Midstokke for discussion of rezoning and disposition of the Biltmore site. (Con- tinued from December 12, 1989 and January 9, 1990 meetings.) Addressing the Council on this, item were: Parker Herriott - 222'Twenty-fourth Street Howard Longacre - 1221 Seventh Place Jerry Compton - 200 Pier Avenue Action; To discuss the item. Motion Midstokke, second. Creighton. So ordered, noting, the absence of Councilmember Sheldon. Final Action: To adopt Resolution No. 90-5341,'enti- tled, "A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION REQUESTING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY REZONING AND DISPOSITION OF THE BILTMORE SITE", with the following amendments: 1. Page 1 line 7 change low-density to residential 2. Page 1 line 19 change low-density to residential 3. Page 1 line 21 after the word "package" elimi- nate through line 24, "with the monies from the sale to be used for paying off the right-of-way making improvements to parking areas on the right-of-way (therefore replacing those lost on the Biltmore Site), and any other", and replace with, ."using monies to acquire excess available properties for Open Space Parkland uses and any remainder to pay off the Railroad Right -of -Way", Motion Midstokke, second Essertier. So ordered, noting the absence of Councilmember Sheldon. City Manager interceded with a point of policy regarding lateness of hour. Action: To continue with the meeting until the agenda is completed. Motion Creighton, second Wiemans. So ordered, noting the absence of Councilmember Sheldon. (b) Request by Councilmember Wiemans for discussion of requiring conditional use permit for new commercial developments such as hotels. (Continued from December 12, 1989 and January 9, 1990 meetings.) Minutes 1-23-90 13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER This item continued to the January 23, 1990 Meeting. 14. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL This item continuted to therJanuary 23, 1990 Meeting. 15. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Request by Councilmember Midstokke for discussion of allowable uses in the open space zones. (Continued from December 12, 1989 meeting.) Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated December 4, 1989. This item was continued to the January 23, 1990 Meeting. (b) Request by Councilmember Midstokke for discussion of rezoning and disposition of the Biltmore site. (Con- tinued from December 12, 1989 meeting.) This item was continued to the January 23, 1990 Meeting. (c) Request by Councilmember Wiemans for discussion of. requiring. _conditional use permit for new commercial developments such as hotels. (Continued from December 12, 1989 meeting.) This item was ccntinued to the January 23, 1990 Meeting. Request by; Councilmember' 'Sheldon 1 for 'discussion re. zoning standards in residential zones, i.e., lot coverage, parking, setbacks, etc.; and height limit, setbacks, 'parking •and bulk in commercial zones. (Con- tinued from December 12, 1989 meeting.) (d) This item was continued to the January 23, 1990 Meeting. CITIZEN COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California adjourned on Wednesday, January 10, 1990, at the hour of 2:40 A.M.;'to a Special Meeting to continue Goal Setting discussions, to be held on January 11, 1990 at the hour. of 6:00 P.M. Minutes 1-9-90 APPENDIX V BILTMORE SITE BALLOT MEASURES % Yes 11/7/72 Ballot Measure - Council Initiative 22 story development - Y: 2670 N: 6659 28.6% 11/8/83 Ballot Measure - Council Initiative Hotel, 75', at least 175 rooms - Y: 1069 N: 1383 {ord. E.3 --7z) 43.6% 11/8/83 Ballot Measure - People's Initiative - 49 Timeshare Condominiums, 45' - Y: 283 N: 2078 Cord. (2,-.72-5)12.0% 12/11/84 Referendum - Development Agmt. #84-754 - 260 room, s5 story, 45' Hotel - Y: 2130 N: 2149 49.8% 6/11/85 Ballot Measure - Council Initiative #85-790 - 250 rooms 4 story, 39' Hotel - Y: 2399 N: 2399 50.0% 11/8/88 Ballot Measure - Council Initiative - R-1 Use and sell to highest bidder - Y: 3989 N: 5340 42.8% (ord. gg ..qSv 11/8/88 Ballot Measure - Council Initiative - C-2 Commercial Use and sell to highest bidder - Y: 1226 N: 7949 13.4% Card. Yfb-qsl -rroe. "") 11/8/88 Ballot Measure - Council Initiative - Hotel with current SPA zoning and sell to highest bidder Y: 3364 N: 6048 35.7% (ord. Se)-qSL - pfc)P, "Z") 11/7/89 Ballot Measure —Petition Initiative #89-998 repealing SPA and rezone Open Space, with Parking Lot C to be Commercial Y: 1,589 N: 1799 (Prop.' -") 46.9% 11/7/89 Ballot Measure - Council Initiative - Rezone to Open Space (59%), Commercial (25%), Residential (16%) Y: 932 N: 2385 (oeci. bq-loco) fro "a" 28.1% 1 2 3 4 5 6 -7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ORDINANCE N/83-724 fr AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF.AERMOSA BEACH SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS BY THE CITY COUNCIL -AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TO PERMIT ONE HOTEL AND ACCESSORY RESTAURANT USES OF AT LEAST 175 ROOMS AND WITH A HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 75 FEET IN A DEFINED AREA OF THE DOWNTOWN ,BEACH AREA. i The People of the City of Hermosa Beach do ordain as follows: SECTION 1. There shall be added to the Zoning Code of the City a new section as follows: "Section 806. Hotel for Downtown Beach Area. There• shall be permitted within the downtown beach area, defined as that area bounded by 15th Street on the north, Hermosa Avenue on the east, Tenth Street on the south, and the Strand on the west, one hotel with accessory restaurant uses of at least 175 rooms which may have a height not to exceed 75 feet. The development criteria and manner of approval for th hotel shall be as provided in Article 8.5, Commercial Planned - Development, except that the use and height standards .shall be as provided in this section. Because the Biltmore site offers unique advantages for a hotel, the city shall endeavor for the first two years after the passage of this ordinance to develop an agreement to construct the hotel facility on the Biltmore site and shall not permit .any other permanent use on the site during this time." SECTION 2. In enacting this ordinance the people of the city find: a) That one hotel -restaurant facility of the size authorized by this ordinance would provide a unique land -mark and tourist attraction for the downtown beach area; 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 b) That more than one such facility would destroy the neighborhood character of the commercial area; c) That the time-share resort vacation condominiums being proposed for the Biltmore site would be a less desireable use of the site than a hotel and, therefore, in voting for this hotel ordinance, the electorate is voting against the resort vacation condominiums and finds them inconsistent with the hotel proposal. The Biltmore site is defined as: Lots 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,19,20 and 32 of Block 15 of Hermosa Beach Tract, plus vacated Beach Drive between the northerly limits of 14th Street and the southerly limits of 15th Street, plus the vacated westerly 60 feet of 15th Court. SECTION 3. This ordinance may be amended only by a vote of the people. SECTION 4. If any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid, the remaining portion is to be considered valid. SECTION 5. Upon certification that this ordinance has been adopted by the voters of the City, the Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage and cause the ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation not later than the fifteenth day after its adoption. 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. 83-725 Li tole, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA-BEACH DO ADOPT THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE: AN ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER HERMOSA BILTMORE SITE WITH FORTY-NINE RESORT VACATION CONDOMINIUM RESIDENTIAL UNITS, MAXIMUM CONSTRUCTION HEIGHT TO BE 45 FEET ABOVE GRADE. " .r' WHEREAS, the City of Hermosa Beach has acquired and is now the owner of certain property in the City of Hermosa Beach upon which the Hermosa Biltmore Hotel was formerly located; and WHEREAS, the City Council has been unable to resolve a proper use for the site. The property has been vacant for approximately 15 years, and is not generating any income for the City, nor is it being utilized for the benefit of the Citizens of Hermosa Beach; and WHEREAS, David T. Schumacher, in response to an invi- tation by the City., in 1980 submitted a proposal to -the City for lease of the site for development of resort/vacation con- dominium residential units. His proposal has not been acted upon by the City Council; O NOW, TIIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Hermos Beach enter into an agreement with David T. Schumacher granting him an option to lease the said site for a term of fifty-five years for development of forty-nine Timeshare Condominium res- idential units upon the terms and conditions as set forth in this resolution. The rental to the City shall be $200,000 per year, commencing upon the date a certificate of occupancy is issued. The rental shall'be adjusted at five year intervals "consistent with the Consumer Price Index published by the United States Department of Labor, however any increase shall not exceed 2% per year. The finished improvements shall not be more than forty-five feet in height above grade. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The property referred to in this resolution consists of twelve lots in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, plus 270.5 lineal feet of vacated streets legally described as Lots 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,19,20 and 32 of Block 15 of Hermosa Beach Tract, plus vacated Beach Drive between the northerly limits of 14th Street and the southerly limits of 15th Street, plus the vacated westerly 60 feet of O 15th Court. The option shall be granted for the sum of $5,000 pay- able to the City of Hermosa Beach and shall be excercised by the Lessee by deposit with the City of Hermosa Beach the sum of $95,000 which sum shall constitute a lease deposit to insure the Lessee's performance under the terms of the lease, subject to return in the event that the development, cannot be con- structed for any reason beyond the control of the Lessee. The option shall be exercised by Lessee within a period of two years after adoption of this ordinance. P 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 OtiUILVNtrl.t NV. 254 0'3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH' APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND GREENWOOD & LANGLOIS, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A HOTEL AND CONFERENCE FACILITIES IN THE CITY.' The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. A Development Agreement between Greenwood & Langlois and the City of Hermosa Beach dated June 26, 1984, involving property located at 15th and 13th Streets and the Strand and Hermosa Avenue as indicated on Exhibit 1 map and legally described in Exhibit 2, is hereby approved. A complete copy of the agreement is on file with the City Clerk. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its adoption. SECTION 3. That prior to the expiration of fifteen days afterthe 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. PASSE t , APPROVED and ' DOPTED this July , 1984. PRESIDENT of a City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO F M: ge� U ' CITY ATTORNEY 11•••1•• •••• • • a •r L'31 k r :1 0 • r,0, r�' A. CnC. I:m .1.: cern • , y.: m . o: ,g. m , m {r` ; x.;_J 0 )t p.!.....s.,1.; ' 1 ' t2) 3 `t-.8. A= 1 ►4,. 1 ..cn �•,Y •r tt 11, Lzai , •• • • • 1 • • ••• 1•• • • ..•• • • •• • • • • • • • 1 • • • elle • •I'. • 1) :'•. • • • • ..• • • • • • • • • •• • . . • • • • • 1 • •. •• •. F•,!,•. ••• • • • • •• 11 SRL " V• b /n : ,•.•• G, • • • nl •••••• • m0 m.:�.�.•. •• •• • O z • • •• • m • . n: f..� ..�,, .. • mo m m .c1? ••••.(1.t4 47:•... 1, • /1 • °I z Lia u .. • • • tat tiYAi L rn • • .; Pta 1,1 Y J ! • • 4t•/41. •. • •a,%:11iicic.41,,.,r ill .4 1 ••v l ` _ .1 I i _• • 'i••j••4, I t-! VE/✓l/� 14 II N LS- V JI 3JJ , 1 8.1 • • • /• ... .a. OfIP 1 7' • I • .vs•r►r▪ Jr 7 + I; • i l !+I q 1• • • t.1 J N' • . Ir • • 1 x a, • 4. 4/4» v� 77 ,IV :a. • I 1 •.• N,, I/ a ••• ••. IP •/; it+ II 28 /J .-•a -. ..•11 I•I. • I C • !J• =/ II�71'• 1 ra•. 1, ;' 1 ••.• ry� f 1 ••• , I l/ 1141 •r a • • • • lli11 , ,19C' • /.. 'IIII•. -!I 34 •• J . I f :7 1 i • h 1. is 1.7 ..•• a• i'' !IIP(s £IThg1E1 ••rw Ji::.> J:.p;J:j;i:ti0 ./ , •1 , . 11 ': ,._._._l.•_ 11 II t W./, ''• . _-1I. • II r ••• 4 Zi • 0 .-,• .-.: re .p .02 -.r. _•.1`1. s IVO /1 Il I _•-• II wI ••rr• -••-• /S 1,✓ cy . JU , s a f I1r►O/v Trrfti4 Y _• ar• rte• -11111110 . 10 `I • ,Jiut sd ✓ till 111111 •� •• ) • 27 I 1►/ Y •.•••••11•.• •ny_ ?' .21 ; 1; • ; 1 ff.. 1 • y w. • r I .•r /,I 11E..» 11111111 „ . I' Ii Is a • �Iy 'a • I• Ii .• Et as a, is. J .1 1 a Y / .� -,• FIs .. /2 4: • ?i 23 I'S • • 4�• IrIwllMs IHR J rn .C7 IV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH I, KATTTT,EEN REVICZKY, City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 84-754 was duly and regularly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach at a regular meeting of said Council held at the regular meeting place thereof on the 10th day of July, 1984 and was published in the Easy Reader on July 19, 1984 . The vote was as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: DATED: Barks, Cioffi, DeBellis, Mayor Brutsch None Wood None July 12, 1984 • EXHIBIT "A" Page 1 of 1 CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF CANVASS I, Kathleen Reviczky, City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, duly authorized by Resolution No. 85-4806, adopted by the City Council of the City on March 12, 1985, do certify that I.have canvassed the returns of the Special Municipal Election held in said City on June 11, 1985, andfind that the number of votes given at each precinct and the number of votes given in the City for and against the measure were as follows: DATED: 6-17-85 City Clerk of the City of ermosa Beach ORD. DEV. 85-790 AGREEMENT TOTAL VOTES CAST AT PRECINCT TOTAL BALLOTS CAST AT PRECINCT PRECINCT YES NO 1 530 386 916 917 4 390 527 917 917 8 263 349 612 615 11 198 308 506 507 14 313 293 606 606 16 241 203 444 446 ABSENTEE 455 328 783 785 CHALLENGE 1 ABSENTEE & 7 4 11 11 TOTAL 2397 2398 .4795 4804 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- ;790 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS BY THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF Al HOTEL, MEETING FACILITY AND RELATED COMMERCIAL -RECREATIONAL USES ON THE "BILTMORE SITE" AND ADJACENT PROPERTY. The people of the City of Hermosa Beach do ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That a public park, hotel, underground parking facilities, conference center and related commercial - recreational uses be erected on the "Biltmore Site" and adjacent property ("Subject Property") in accordance with The Specific Plan, Ground Lease and Development Agreement submitted by Greenwood and Langlois, a California general partnership ("Greenwood and Langlois"), to the City Council at their Regular Meeting on March 12, 1985 and adopted below. Complete copies of the Specific Plan, Ground Lease and Development Agreement are on file with the City Clerk. SECTION 2. That the Specific Plan, incorporated herein by this reference, regulating the development of the subject property and providing for a 250 room,l4 story hotel not to exceed 39 feet in height, conference center, an approximately 1/2 acre public park, underground parking and related commercial -recreational uses be hereby,adopted. The Specific Plan shall be added to the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code. A new article shall be created for Specific Plans, Article 9.6, and this Specific Plan shall be Chapter 1 of that Article. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 3. That the Ground Lease, incorporated herein by this reference, leasing the city -owned subject property to Greenwood and Langlois for the development of a hotel, conference center, an approximately 1/2 acre public park, underground parking and related commercial -recreational uses --be hereby adopted. SECTION 4. That the Development Agreement, incorporated herein by this reference, regulating the terms and conditions of the development of the hotel, conference center, the approxi- mately 1/2 acre public park, underground parking and related commercial uses be hereby adopted. SECTION 5. That any provisions of this ordinance held invalid by a court of proper jurisdiction shall be ineffective only to the extent of such invalidity and shall not invalidate or render ineffective the remaining provisions of this ordinance. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall take effect pursuant to California Elections Code Section 4013. Furthermore, this ordinance and the underlying Development Agreement, Ground Lease and Specific Plan may be amended by the City Council or by a vote of the people. /// /// /// /// /// 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 7. That the property and basic design of the Project affected by this Ordinance are indicated on Exhibits "A" and "B," attached hereto. ATTEST: President of the City Council and Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach 444/11"41)6"-fsetit Ci y Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 'AA / C P Attorney B/ORD85 -3- !II 1EENIII 1 I[RMOSA AVENUE L_ l ,4OUR1EENtI1 J- / vit-m- ccp4644 vi v\ t 111IR1 EENTI I GROUND LEVEL 0 �1 10 FT 100 .121: I I[ RMOSA 131_ACl 1 IOILL 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 NO. 88-950 e5 'cleirtiLC X AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING SPECIFIC PLAN ORDINANCE NO. 84-751, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, REZONING THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BILTMORE SITE TO R-1, SUBJECT TO COASTAL COMMISSION APPROVAL, AND REQUIRING THE SALE OF THE BILTMORE SITE TO THE HIGHEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER. WHEREAS, the citizens of Hermosa Beach adopted Ordinance No. 87-895, which requires the City of Hermosa Beach to negotiate and purchase the property commonly known as the "Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe (AT&SF) Railroad Right -of -Way"; WHEREAS, the citizens of Hermosa Beach find that the Biltmore Site is a valuable commodity which, if sold, can be used to acquire portions of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe (AT&SF) Railroad Right -of -Way for use as a Greenbelt, Parkland, and ancillary uses; WHEREAS, the citizens of Hermosa Beach find and declare that the Railroad Right -of -Way will provide more recreational opportunities both inside and outside the Coastal Zone than any. potential utilization of the Biltmore Site as a city -owned recreational facility including parking for beachgoers; WHEREAS, the citizens of the City of Hermosa Beach adopted Ordinance No. 88-919, which created a special tax, separate and apart from the General Fund, on utility users in the amount of four percent (4%) for use to purchase the Railroad Right -of -Way and use of the monies from the sale of the Biltmore Site will decrease the amount of time the tax will need to be collected; WHEREAS, the citizens of Hermosa Beach find and declare that it is in the best interests of the City to sell the Biltmore Site to the highest responsible bidder at a public auction for development as a residential use that is compatible with the surrounding area; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance No. 84-751, as amended, is hereby repealed. The property that is part of the area commonly known as the Biltmore Site Specific Plan Area, the legal description of which is incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A", available in the Office of the Hermosa Beach City Clerk, shall be zoned as set forth in this ordinance. Section 2. The property commonly known as the Biltmore Site, which consists of Lots '1 through 9, inclusive, lots 19, 20 and 32 all in Block 15 of Hermosa Beach Tract, in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 1, Pages 25 and 26 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County, is rezoned to R-1. All other property located in the Specific Plan under Ordinance No. 84-751, excluding the Biltmore Site, is hereby rezoned to C-2. Section 3. By this ordinance, the City of Hermosa Beach hereby amends the City Local Coastal Plan and Local Coastal Program to Low Density Residential for the property known as the Biltmore Site, as described above, and all other lands previously regulated. by Specific Plan Ordinance No. 84-751 shall be changed to General Commercial. Section 4. In the manner described by law, the City shall seek necessary approvals from the California Coastal. Commission for the amendments made by this ordinance. In the event that R-1 zoning and/or low density designation under the General Plan is declared partially invalid in a final judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction due to a material defect that cannot be cured by the City Council, if the Coastal Commission refuses to approve unconditionally the City's request under Section 7, or in the event that the sale or sales pursuant to the Public Auction fails to be consummated in accordance with the terms and conditions established by the City Council, this ordinance may be amended or repealed by the City Council. Section 5. The Land Use Element of the Hermosa Beach General Plan is hereby amended to change the designation from Commercial Recreational to Low Density Residential for the Biltmore Site as described above in Section 2, subject to Coastal Commission approval as specified in Section 4. Section 6. The Land Use Element for all other properties formerly regulated by Specific Plan Ordinance No. 84-751, excluding the Biltmore Site, shall be amended to change the designation from Commercial Recreational to General Commercial which is consistent with the C-2 Zone. Section 7. After a final determination is received from the California Coastal Commission, the City shall sell the Biltmore Site, as described in Section 2, to the highest responsible bidder at a public auction. A final determination shall mean final action on the City's request, which shall not be extended by any legal challenge to the Coastal Commission, decision. If the property is to be sold with R-1 zoning, the lots created shall be a minimum of four thousand (4,000) square feet in size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and shall be sold either individually or as a package, depending on which method brings the highest price. Said sale shall be conducted in the manner established by the Hermosa Beach City Council. The sale shall be by public auction to the highest responsible bidder or bidders. Section 8. The net proceeds from the sale shall be applied to purchase or reduce any debt or obligation incurred in acquir- ing the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Right -of -Way. Any money remaining shall be used for park purposes. Section 9. In the event that any provision of this ordinance shall be held invalid or unenforceable, the same shall not affect in any respect whatsoever the validity or enforceability of the remainder of this ordinance. Section 10. This ordinance shall take effect in the manner provided by law. Section 11. After sale of the Biltmore Site in the manner specified in this ordinance, this ordinance may be amended or repealed by the Hermosa Beach City Council consistent with the California Government Code. Section 12. This ordinance directly conflicts with Ordinance No. 88-951 and Ordinance No. 88-952 which require the rezoning and sale of the Biltmore Site. // // 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 EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF REAL PROPERTY PARCEL 1: Lots 19 through 29, inclusive, Lots 32 and 33, all in Block 14 of Hermosa Beach, in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 1, Pages 25 and 26 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said county, together with: (a) The north 15 feet of 13th Street lying between the southerly prolongation of the east line of Lot 29 and the southerly prolongation of the center line of Beach Drive adjoining Lot 19 on the west; (b) The east one-half of Beach Drive adjoining Lot 19 on the west, lying between the westerly prolongation of the south line of said Lot 19 and the westerly prolongation of the center line of 14th Court adjoining Lot 19 on the north; (c) The south one-half of 14th Court, lying between the northerly prolongation of the west line of Lot 19 and the northerly prolongation of the east line of Lot 29. PARCEL 2: Lots 1 through 9, inclusive, Lots 19, 20, and 32, all in Block 15 of Hermosa Beach, in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 1, Pages 25 and 26 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said county, together with: /// 26/BLTA 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 (a) The north one-half of 14th Street lying between the southerly prolongation of the west line of Lot 1 and the southerly prolongation of the east line of Lot 32; (b) All of Beach Drive adjoining said Lots 1 through 7, inclusive, and Lots 8 and 19, lying between the easterly prolongation of the southline of said Lot 1 and the easterly prolongation of the north line of said Lot 7; (c) All of 15th Court adjoining said Lots 8, 9, 19, and 20 lying between the southerly prolongation of the west line of said Lot 8 and the southerly prolongation of the east line of said Lot 9; and (d) The south one-half of 15th Court that would pass with a conveyance of Lot 32 in Block 15 of Hermosa Beach, in the City of California, Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of 5 as per Map recorded in Book 1, Pages 2.Cand 26 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said county. PARCEL 3: Lots 1 through 10, inclusive, Lots 30 and 31, all in Block 14 of Hermosa Beach, in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 1, Pages 25 and 26 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said county, together with: (a) The south one-half of 14th Street adjoining said Lots 7, 8, 9 and 30, lying between the northerly prolongation of the west line of said Lot 7 and the southerly prolongation of the east line of Lot 32 in Block 15 of said Hermosa Beach; /// 2 6/BLTA 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 (b) The north half of 14th Court adjoining said Lots 8, 9, 10, 30 and 31, lying between the southerly prolonga- tion rolongation of the east line of said Lot 10 and the southerly prolon- gation of the west line of said Lot 8; (c) The west one-half of Beach Drive adjoining said Lots 1 through 7, inclusive, lying between the easterly prolongation of the south line of said Lot 1 and the easterly prolongation of the north line of said Lot 7; and (c) The east one-half of Beach Drive adjoining said Lot 8, lying between the westerly prolongation of the north line of said Lot 8 and the westerly prolongation of the center line of 14th Court adjoining said lot. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 26/BLTA 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 (eC -% ORDINANCE NO. 88-951 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 84-751, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE , GENERAL PLAN FOR THE LAND ARRA COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BILTMORE SITE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND REQUIRING THE SALE OF THE BILTMORE SITE TO THE HIGHEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER WITH C-2 ZONING. WHEREAS, the citizens of Hermosa Beach find that the Biltmore Site is a valuable commodity which, if sold, can be used to acquire portions of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe (AT&SF) Railroad Right -of -Way for use as a Greenbelt, Parkland and ancillary uses; WHEREAS, the citizens of the City of Hermosa Beach find and declare that the Biltmore Site is not suitable for park purposes in that it has never been used as a park and is adjacent to a city -owned beach which already provides ample recreational opportunities for visitors; WHEREAS, the citizens of Hermosa Beach find and declare that the Railroad Right -of -Way will provide more recreational opportunities both inside and outside the Coastal Zone than any potential utilization of the Biltmore Site as a city -owned recreational facility; WHEREAS, the citizens of Hermosa Beach find and declare that it is in the best interests of the City to sell the Biltmore Site to the highest responsible bidder at a public auction for development as a commercial use that is compatible with the surrounding area; WHEREAS, the highest and best use of the Biltmore Site should be determined by fair and open bidding without special 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 restrictions and encumbrances fixed by the current Specific Plan Area; WHEREAS, the citizens of Hermosa Beach desire to repeal the Specific Plan Area and rezone the area to C-2, zoning and, along with the accompanying amendment to the General Plan, maintain. consistency between General Plan and zoning in that General Commercial Uses entail the same. types of usages and meet the goals and purposes of the General Plan for downtown development; and WHEREAS, the citizens of Hermosa Beach further desire to maintain consistency with the neighboring commercial areas by amending the Land Use Element of the. General Plan from Commercial Recreational area to General Commercial. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance, No. 84-751, as amended, is hereby repealed. The property that is a of the area, commonly known as the Biltmore Site Specific Plan Area, the legal description which is available in the office of the Hermosa Beach City Clerk, and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A", is hereby rezoned to C-2 (commercial), including the C-2 height limit of thirty-five (35) feet. •Section 2. The Land Use Element of the Hermosa Beach General Plan is hereby amended to amend the designation from Commercial Recreational to General Commercial for the properties described in 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 Section 3. The City of Hermosa Beach is directed to sell the Biltmore Site, which consists of Lots 1 through 9, inclusive, Lots 19, 20 and 32 all in Block 15 of Hermosa Beach Tract, in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 1, Pages 25 and 26 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. Said sale shall be to the highest responsible bidder and conducted in the manner established by the Hermosa Beach City Council. The sale shall be by public auction. Section 4. The net proceeds from the sale shall be applied to purchase or reduce any debt or obligation incurred in acquiring the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe (AT&SF) Railroad Right -of -Way. Any money remaining shall be used for park purposes. Section 5. In the event that any provision of this ordinance shall be invalid or unenforceable, the same shall not affect. in any respect whatsoever the validity or enforceability of the remainder of this ordinance. Section 6. This ordinance shall take effect in the manner provided by law. Section 7. After sale of the Biltmore Site in the manner specified in Section 3, this ordinance may be amended or repealed by the Hermosa Beach City Council consistent with the California. Government Code. Section 8. This ordinance directly conflicts with ordinance No. 88-950 and ordinance No. 88-952 which require the rezoning and sale of the Biltmore Site. 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 EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF REAL PROPERTY PARCEL 1: Lots 19 through 29, inclusive, Lots 32 and 33, all in Block 14 of Hermosa Beach, in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 1, Pages 25 and 26 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said county, together with: (a) The north 15 feet of 13th Street lying between the southerly prolongation of the east line of Lot 29 and the southerly prolongation of the center line of Beach Drive adjoining Lot 19 on the west; (b) The east one-half of Beach Drive adjoining Lot 19 on the west, lying between the westerly prolongation of the south line of said Lot 19 and the westerly prolongation of the center line of 14th Court adjoining Lot 19 on the north: (c) The south one-half of 14th Court, lying between the northerly prolongation of the west line of Lot 19 and the. northerly prolongation of the east line of Lot 29. PARCEL 2: Lots 1 through 9, inclusive, Lots 19, 20, and 32, all in Block 15 of Hermosa Beach, in the City of Hermosa Beach, County 'of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 1, Pages 25 and 26 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said county, together with: /// 26/BLTA (a) The north one -half .of 14th Street lying between 2the southerly prolongation of the`west line of Lot 1 and the 3 southerly prolongation of the east line of Lot 32; 4 (b) All of Beach Drive adjoining said Lots 1 through 5 7, inclusive, and Lots 8 and 19, lying between the easterly 6 prolongation of the south line of said Lot 1 and the easterly 7 prolongation of the north line of said Lot 7; 8 (c) All of 15th Court adjoining said Lots 8, 9, 19, 9 and 20 lying between the southerly prolongation of the west line 10 of said Lot 8 and the southerly prolongation of the east line of 11 said Lot 9; and 12 (d) The south one-half of 15th Court that would pass 13 with a conveyance of Lot 32 in Block 15 of Hermosa Beach, in 14 the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of 15California, as per Map recorded in Book 1, Pages 2s- and 26 of 16 Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said county. 17 18 PARCEL 3: 19 Lots 1 through 10, inclusive, Lots 30 and 31,.a11 in 20 Block 14 of Hermosa Beach, in the City of Hermosa Beach, County 21 of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded in 22Book 1, Pages 25 and 26 of Maps, in the office of the County 23I Recorder of said county, together with: 24 (a) The south one-half of 14th Street adjoining said 25 Lots 7, 8, 9 and 30, lying between the northerly prolongation of 26 the west line of said Lot 7 and the southerly prolongation of 27 the east line of Lot 32 in Block 15 of said Hermosa Beach; 28 /// 6,BLTA (b) The north half of 14th Court adjoining said 2 Lots 8, 9, 10, 30 and 31, lying between the southerly prolonga- tion of the east line of said Lot 10 and the southerly prolon- gation of the west line of said Lot 8j 5 (c) The west one-half of Beach Drive adjoining said 6 Lots 1 through 7, inclusive, lying between the easterly 7 prolongation of the south line of said Lot 1 and the easterly 8 prolongation of the north line of said Lot 7; and 9 (c) The east one-half of Beach Drive adjoining said 10 Lot 8, lying between the westerly prolongation of the north line 11 II of said Lot 8 and the westerly prolongation of the center line 12; of 14th Court adjoining said lot. 13 j /// 14 ' /// 15 /// 16 j /// 17 1 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20. /// 21 ' /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 i /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 26/BLTA 3 4. 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE N0. 88-952 cI;,02 c YeS C' „I'd'i'dz /I AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ADOPTING A SPECIFIC PLAN_FOR AN AREA COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BILTMORE SITE SPECIFIC PLAN ARBA FOR HOTEL AND RELATED USES AND REQUIRING THE SALE OF THE CITY -OWNED PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE "BILTMORE SITE" AND LOT "C" TO THE HIGHEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER WHEREAS, the citizens of Hermosa Beach adopted Ordinance No. 87-895, which required the City of Hermosa Beach to negotiate and purchase the property commonly known as the "Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe (AT&SF) Railroad Right -of -Way" or "Railroad Right -of -Way", with a first priority being a transaction without the use of bond financing; WHEREAS, the citizens of the City of Hermosa Beach adopted Ordinance No. 88-919, which created a special tax, separate and apart from the General Fund, on utility users in the amount of four percent (4%) for use to purchase the Railroad Right -of -Way; WHEREAS, the citizens of Hermosa Beach find and declare that the Biltmore Site is a valuable commodity which, when sold, acts as a partial means for acquiring the Railroad might -of -Way for use as a Greenbelt, Parkland and ancillary uses; WHEREAS, the citizens of Hermosa Beach find and declare that the Biltmore Site is not suitable for public beach ,or park purposes in that it has not been used as a public beach or park and is adjacent to a city -owned beach which already provides ample recreational opportunities for visitors and citizens; WHEREAS, the citizens of Hermosa Beach find and declare that the Railroad Right -of -Way will provide more recreational opportunities both within and without the Coastal Zone than any potential utilization of the Biltmore Site as a city -owned 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 recreational facility; WHEREAS, the citizens of Hermosa Beach find and declare that ay it is in the best interests of the City to adopt a Specific Plan area for hotel usages and to sell the city -owned land within the Specific Plan Area to the highest responsible bidder at a public auction for development as a specific hotel and related uses compatible with the surrounding areas; WHEREAS, the citizens find that the adoption of this Specific Plan will be consistent with and further the goals and policies of the City's General' Plan and Local Coastal Plan by allowing for visitor -serving commercial/recreational uses; WHEREAS, the citizens of Hermosa Beach find and declare that use of the proceeds from the sale of the property in accordance with this Specific Plan will reduce the obligation of the taxpayers under the utility users special four percent (4%) tax consistent with the previous voter approvals of the purchase and funding of the Railroad Right -of -Way for park purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. With the adoption of this ordinance, the Specific Plan, which is incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A", a copy of which is on file in the office of the Hermosa Beach City Clerk, is hereby approved and adopted. The area covered by this Specific Plan includes Lots 1 through 10, inclusive, Lots 30 and 31, all in Block 14 of Hermosa Beach Tract, in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 1, Pages 25 and 26 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said county and all property, commonly 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 knowmas the Biltmore Site and Lot "C", as described in Section 2 herein. The Specific Plan Area also includes all property covered by streets adjacent to said lots and such property when such streets are vacated. Section 2. The City of Hermosa Beach is directed to sell the Biltmore site, which consists of Lots 1 through 9, inclusive, Lots 19, 20 and 32, all in Block 15 of Hermosa Beach Tract, in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los. Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 1, Pages 25 and 26 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said county, and Lot "C", which consists of Lots 19 through 29 inclusive, Lots 32 and 33, all in Block 14 of Hermosa Beach Tract, in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 1, Pages 25 and 26 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said county. Said sale shall be to the highest responsible bidder and conducted in the manner established by the Hermosa Beach City Council. The sale shall be by public auction. Section 3. In the event that any provision of this, ordinance shall be held invalid or unenforceable, the same shall not affect in any respect whatsoever the validity or enforceability of the remainder ofthis ordinance. Section 4. In the event that the Specific Plan is declared 24 ,I partially invalid in a final judgment by a court of competent 25 jurisdiction due to a material defect that cannot be cured by the 26 27 28 City Council, or in the event that the sale pursuant to the Public Auction fails to be consumated in accordance with the terms and conditions established by the City Council, the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Specific Plan may be amended by the City Council. Section 5. The net proceeds from any sale under this ordinance shall be applied to purchase or reduce any debt or obligation incurred in acquiring the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe (AT&SF) Railraod Right -of -Way. Any money remaining shall be used for park purposes. Section 6. This ordinance shall take effect in the manner provided by law. Section 7. This ordinance directly conflicts with Ordinance No. 88-950 and Ordinance No. 88-951 which require the rezoning and sale of the Biltmore site. // // // // // // // // // // // // // // 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 (Ord. No. 88-952) Exhibit "A" ARTICLE 9.6, CHAPTER 1, SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NO. 1 Section 9.611. Authority This Specific Plan is an instrument for implementing the Local Coastal Program ("LCP") and General Plan of the City, pursuant to Article 8, Chapter 3 of the State Planning and Zoning Law (Cal. Gov't. Code Sec. 65450 et seq.). Section 9.612. Location This Specific Plan regulates the "Biltmore Site" and adjacent lots (the "Subject Property") bounded on the west by the Strand, partially bounded on the north by Fifteenth Street, partially bounded on the east by Hermosa Avenue and on the south by Thirteenth Street as described in the Basic Concept Drawings attached hereto as Exhibit "A." Section 9.613.. Area Description The Subject Property encompasses 2.99 acres of topographically flat land, consisting of 2.33 acres of vacant land and .66 acres upon which one and two story residential/commercial buildings now exist. The Subject Property is located near the Central Business District ("CBD") and adjacent to the Strand providing an opportunity for commercial/recreational development that could contribute significantly to the economy of the City and the revitalization of the commercial district. Section 9.614. Basic Concept Drawings and Development Criteria The Basic Concept Drawings attached hereto as Exhibit "A" depict the boundaries of the Subject Property, the location of the Project and the alterations proposed to existing streets. Exhibit "A" also indicates the basic design concept for the Project incorporating the objectives, policies, standards and regulations herein. This Specific Plan sets out the maximum development intensity allowed within the entire Specific Plan Area. The development standards contained herein are based upon total usage of the properties within the Specific Plan Area as part of one development. If the privately owned properties within the area are not assembled by the ultimate successful bidder for the city -owned property, the development standards and criteria shall be based on the percentage of developable property held by the ultimate owner of the city -owned property. The number of rooms, amount of floor area for particular uses within any building, and number of parking spaces (exclusive of 100 spaces) shall each be reduced in proportion to the total reduction in square footage in developable property. For those properties independently owned by persons other than the successor -in -interest to the city -owned 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 property, those persons shall be allowed to build to C-2 usages and standards only. Section 9.615. Purpose The purpose of this Specific Plan is to set,,: forth design principles and development standards for a ;;`hotel, conference center, parking facilities, Garden Plaza and other ancillary uses (the "Project") that will enhance the commercial and recreational potential of the Subject Property while achieving the goals, policies, and objectives articulated in the General Plan and the LCP. This Specific. Plan shall provide the following: (a) Establish objectives, policies, regulations, development standards, and review criteria for the Project on the Subject Property; (b) Preserve the unique coastal character of the area and assure that development of the Subject Property will comply with California Coastal Act policies, promote local economic stability, and meet the needs of local residents and beach visitors; and (c) Implement the goals, objectives, and policies identified in the Local Coastal Program Element of the General Plan. Section 9.616. Specific Plan Development Objectives Proper development of the Subject Property is critical to the economic and environmental future of the City, therefore, the major objectives of this Specific Plan are as follows: (a) Assure the development of the Project in a manner consistent with the Hermosa Beach City Code ("HBCC") and the scale and location of the Subject Property; (b) Assure coastal access for visitors and residents; (c) Assure adequate parking; (d) Minimize adverse impacts of the Project on neighboring residential uses, especially as they relate to traffic, noise and visual effects; (e) Establish a long range and continuing source of revenue for the City; (f) Facilitate the safe and convenient flow of traffic in the area; and (g) Provide for permitted uses which are complementary to the Project use and to the City's CBD. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 +27 28 Section 9.617. Area Development Policies To effectively achieve the foregoing objectives, the following policies shall be applied to the design and construction of the Project: (a) Project unity and identity shall be achieved through the careful •`siting of building and parking areas, the development of an effective circulation system, the coordination and control of building design, landscaping, lighting, signing, and similar features. (b) The design and control of pedestrian and vehicular circulation shall provide safe and convenient access to the Project. (c) The standards of development set forth in Section 9.621 below shall be applied to realize the unique potential of the area and to provide for a high quality Project, compatible with commercial uses while maintaining a desirable environment for surrounding residents. Maximum flexibility, consistent with the goals, objectives and policies expressed herein, shall be allowed to encourage imaginative design and development. Section 9.618. Primary Permitted Uses (A) Hotel; Section 9.619 Ancillary Permitted Uses (A) Conference Center facility; (B) Parking facilities; (C) Compatible Uses: (1) Food related: a. Restaurant, excluding drive-ins; b. Delicatessen; c. On-site alcoholic beverage sales, including bars and cocktail lounges, provided such uses are a part of a bona fide eating place or hotel (subject to all applicable standards of Article 10, Conditional Use Permit Standards, and Article 20, Penalty, of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Ordinance). The City shall have the right during business hours, upon 15 days notice, to inspect the books and records of the applicant to determine if gross sales of alcohol beverages meet all Hermosa Beach code requirement. Upon request at the inspection, the owner/operator of the business shall also submit to the City copies of all records submitted to the State Board of Equalization for the purposes of verifying the applicant's books and records, with the understanding that these reviews are confidential; 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (2) Entertainment and recreation related : a. Dancing; b. Live entertainment; c. Amplified and recorded music; d. Audio/visual entertainment; e. Health and fitness facility; (3) Service related: a. Automotive rental agency storage of not more than three rental vehicles (excluding repair and/or servicing); cleaning; guest only; b. Apparel repair, alteration and c. Barber and beauty shop; d. Shoe repair and polishing; e. Ticket sales agency; f. Travel agency; g. Health and fitness facility for hotel (4) Retail related: a. Apparel shop; b. Art gallery; c. Bookstore; d. Camera shop; e. Candy, nut and confectionary shop; f. Cigar store; Drugstore; h. Florist; i. Greeting card shop; j. Jewelry shop; k. Specialty gift shop; 1. Stationery store; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (D) Other uses not permitted above may be determined by the Planning Commission to be permitted uses if they meet the following criteria: (1) The proposed use will not create circumstances, effects or conditions which are undesirable, more intensive or substantially different than the other uses permitted herein. Factors to consider are traffic, hours of operation, equipment, and the nature of the use;. (2) The proposed use will be compatible with the uses permitted herein; (3) The proposed use is similar in scope, purpose, and ope ation to the uses permitted herein; stated herein; prohibited. (4) The proposed use will promote the objectives (5) The proposed use is not otherwise Section 9.620. Prohibited Uses All uses are prohibited unless provided for and authorized herein. Under no circumstance shall the following uses be permitted as principal or accessory uses: (a) Residential dwellings, including trailer and mobile home parks; (b) Churches, Synagogues, temples and other uses primarily devoted to religious worship; (c) Educational institutions; (d) Drive-in restaurants; (e) Billboards; (f) Hospitals, sanitariums, homes for the aged and other similar uses.' Section 9.621. Subject Property Development Standards To achieve the foregoing objectives, the following standards shall be applied to the development of any Project on the Subject Property: (a) Intensity. Development of the Subject Property, shall comply with the following: (1). The above grade lot coverage of the Project shall not exceed 587 plus or minus 2% of the Subject Property; (2) The number of guest rooms shall not exceed 250; 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 (3) The Conference Center facility shall not exceed an area of 7,000 square feet. (b) Building Height. The Project shall have no more than four (4) stories and the building height shall not exceed 39 feet. (c) Parking. The Project shall provide not less. than 420 subterranean parking spaces of which 170 spaces shall be continuously available for public use. Provision for striping, parking for the physically handicapped, compact spaces, stall design, tandem, turning radii and similar standards shall be as specified in HBCC Appendix A -Zoning. Valet parking shall be required at all times when tandem parking is used. The HBCC provides that in projects that can demonstrate, based on a parking study and parking plan, that opportunities for shared parking are available, the number of parking spaces to be required shall be the number determined by such parking study and parking plan tobe needed. The parking study and parking plan prepared in 1984 for a hotel project previously proposed for the Subject Property demonstrated a need for not more than 390 parking spaces. The Project shall provide not less than 420 parking spaces, though it is recognized that it contains 12 less hotel rooms, 1,250 less square feet of assembly area and 1,980 less square feet of entertainment lounge/bar area than the hotel project for which the parking plan and study was prepared. Accordingly, the 420 spaces are determined to be adequate and in compliance with HBCC requirements. The City's publicparking spaces on Thirteenth Street shall be restored following construction except where the entrance to the facility and the above ground structure exists, which requires an easement to be granted to the City. (d) Open Space. As indicated on Exhibit "A", the Project shall preserve and enhance open space by providing and maintaining the following: (1) A plaza facing the Strand; (2) An approximately 1/2 acre garden plaza. (e) Architectural Considerations. (1) Compatible architectual treatment shall be carried out on the front, rear and sides of the entire development; (2) Roof. The roof shall be sand -colored; (3) Windows. The use of chrome -colored or mirrored glass shall be prohibited. (f) Equipment. Air conditioners, duct work and similar equipment shall not be located on the roof of the building and shall be screened from public view. 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 (g) Circulation. (1) Fifteenth Court shall be made one-way eastbound to ensure a circular flow of traffic for service vehicles; (2) There shall be no public pedestrian ingress from 15th Street; (3) There shall be no public pedestrian ingress from Beach Drive between 15th Street and 15th Court. (h) Landscaping. Landscaping and automatic irrigation prepared bya licenced landscape architect shall be provided and made complementary to the Subject Property's coastal location; (1) Guidelines a. Landscaped areas should be planned and designed as an integral part of the project. The type, quan- tityand placement of plant material should be selected for its structure, texture, color and compatibility with the building design and materials. b. Exterior lighting, signs, walls and walkways should also be incorporated as an intergral part of the landscape design. c. Soil, water, sun conditions and other factors should be considered in the choice of specific plant materials. (2) Plant Materials a. Minimum size trees shall be 24 -inch box., All, newly planted trees shall be supported with stakes or guy wires. b. Shrubs shall be minimum 5 gallon size. When planted to, serve as a hedge or screen, shrubs shall be planted with 2 to 4 feet spacing, depending on the plant species_ c. Depending on the plant material, groundcover shall be generally spaced at a maximum of 6 to 8 inches on -center. When used as groundcover, minimum one gallon size shrubs may be planted at 18 to 24 inches on -center. d. A11 plant material shall be installed in a healthy, vigorous condition typical to the species. (3) Site Landscaping a. All areas not covered by buildings or structures, enclosed for storage or used for paved walks, drive- ways or parking shall be landscaped. Trees should be planted at a quantity approximate to one tree for each 200 square feet of - 7 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 landscaped area when the site can accommodate such. Trees may be planted in groupings. b. Landscaping including trees, shall be provided adjacent to structures and along interior property lines when the site can accommodate such; trees may be planted in groupings. c. Along fences or walls that are visible. from the street, a combination of trees, hedges, shrubs, and vines, shall be planted on the street -facing side. d. Areas used for loading, refuse, storage and equipment shall be screened with a combination of walls and landscaping. (4) Irrigation A permanent sprinkler irrigation systen suf- ficient to cover all planted areas shall be provided and shall be specified on all submitted plans. Automatic controls are re- quired on all irrigation systems. (5) Maintenance Landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and healthy condition. This shall include proper trimming, mowing of lawns, weeding, removal of litter, fertilizing, regular watering and replacemnt of diseased or dead plants. (i) Signs. The sign sizes on the hotel shall not exceed that currently permitted by the HBCC. Signs shall be allowed as follows: (1) A monument sign not to exceed eight feet in height shall be permitted on the Subject Property adjacent to Hermosa Avenue; (2) Four temporary construction signs not to exceed 200 square feet shallbe permitted on the site during construction. Total construction sign square footage shall not exceed 800 square feet; (3) Such additional square footage of signage allowed by the HBCC which may be placed at any point upon any of the facades of the Project Improvements. (4) All signs shall be reviewed by the Building for compliance with HBCC Section 28-Al2. Director (j) Utilities. All utilities shall be underground. (k) Sprinklered Building. The Project, including all structures, will be sprinklered. Said installation will be in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code, 1985. (1) Trash Storage. Trash storage areas shall be screened from the view of neighboring residential uses and shall be conveniently located for service vehicles. Enclosures shall. - 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 be constructed out of the same material as the building. A hose bib at trash location shall be provided for cleaning of area. There shall be ten square feet of refuse enclosure per 1000 square feet of net floor area of building or structure, except that no enclosure shall have dimensions less than eight feet by eight feet. Trash area may be reduced in size if it is shown that all trash can be properly accommodated. The enclosure shall have a concrete slabfloor sloped -to drain, minimum six-foot high masonry walls, and a minimum six-foot wide opening with self latching opaque panel gates. The refuse enclosure shall be lo- cated to provide access without interfering with parking and cir- culation. Preferably, the trash location shall not be visible from adjacent property, and/or from public right-of-ways unless no other location exists. (m) Loading Areas. Loading, unloading and service activity areas shall be screened to minimize the view from and noise to neighboring residential uses and located for convenient use by service vehicles. (n) Noise Buffering. To minimize noise to neighboring residential uses, the ground floor windows facing 15th Street shall be non-operable and hotel rooms with operable windows facing 15th Street shall not be used as hospitality suites. (o) Site Design. (1) Open and landscaped areas shall be provided around the building and shall highlight primary entrances; (2) Parking shall be located to provide safe and convenient access to uses and shall contribute to an overall circulation pattern. Section 9.622. Public Transit The developer shall institute an airport shuttle for hotel guests. Arrangements shall be made to eliminate problems caused by reduction in public parking during construction to the extent possible. Section 9.623. Bicycle Parking The developer shall provide not less than one hundred permanently mounted bicycle parking stalls. Bike stalls shall be in conspicuous locations and adjacent to the Strand. Section 9.624. Severability If any part or provision of this Specific Plan, or any application thereof, is held to be contrary to law by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision or application will not be deemed valid, except to the extent permitted by law, but all other provisions or applications shall continue in full force and effect. T/pcorbilt 1 IIERMOSA AVENUE I .I IiII IIi I III I I GARDEN I PLAZA I I I U ro z Ld -F- -•--._3 \.. , FIfTEENTII I,FOURTEENTH L -_ TI-4RTEENTH I I FRONT ' .y ESTAURANT W/VIEW I PATIO i CAFE BEACH PLAZA GROUND LEVEL II . lope t 1a) Fr HERMOS, BEACH HOTEL V SISIHX3 -E YL I i tI t i PUB I • L • • I d= I - a OCEAN VIEW REFRESHMENT DECK I MEZZANINE LEVEL HCRMO� UCACI HOTEL • srsIHx3 b' • EXHIBIT A L 71f r;, rk 1 1-1-1 1 rk ILI 1 r j [ I tl 1 TIIIRD & FOURTH 11 11.1.11 I •st.•t•I 1111111 I *sI*I%1 -_•• • 1.111.11 IAtl.4S1 • CIAO LT PARKING AREA PARKING AREA • .. • SUD•GRADE. PARKING-, • HERMOSA BEACH • HOTEL V SISIHX3 m W 4 O. b GENERAL ELECT UN Z NOIlISOdOdd 0313 INf1W 03dS HO8 VSOWd3H S3A Z NOIlISOdOdd 3313 INf1W D3dS H08 VSOWd3H ,Q N �F+= F W - �i QTD .- ((3 07 _ N 'm—M— CVM(N7aV��mmN�mlO(WV N_MamV MVNM U V O m (DD F4 -T-12 N W 23 W N U N CM T1m 17) NitiaZT N' dip —� r w r v N o co N N ON A NOIlISOdOdd 3313INfW D3dS H09 VSOW83H S3A A NOIJISOdOdd 0313 INf1W 03dS H38 VSOW83H ./Ir III O 03 0 m 701- T-- F Trityreir CS In 1017— ' In—C , Ll m NCirm-r •-o vmWNWC) . NNWN m N N M M N V V N N M M N.N M M V ('IN NMN N N w N N N v mMm V V mw ,,mmmty V mm V M cC V N O N ON X NOIUISOdOdd 3313 INf1W 33dS H38 VSOW83H S3A X NOIIISOdO21d. 3313 INf1W 33dS 1+09 VSOWd3H 23 V CJ r 0O i'T">DC) O3 U7-X�7'N c0'N'O MI rfln U7 U OV W NaOV W NWWWNV 0 mm N NM�N�NN'"'' Nn��NNNNN'-N� W ( m V in 0777,1" w' 0 N m N- r d O w'V'-- 07' a� Cs +- Wp py �t�N� V IOMmrr�NNO V m O) W ��N•-•-�N- l0 N W m - M f'7 ON M NOI1ISOdO21d 3313 INfW 33dS H09 VSOWd3H S3A M NOI1ISOdOjd 3313 INf1W 33dS H39 VSOWd3H t3 Z.; Yioan2222Z3(OmOIn V Trr),V vtON OM1 N c0 �p�p77 r. - .-r.. ..-. QNI M V7 mNNN�appappTN-N V V, mMTMTIGM aD Om) �NNNr'��N�•- tV N V • M 1SV3 S1011V9 67-441-19-01-q Of O t N V CD 1n -N UmF"N M 0 C') hVv('immNMQdlnC7NvvuiVMMVMN lt7 m In QI o U) W J 8 J Q LL n-1 0 Ii 0 aaaaaaaaamaaaaaaaaaaaa BAA0,-04M7MWhWMR2WAM9 NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN rrrNNNNNNNNNNNNrrNNrrrr N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 3336 3336663336333363 a a a a 4 Q Q Q C 4 4 0 0 0 a s 4 Q Q Q 4 C W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm'm 44<444444aa<44<444<44< N V1 V) V) N V1 O O Cl) V) U) 0 N V) N IAO V)U U) 2 M 2 g a f f 2 2 2 f 2 M 2mumumma. 2 M 2 f am.W W W W w W W W W W W lL W W W W. W W W W _ _ _ _ _ = Y = = m = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = PRECINCT VOTE ABSENTEE VOTE GRAND TOTAL VOTE qsste) ORDINANCE NO. 89-998. Ordinance No. 89-998, entitled, "A PETITION INITIATIVE ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING SPECIFIC PLAN ORDINANCE NO. 84-751, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, REZONING THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BILTMORE SITE TO OPEN SPACE SUBJECT TO COASTAL COMMISSION APPROVAL." This Ordinance failed to pass at the Municipal Election held on November 7, 1989. The vote was as follows: YES: 1,589 NO: 1,799 OAC/ LINDA RIDDLE, Chief Deputy City Clerk 2 3 ORDINANCE NO. 89-998 A PETITION INITIATIVE ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING SPECIFIC PLAN ORDINANCE NO. 84-751, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, REZONING THE 4II:PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BILTMORE SITE TO OPEN SPACE, SUBJECT TO COASTAL COMMISSION APPROVAL. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 WHEREAS, the citizens of Hermosa Beach find and declare that the Biltmore Site is suitable for open space purposes and open space is needed in the area because of existing congestion. WHEREAS, the Biltmore Site is an important natural resource of Hermosa Beach that should be enjoyed by residents and visitors. WHEREAS, open space is an important necessary element of good planning for residents and visitors of Hermosa Beach. WHEREAS, the the Biltmore Site the Open Space existing openness citizens of Hermosa Beach find and declare that has been undeveloped for the last 19 years, and zoning would provide a continuation of the in the area for resident and visitors. Beach desire to repeal the Biltmore Site Open WHEREAS, the citizens of Hermosa Specific Plan Area in order to rezone the Space, along with the accompanying amendment to the General Plan and maintain consistency between the General Plan and zoning. NOW THEREFORE, AS FOLLOWS: THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DO ORDAIN 23 SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 84-751, as amended, is hereby 24 repealed. The property that is a part of the area commonly 25 known as the Biltmore Site Specific Plan Area, the legal descrip- 26 tion of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by 27 reference as Exhibit "A" shall be zoned as set forth in this ordinance. 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 2. The property commonly known as the biltmore site which consists of Lots 1 through 9 inclusive, Lots 19, 20, and 32 all in Block 15 of Hermosa Beach 'Tract in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per the map recorded in Book 1, Pages 25 and 26 of Maps in the office of the County. Recorder of said county is rezoned to Open Space. SECTION 3. The Land Use Element of. the Hermosa Beach General Plan is hereby Commercial Recreational amended to amend the to Open Space for designation from the properties described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. SECTION 4. By this ordinance, the City of Hermosa Beach hereby amends the City Local Coastal Plan and Local Coastal Program to Open Space for the property known as the Biltmore Site, as described above, and all other lands previously regulated by Specific Plan Ordinance No. 84-751 shall be changed to General commercial. SECTION 5. In the manner described by law, the City shall seek necessary approvals from the California Coastal Commission for the amendments made by this ordinance. SECTION 6. The Land Use Element for all other proper- ties formerly regulated by Specific Plan Ordinance No. 84-751, excluding the Biltmore Site, shall be amended to change the designation from Commercial Recreational to General Commercial which is consistent with the underlying C-2 Zone. SECTION 7. In the event that any provision of this ord- inance shall be held invalid or unenforceable, the same shall not affect in any respect whatsoever the validity or enforce- ability of the remainder of this ordinance. - 2 - 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 8. This ordinance shall take effect in the manner provided by law. SECTION 9. This ordinance shall only take effect if it receives a majority vote. SECTION 10. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. SECTION 11. There shall be no modification, amendment or repeal of any provision herein except by a two-thirds affirmative vote of the electorate. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 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 EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF REAL PROPERTY PARCEL 1: Lots 19 through 29, inclusive, Lots 32 and 33, all in Block 14 of Hermosa Beach, in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 1, Pages 25 and 26 Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said county, together with: (a) The north 15 feet of 13th Street lying between the southerly prolongation of the east line of Lot 29 and_the southerly prolongation of the center line of Beach Drive adjoining Lot 19 on the west; (b) The east one-half of Beach Drive adjoining Lot 19 on the west, lying between the westerly prolongation of the • south line of said Lot 19 and the westerly prolongation of the center line of 14th Court adjoining Lot 19 on the north; (c) The south one-half of 14th Court,, lying between the northerly prolongation of the west line of Lot 19 and the northerly prolongation of the east line of Lot 29. PARCEL 2: Lots 1 through 9, inclusive, Lots 19, 20, and 32, all in Block 15 Hermosa Beach, in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 1, Pages 25 and 26 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said county, together with: 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 (a) The north one-half of 14th Street lying between the southerly prolongation of the west line of Lot 1 and the southerly prolongation of the east line of Lot 32; (b) All of Beach Drive adjoining said Lots 1 through 7, inclusive, and Lots 8 and 19, lying between the easterly prolongation of the south line of said Lot 1 and the easterly prolongation of the north line of said Lot 7; (c) All of 15th Court adjoining said Lots 8, 9, 19, and 20 lying between the southerly prolongationof the west line of said Lot 8 and the southerly prolongation of the east line of said Lot 9; and (d) The south one-half of 15th court that would pass with a conveyance of Lot 32 in. Block 15 of Hermosa Beach in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 1, Pages 25 and 26 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said county. PARCEL 3: Lots 1 through 10, inclusive, Lots 30 and 31 in Block 14 of Hermosa Beach, in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 1, Pages 25 and 26 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said county, together with: (a) The south one-half of 14th Street adjoining said Lots 7, 8, 9, and 30, lying between the northerly prolon- gation of the west line of said Lot 7 and the southerly prolongation of the east line of Lot 32 in Block 15 of said Hermosa Beach; 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (b) The north half of 14th Court adjoining said Lots 8, 9, 10, 30, and 31, lying between the southerly prolong- ation of the east line of said Lot. 10 and the southerly southerly prolongation of -the west line of said Lot 8; (c) The west one-half of Beach Drive adjoining said Lots 1'through 7, inclusive, lying between the easterly pro- longation of the south line of said Lot 1 and the east- erly prolongation of the north line of said Lot 8 and the westerly prolongation of the center line of 14th Court adjoining said lot. QSA ORDINANCE NO. 89-1000 Ordinance No. 89-1000, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING SPECIFIC ORDINANCE NO. 84-751, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, REZONING THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BILTMORE SITE TO OPEN SPACE SUBJECT TO COASTAL COMMISSION APPROVAL." This Ordinance failed to pass at the Municipal Election held on November 7, 1989. The vote was as follows: YES: 982 NO: 2,385 LINDA RIDDLE, Chief Deputy City Clerk 1 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. 89-1000 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REPEALING SPECIFIC PLAN ORDINANCE NO. 84-751, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, REZONING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BILTMORE SITE AS OPEN SPACE, RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AND DIRECTING DEVELOPMENT OF AN URBAN PUBLIC PLAZA. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Ordinance No 84-751, as amended, is hereby repealed and the Land Use Element of the Hermosa Beach General Plan and the official zoning map are modified by reclassifying and rezoning certain property commonly known as the Biltmore Site SECTION 2. For the purposes of this ordinance and the rezoning and reclassification of the subject property, the Biltmore Site is hereby divided into three (3) parcels which are defined as follows: /// (a) Parcel 1 consists of that certain property ident- ified as Lots 1 through 7 and the full 20 foot width of vacated Beach Drive along Lots 1 through 7, Block 15 of the Hermosa Beach Tract. Parcel 1 is commonly identified as the seven (7) lots adjacent to The Strand between 14th and 15th Streets and is approxi- mately 21,050 square feet in area (59% of the site). (b) Parcel 2 consists of that certain property ident- ified as Lots 19, 20, and 32, Block 15 of the Hermosa Beach Tract. Parcel 2 does not include any portion of the vacated 15th Court. Parcel 2 is commonly identified as the three (3) lots on the north side of 14th Street, east of the vacated portion of Beach Drive and is approximately 8,900 square feet in area (25% of the site). (c) Parcel 3 consists of that certain property ident- ified as Lots 8 and 9, Block 15 of the Hermosa Beach Tract. Parcel 3 does not include any of vacated 15th Court. Parcel 3 is commonly identified as the two (2) lots on the south side of 15th Street, east of the vacated portion of Beach Drive and is approx- imately 5,700 square feet in area (16% of the site). 2 SECTION 3. Parcel 1 o the Biltmore Site is hereby reclass- ified as Open Space under the Land Use Element of the General 3 Plan (hereinafter the, "General Plan") and rezoned as O -S 4 Open Space. 5 SECTION 4. Parcel 2 of the Biltmore Site is hereby reclass- 6 ified as GC, General Commercial, under the General Plan and 7 rezoned C-2., Restricted Commercial uses. 8 SECTION 5. Parcel 3 of the Biltmore Site is hereby reclass- 9 10 11 12 13 14 ified Plan shall said as HD, High Density Residential, and under the General Plan rezoned R-3, Multiple Family Residential. Parcel 3 be sold by the City and Parcel 3 the funds received from the sale of shall first be used for the preparation of plans and the development of the urban public plaza upon Parcel 1. SECTION 6. An overlay zone is hereby adopted which is 15 consistent with the reclassification and rezoning of the Biltmore 16 JJ Site, as provided hereinabove, and which shall further incor- porate the following terms and provisions: 17 18 (a) 19 urban public 20 of a passive materials of 21 Parcel 1 shall be_. developed and maintained as an plaza which is hereby defined as a public park/plaza recreational nature designed to include high quality both softscape and hardscape and is to be compatible 22 with surrounding adjacent uses. 23 (b) Parcel 2 shall be included in the. Vehicle Parking 24 District if legally permissible. 25 /// 26 /// 27 1/1 . 28 /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 (c) The development of Parcel 2 shall further be re- stricted to delete hotel/motel as a permitted use; to require in all subsequent leases, subleases, or sale of all or a portion of or a portion of said parcel that any eating and/or drinking establishment meet a ratio not to exceed thirty-five (35%) alcohol gross sales; and that the only permitted uses on said parcel shall be retail and/or restaurant uses not exceeding thirty (30) feet in height and providing appropriate code required landscaping set backs. (d) The City shall retain fee title to that certain real property which comprises that now vacated portion of 15th Court. (e) The City shall retain fee title to that certain real property which comprises the portion of 14th Street adjoining the Biltmore Site. SECTION 7. In the manner, described by law, the City shall seek necessary approvals from the California Coastal Commission for the amendments made by this ordinance and take all further actions necessary to implement and enforce the terms and intern of this ordinance. SECTION 8. If any section or subsection of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unenforceable, such holding shall not affect, in any respect, the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or any part thereof. /// /// /// /// /// 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 9. There shall be no modification, amendment, or repeal of any provision of this ordinance without a vote of the people. SECTION 10. Any ordinance which is adopted concurrently with this ordinance which receives less votes and is in conflict with any provision herein shall be repealed in its entirety and of no force and effect. SECTION 11. This ordinance shall take effect in the manner 2 �o X3 mixt mmmm 080186§ O m • nDDA•. DDD -i CO CO CU tio Oi ea WWW :< :::424292224 -�) • NNNNWNNNN m •. ..-4vv74'74V-4.1-J OD 8 W 13, 0 T T H r T m r m N HERMOSA BCH SPEC MUNI ELEC N PROPOSITION D i.'taYES HERMOSA BCH SPEC MUNI ELEC N PROPOSITION 0 m to A NO �J ..,.:i HERMOSA BCH SPEC MUNI ELEC A to �'►`+`'s N PROPOSITION E y n mcNnn f100� 0 YES HERMOSABCH SPEC MUNI ELEC :::' : -• N -• •=•►,'+' PROPOSITION E SNOI10313 a3.LdaI10 3m m o J APPENDIX VI Easy Reader Run Date: August 2, 1990 DISPLAY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the, CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hold a public hearing on August 14, 1990'to consider the following: 1. To consider General Plan redesignation and rezoning of the Biltmore Site publicly owned portion from a Specific Plan Area for a hotel to residential and commercial designations or to other past options considered by the Planning Commission or to such other designations%zones as deemedappropriate by the City Council and adoption of a Negative Declaration.`. The areas under consideration are bounded by 15th Street on the 'north, the Strand on the west,' -14th Street on the south and approximately 350' west of Hermosa Avenue on the east, and the area bounded by Hermosa Avenue on the east, the Beach Drive on the west, between 14th Court and 13th Street.* *Map on file in Planning Department in City Hall. SAID PUBLIC HEARING shall be at 8:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested are invited to participate at that time and place or to. write to the CityCouncil in. care of the Planning Department at the above address prior to Thursday, August'9, 1990 at 12:00 noon. IF YOU CHALLENGE 'the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited 'to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in 'this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the, Planning Department at, or prior to, the public hearing. FOR FURTHER' INFORMATION,'' -please contact the Planning Department—'at 318 -0242: - Elaine Doerfling City Clerk. City of Hermosa Beach CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the / S t day of f G u 5 j , 1990 , deposit into the United States Post Office, first class postage prepaid, a copy of the Public Notice attached as Exhibit "A" to each and every person attached as Exhibit "B". I warrant that the persons named on Exhibit "B" are all the persons required by applicable law to receive the Public Notice attached as Exhibit "A". I.understand and agree that it is my responsibility to cause these Public Notices to be made in an 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: I have executed this declaration on this the 6-81 , day 1990 at Hermosa Beach, California. State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) SS O this the appeared (Name) �.. (S itinature (Capacity) i day of aee 41e , 1990 , before me, the )///7-5- 7/416, -- un 'ersigned Notary Public, personally and proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) /5 suscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that 67i7' executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) OFFICIAL SEAL LAURICE-M. DUKE Notary Public • (.+lit• nett PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN L A. COUNTY Sly Comm. Exp. Mar. 12. 1993 11 --XIAII3>IT A PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Crmosa Beach, CA_90254 CITY OF HERMOSA BEAM PUBLIC NOTICE BILTMORE SITE SPECIFIC PLAN .AREA - TO CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION AND REZONING OF THE-BILTMORE SITE PUBLICLY OWNED -PORTION FROM.A SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR A HOTEL TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS OR TO OTHER PAST OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR TO SUCH OTHER DESIGNATIONS/ZONES AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION — - NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach will hold a public hearing on August 14, 1990, to consider a General Plan redesigna- tion and rezoning of the Biltmore Site publicly owned portion from a Specific Clan Area for a hotel to residential & commercial designations or to other past 'iptions considered by the Planning Commission or to such other designations/ zones as deemed appropriate by the City Council and adoption of a Negative Dec- laration. The areas under consideration are bounded by 15th Street on the north, The Strand on the west, 14th Street on the south & approximately 350' west of Hermosa Avenue on the east, and the area bounded by Hermosa Avenue on the east, the Beach Drive on the west, between 14th court & 13th Street. A map of these areas is on the reverse side for your reference. A large scale.map is on file in the Planning Department. SAID HEARING shall be at 8:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California. ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested are invited to participate and speak at this hearing at the above time and place. Persons wishing to send written com- munication on this project should write to the Planning Department in care of City Hall at the above address prior to Thursday, August 9, 1990 at 12:00 noon. IF YOU CHALLENGE THIS PROJECT IN COURT, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Department at, or prior to, the public hearing [Government Code Section 65009 (b) (c)]. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Planning Department at 318-0242. A , copy of the staff report will be available for public review on August 10, 1990 k_lt the Hermosa Beach Public Library. Y OF HERMOSX BEAC Mi Sc ubach Planning Director h 4 DATE: 05/23/90 TIME: 13:10 #- OWNER/OCCUPANT' 4183002001 --0eCUPANT 2- GEOBASE SYSTEM PARCEL NUMBER SEQUENCE MAILING LIST CODE: B1 7-4183002001 THE:LEW-QUENTIN-C. 4183002002 OCCUPANT 4183002002 THELEN,QUENTIN L ----4183002003------- OCCUPANT 4183002003 '1E-KEtENrfteENTIN 4183002004 ---74183002004 4183002008 4183002008 - 4183002009- --- 4183002009 4183002012 —4183002012 • 4183002013 4183002013 - 4183002014 • 3-11 PIERAVE • OCCUPANT OGHIGIAWVICTORrA OCCUPANT NEWFIELD,MICHAEL R AND OCCUPANT---.— ------ UGOLINI,AURELIANO G AND GRAZIA OCCUPANT EGERERITHOMAST-AC--- OCCUPANT -SHE-INWO6DrPAL-4 ' --OCCUPANT --- — — — ---- -------73----PIER' AVE HERMOSA-BEACHT-CA---90254----------- 2625 ANGELO DR LOS ANGELES CA 90077 81 PIER AVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 180' GRAND'AVE OAKLAND CA 94612- 19 PIER AVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 4183002017 THELEN,QUENTIN L CO TR 3420 VIA CAMPESINA RANCHO PALOS VERDES 90274 4183002018-------: OCCUPANT 30 -13 ST 'HERMOSA'BEACW tA- -90254 40 - 4183002018 - ENGLISH, MADONNA M 2240 STRAND HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 4183002019 OCCUPANT 32 13 ST HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 -4183002019 ENGLI6HrKAB0NNA- -"---- - -22-40=' ..STRAND-*--- .,-, . r.- HERMOSA'BEAC490254 I - 4183002020 OCCUPANT 53 PIER AVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 1250 THE STRAN ei. HERMOSA-BEACH C-- 90254 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 ;•;, : ; .1 • ,,',.• • ,; •••;:, •••• 054 REPORT:'GB560A PAGE: 1 1272- 'THE STRAN HERMOSA-BEACHT-CA----- 90254 20 13 STHERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 22635-- MAPLE-AVE-----0NIT-A----TORRANCE CA 90505 1221 HERMOSA A . HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 P 0 BOX 3835 MANHATTAN BEACH CA' 90266 a? PIER -AVE - BEACHr"CA 90254--w-- 39 PIER AVE HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 59 PIER AVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 19315- 'ARCHFIEED-CIR HUNTINGTON BEAtH-C-A7-90648 65 PIER AVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 4183002014 SHEINWOLD,PAULA J 4183002015 OCCUPANT -----4183002015 -FIXED. ASSETS-DEP1 4183002017 OCCUPANT 4183002020 4183002021 4183002021 4183003001 4183003001-- 4183003002 4183003002 ' 4183003003-- 4183003003 4183003004 4183003004-- • 34E-W-T-ON,-JERR*--6-AND-L ES6IS-A--- 2044— C -I R -CLE -DR .------------------- -HERMOSA. • BEAGH-CA--- 90254-- ' OCCUPANT' ----- --------------------57—PIER-AVE HERMOSA BEACHT-CA-----90254 NEWTON,JERRY L AND LESLIE A 2041 CIRCLE DR HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 OCCUPANT 1306 THE STRAN HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 ---,HARE BREW ' NE0-KEhLEY INC...... 305 .7---=-LY-TTOWAVE-•;=•;------ ---------;;;;IIAL-S-AL-Te.;•eier--=- - ' 94304 ---------------- OCCUPANT 1318 THE STRAN HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 HARE-BREWER-ANB.-AEU.:Y-4-.305--LYTTON AVEGA--,----,-------- PALO ALTO -CA. . —.94301 --OCCUPANT 1324 THE'STRAN HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 HARE BREWER KELLY INC 305 LYTTON AVE PALO ALTO CA 94301 OCCUPANT 1328 THE STRAN HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 -11-"ANIICIGEWE.:..,.L=-60. - - Tlaist 4183003005 4183003005 4183003006 ----- 4183003006 4183003007 4183003007--- 4,47 4183003008 4183003008 14:1 4O 4183003009 4111" 4183003009 I4183003010 51 i.;----- 4183003010 4183003011 *Ye E R M OSA- -BEA Cf -F.0 At1F-•-••9432&4---- -------• OCCUPANT 1338 THE STRAN ZZ HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 JAMES,WILLARD B AND IMOGENE J 60 10 ST HERMOSA BEACH CALIF 90254 OCCUPANT --- . 1338 'THESTRAN HERMOSA BEACH, -CA--- .90254 ---- JAMES.. W I LLAR D.434.AND,,IMOGENE-J-h--60---40-•-ST------,-.---0.--.*---,------ fIERMOS A -BE A eft-cA— ----90254--- OCCUPANT 22 14 ST HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 -v.-% H A R E-BREWEW-ANIFRECEE4=-144e----;305-;•::::: LYTTON:AV•-E-7---4--.." ,--- - - - • - - • PALO • A bTO - C A --=•---------- -94364— ' OCCUPANT ' 48 14 ST HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 -GR I P PI , STEVE ' R... AND• --,-,------•P-0-• BOX -24541 ••••,- ---,----LVS-ATICELET-CA— '371:7024 -- OCCUPANT 57 14 CT HERMOSABEACH,CA-----90254----- P 0 BOX 24541 LOS ANGELES CA 90024 OCCUPANT 65 14 CT' HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 ---ICAZA,R,LCARELELZ.tAt4D-ADELE-T.R.S---520- STRAND . ' ' MANHATTAW-BEAG-14.44-,--,,R0.24646 SSGURANT---- 6& 14 -ST ' 0 . .. - • --HERMOSASEACI-117'°'CA-90254.--- GRIPPLSTEVE R 41. 1 e e DATE: ,..r/23/90 TIME: 13: 10 PARCEL #' OWNER/OCCUPANT 4183003011 ---L/4183003012 - y4183003012 4183003015 -._-. 4183003015 CO' 4183003020 J 4183003020 7,--4183004004 c MOLINA, YOLANDA T GEOBASE SYSTEM PARCEL NUMBER SEQUENCE - MAILING LIST CODE: B1 STREET ADDRESS 68 014 ST ! -N I CHOLSs-BERW IC -E -ANDD -••JAMES 1- I •h 191 1, •.». AR I ETTA-A dE- & ... • . .. OLYMP IA -WASH .-.. , . OCCUPANT 1325 HERMOSA A TAX DEPARTMENT-'TI0-27195---2828 N- HASKELL-"'-- — -" OCCUPANT 30 14 ST LOESJE DE KOCK 305 LYTTON AVE HERMOSA BEACH CA 1IER 10SA--8EAG1-F,:: CA-- -.._. „ 41.83004004,a ` ACKROYD,ALBERT E 36 015 ST ,2 41830040a5;-r�-. OCCUPANT 41 15 CT 3- 41830040E�3' • JUMP,MARGARET P 1740 -MIRAMAR DR ,a 4183004006�� OCCUPANT 42 15 ST 15 4183004006 - VIGUE,ROBERT D AND 1147 • 22 ST.. .4183004007 OCCUPANT 56 15 ST " 4183004007 14 4183004010 7,i---4183004010- • 4183004017 ®;, 4183004017 22 4183004018 4,, .4183004018 4183004021 k ---4183004021- 4, s 4183004021..® 4183004022 rZ 4183004022 4183004023— 2:, 4183004023 0 4183004024 1-1337 ----4183004024 4183004025 ▪ 4183004025 r - 41830040265 4183004026 ®? • 4183004027 i 4183004027' 4183004028 '49 4183004028 f-o —4183005003- 4183005003 ®'a' 4183005004 p4183005004-- 4183005006 41830050044183005006 —{y, 4183005006- STOTEN,EVELYN M TR �- - 4183005007---.._.. -OCCUPANT- 40 .OCCUPANT • HERMOSA BEACH, CA DALLAS -TX HERMOSA BEACH, CA PALO ALTO CA HERMOSA- BEACHr- eA--- HERMOSA BEACH CALIF HERMOSA BEACH, CA VENTURA CA HERMOSA BEACH, CA MANHATTAN BEACH CA HERMOSA BEACH, CA HERMOSA BEACH CA HERMOSA BEACH, CA LAGUNA NIGUEL CA HERMOSA BEACH, CA PALOS VERDES PNSLA C HERMOSA BEACH, CA HERMOSA BEACH CALIF WARREN,CLIFTON R AND RENEE M 2309 PACIFIC COAST NO 203 OCCUPANT 60 15 ST LOVE, ANGIE--0 TR 29255-- KESTREL --LN OCCUPANT • 39 14 ST FRANKLIN, CHARLES E AND SALLY F 5003 BROWNDEER LN OCCUPANT 45 -74 ST SCHUMACHER,DAVID 1612 STRAND OCCUPANT 64 15 CT 90254 98504--.-- 90254 75204 90254 94301 -90254-w 90254 90254 93001 90254 90266 90254 90254 90254 92677 90254 90274 90254 90254 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 -C-4f•iU, BAR -fir . 357.6 CAND6EWOWID�RD ► �* --------- TORR•ANCE•-CA:•,•«, 90505• OCCUPANT 67 14 ST HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 -__ TSLL4-.RA-,-PA -75--'...44-ST HERMOSA,.:BEACH..CAa�.,.,..,. 90254.,, OCCUPANT 74 15 CT HERMOSA BEACH; CA-90254------- TOLLIVER,RALPH 0 75 14 ST HERMOSA BEACH CA 90256 OCCUPANT 76 15 CT HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 ICAZA, RICARDO-F-AND-ADELE TRS- 520 -__-STRAND-- MANHATTAN. BEACH. CA`- 90265 OCCUPANT 87 14 ST HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 TC C0A,�T MAL -1 -B44 -GA -9026. .-- . 21358T,^�^ Tri-�vr,o•, REPORT: GB560A PAGE: 2 ------ OCCUPANT -- --- - 1401-HERMOSA A HERMOSA BEACH; -CA-y---'-40254----------- ------- --'"-"- P.RITCHETT,JERRY E CO -TR 21355 PACIFIC COAST MALIBU.CA 90265 OCCUPANT r 55 14 ST HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 CHID, DAR .0 .TR3357 . ______-_-TORRANCE CA--------7-90505-- OCCUPANT A - 90505OCCUPANT 1429 HERMOSA A HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 ----- J BAKOLAS,JOHN K AND MARGARITA 85 15 ST HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 OCCUPANT 1.50 -'---THE CTRAN •HERMOSfBEAGHrCA=----90254 — SNYDER.,CHRISTOPHER B 1522 THE STRAND HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 OCCUPANT 153G THE,R-•6TAAu--.-...,-..._.....-._. :,.,..MERMOSA-BEACH.-.-CA _ 90254--- y LEFF,ROBERT TR -' 1530 -STRAND HERMOSA BEACH -CA ------90254---- - ERMCSA"BEACH, r"CPiW--'-90254--- HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254. HERMOSA BEACH, CA ---90254 - - SIIIPSON,JAY B AND BARBRA S TRS 872 005 ST MANHATTAN BEACH CA• 90266 OCCUPANT 50 16 ST HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 0 HARA1 JAMES- D AND-JOLENE.-----"- 720-- STRAND----- "'----"-"-"'-MANHATTAN. BEACH CALI -•- 90266 ---- --OCCUPANT— - • 56---I6- ST - .. HERMOSA.-BEACH.,..-CA ......810254. • MIDDLEKAUFF,LENN L -AND ETHEL E 56 16 ST- HERMOSA BEACH CALIF 90254 —OCCt pANT---__._.. - - -._. ..-. �..... ..,:......_ . frd i6� 5T - -"• HERMQ6A.,BEACH = GA:.:: x #0254 .=N .------ ......... STONIER,CLAUDE G AND MARY R 60 16 ST HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 40,47 4183005007 4183005008 -4183005008 on.; 4183005009 4183005009 iT: ------4183005010 ®'s; 4183005010 `t* 16 016 ST --26- 26- 16 -ST o, 0y f II C116 DATE: .5/23/90 TIME: 13:10 PARCEL' #' -OWNER/OCCUPANT 4183005011 ----4183005011 4183005012 4183005012 -- 4183005013' 4183005013 4183005019 ----4183005019 4183005020 4183005020 --.4183005024- 4183005024 418300502B 4183005028 OCCUPANT ROSS, WILCIAM K OCCUPANT LEGARE,STEVEN R AND ALICE LEVINE,STANLEY L ' OCCUPANT ' STELLABOTTE; FRED- GEOBASE SYSTEM PARCEL NUMBER SEQUENCE MAILING LIST CODE: B1 STREET ADDRESS CITYT-STATE- 'ZIP 66 16 ST 4667 ROLLANDS DR 74 16 ST 1635 AVIATION BLVD 16 ST P 0130X 995 OCCUPANT VALLA REAL ESTATE I INC -se&up.ANT4. BAKOLAS,JOHN K AND MARGARITA L ,70CCUPANT JEFFRIESTFLORENCE-E 3548- ROSA-WAY 53 15 ST P 0 BOX 0090 85 .1 -5 -ST 85 015 ST 32 16 ST 12f4 BONNIE -BRAE -6 4131" 4183005029 '''OCCUPANT 44 16 ST 1,a 4183005029 "GAGE. WALTER H AND RUTH H 3 ACACIA RD F —4183005034- ----- -OCCUPANT 1534- THE STRAN 41C° 4183005034 OLSON,BARRY L 3853 E SAHUARO BLVD '21 4183005035 66e.UPAINFT 1-540—THE-8-TRAN '2-_ _ 74 4183005035 4183005040 4183005040 i'4193005041 .- 4183005041 OW" 4183005042 147 1113 4i83005042 1 4183005043 4111:' 4183005043 r:::T-----4183005043------- I 4183005043 4183005044 4f83005044 . 4183005045 4183005045 1'''4i83005o46 O':1 4183005046 4183005047 1:1----4183005047 4g. :I 4183005048 ..: 4183005048 ., '47--- 4183005049-7-- 4ol,! 4183005049 .1 4183005050 4183005050 404] 4183005051 44., 41.83005051 4163005052 0.-. 4183005052 ,51 4183005053 ki---. 4183005053- 4),,, . 4183005054 .r,.1 0, t. , 0 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 ROLLING HILLS -EST -CA -90274 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REDONDO BEACH CA 90278 HERMOSA' BEACW-CA-------90254 MANHATTAN BEACH CA 90266 —HERMOSA FALLBRC1OK CA 92028 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 HAYWARD CA 94543 --"--HERMOSA-BEAC-BA. 254 HERMOSA BEACH CALIF 90254 HERMOSA BEACH. CA 90254 HERMOSABEACH CA -----90254 REPORT: GB560A PAGE: 0 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 ROLLING HILLS CALIF 90274 HERMOSA BEACHI-CA----902547- PHOENIX AZ 85028 PAYNE,BARBARA-B-TR-ET-AL 1540- STRAND HERMOSA-BEACH-CA 90254 SGP -ANT 1- 5----1-5---S-T---ND-1------- - - ------ -.1-1ERtIOSSialiEH.C-HAL=f-A.----=3-025A--. BRETT. KATHRYN V 15 015 ST NO 1 HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 ' i^rci-aiT.:•••,•,..=.."440...-2.•••=.••... - -- - ER f106k=• B EACH r...A•,..-L•••-- --90254-:- - - - - - - - - FRANCIS. THOMAS R 15 15 ST UNIT 2 HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 OCCUPANT 15 15 ST NO 3 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 QUIGLEY,RAYMOND L 2605-- CORAE-RIDGE-R RANCHO PALOS-VERDES 90274 1.-55"•8-1-•••••-•-fith -4 • - "---•"••••••"."•-•-•••1=IERMOSirlilErcC117-C-APCI25'4"-' OCCURANT--------- 15 I -5 -ST - -HER PlEISA--BEAC Fir-. C A -.------- -90254---•••.•• 'WOOD, BRETT AND------ 7-----------15---015-ST-7-----NO 4 HERMOSA-BEACH-CA ---- '90254 - W-00t7BRETT-ftN T RMOSPMEACH"t11/0254''''''' OCCUPANT 15 15 ST NO 5 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 - SZAKOVITS,RICHARD J 18402 SANTANA CERRITOS CA OCCUPANT 15 15 ST NO 6 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 HOWELL,JEANNINE I 22 18 ST HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 . 1 -5 -ST .....NOV -7 -- ---- --HER140.6A BEACHW-CA: 90251 SPENCER, SUSAN B 15 015 ST NO 7 HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 ECS,JPANT - 1-6.••••:'...-4.5 ET NO 8' - . . HERMOSA-I.BEAD-GTMT-Fr'q""""90254''''' SCHWAN,CRAIG 15 015 ST '7NO-8 HERMOSA-BEACH-CA- 90254 OCCUPANT 15 15 ST NO 9 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 KOBAYASHI,ARTHUR Y CO TR 17BROKEN BOW LN ROLLING HILLS ESTATE 90274 OCCUPAN ' . . . . ""'"'"''""'"I'5***15'•'SP'.'"'N13...t0"..." --- ---------- - 9025.4.:i------- .BARNES,THOMAS W 15 015 ST NO 10 HERMOSA BEACH CA . 90254 OCCUPANT . . 1-5---1-5 ST NO" -TI '''''''''*"*""•••*HERMOSA^BEACK:u•t'10a5+1 . FRANDZEL,PHILLIP N 15 15 ST 'UNIT-ff HERMOSA BEACH -CA 90254 OCCUPANT , 15 15 ST NO 12 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 STURGES,ROBERT M AND JOANNE E 211 CARRIAGE PL MANHATTAN BEACH CA 90266 OCCUPANT-- - -------- . -- --- .---- 15 ---15-ST - - NO -13 ---- ----- -HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 PETERSON. NANCY K AND 1736 E 23 ST LOS ANGELES CA 90058 -0643UPAN^T.••••••••"=“."..............15---","/.5^'S.V.-"'"'"1.40''1'4'.'"'"'"m"'""'""". '''''HERMI3SiIr-BEACT"702 UT-- LORENZEN, JOSEPH G AND 15 015 ST NO -T4 HERMOS4BEAt HC A-- 90254 ---7-7------- — OCCUPANT 15 15 ST NO 15 HERMOSA BEACH, CA • 3 ., * - Q to• 4q. 4 4 F Ott/ ••'9 " ow," "I •;•,.; sFo I) S., • kr .4 • ;„ • . • •/04( ; .t.i. .,$ • IN, ;. „ iort. DATE: .J/23/90 TIME: 13: 10 --PARCELAt OWNER/OCCUPANT 4183005054 SCHERR,VICTOR L AND KAREN M 25012 WOOLWICH ST LAGUNA HILLS CA 92653 L -4183005055'OCCUPANT ' " -1'7-^".""- :"..=-15 15 ST -'----N0-16-----'-'"- HERMOSA SEACFr-CA'"'"-90254"------------- -- --- ------- 41' 4183005055 SOLIMAN,MOUSTAFA AND 15 015 ST NO 16 HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 1;, ---4183005056-----7-URBANOIVIRGILIO-AND 15" -015-ST-- NO- --17 HERMOSA-BEACH-CA-------90254---------------- 4183005056 OCCUPANT- ---- --- ..... ------- ---'- 15-- 15 -ST-'''-• NO-17----------HERMOSA'BEACH, -CA7----90254' O'n 4183005057 I-, OCEUPANT ...,..-_-• ___„,,,,,,,m*.„,.„45-,.. -.3.5-ST-,----NO-18,...,.",„,.„,,...*•-• HERMOSA' BEACHr-cA. ....._, 90254 ' 0 , 4183005057 EHRHORN,STEVEN E15 15 ST NO 18 HERMOSA BEACH CA [41EW05058 OCCUPANT. • -.15=15 - 90524 •' 4183005058 RUSSELL, THOMAS E BT.;;;;--;..NG..:1.9,-;----;•;HERMOSA,BEACH,-=CA-'--:z;--:-90254•;""---------------------------- - i. : 15 15 ST NO 19 HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 r, 4183005059 OCCUPANT . 15 15 ST NO 20 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 - 111----4183005059'"USIEW/CZ;--JOSEPH-A PO BOX 1082 . a HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 40„, 4183005060 OCCUPAN -- 15-15. SI ---12,10-2A HERMOSA-BEACH,-CA*90254-; 4183005060 PERFALL,ALISON E 15 015 ST NO 21. HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 ----4183005061 OGGUPANX-;;, fk 1 7 4183005061 CLAY,JULIAN D 15 015 ST NO 22 HERMOSA 'BEACH CA 90254 1,., 4183005062 OCCUPANT. - - 15 - 15 ST , N0-23 ." ' . '''''-- HERMOSA BEACH, -CA— 90254 " ,.', Ii7,--'--4183005062' BRUBAKER,-ISABEL -15 '015:ST- "NO-23-•HERMOSA'BEACH-CA "90254. 0:.; 4183005063 .-i3Q&YFLANT-..-lev..., ....,,,,...,1•5.••••••••45....S1---.....4NO-24•••••. -HER MOSA-,.BEACH,--CA-..---90254 -.....-,..Z::.; 4183005063 MCNAGNY,KIRK P 15 015 ST NO 24 HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 -k---- 4183005064- -,G4.1CUP.1.4N-T.-=;;;;;;----------------.7-.7"---.7:15::15,L-S:'NO.:25:1•;:.;:; 7 .:i' HER MOSA,iI3EAC Hi.7.. CA,:,:.4i ,;-:. 90254 • i A 4183005064 "HSUAN,HULBERT C AND CATHERINE 15 015 ST NO 25 HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 4183005065 OCCUPANT 15 15 ST NO 26 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 E.......4183005045- ----7 BALCHEN;ARTHUR-E-AND-JANICE:M----1519 " AYERS-AVE- ------ -------7-0JAI-CA 93823 41V-"6 4183005066 •,OCCUP-ANT,-4,.• , ,,.--‘,.- ., ,... - • •- - I , 4183005066 FOSTER. VERNON G 15 15 ST NO 27 HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 ---4183005069------ OCCUPANT ---4 ------ 1O2 -.-THE STRAN-7.7---------------,---iHERMOSA-BEACH-90254.7----------------- 411L 4183005069 BECKETT,PAUL J AND JUDY C 1502 THE STRAND HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 4183005070 .--14041-1EE;TRAINI--..-”;-••;••.-,-,-n-r----HERMOS43EACH,--CA9025.- 7,- 1-J I r -4183005070' --- - COHAN, RICHARD J . - . ------ ------- -1504 THE .STRAND'UNIT —2 HERMOSA BEACH-ZA 90254---, 4183005071 -8CCt-IP-AN* A -,4.,.-:.S: _ ,,.._ ...,GGGUPANT --": -.1•506* THE STRAN-''''"'''"-" - - - ' -." '' ''''' ' HER MOSA' 'BEACH r- CA''''''''''' '90254' 4183005071 SONNENBLICK,DAVID N AND 1506 THE STRAND HERMOSA BEACH CA _ 90254 7-4183005072-------- OGGUPANT-- --------,-,,,, 1508THE-STRAN,.:'-i-HERMOSA,11EACH7,90254-------- 4183005072 ENKEBOLL,RALPH E 1508 THE STRAND HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 4183005073 OCCUPANT- - . . ,-. • 1510-,-THE-STRAN"---,...... _ --HERMOSA-BEACH', CA.,,,,,:. -90254. ' -4183005073-- 7--ROBBINS;BERNAR6-AND-BARBARA-----1510---THE'STRAND HERMOSA-BEACH-CA------90254-------- ' 4183005074 _OCCUR ANT-7----z-7-7-z-------- -----<-,-. - '-'''''' z, -r" 1512 • •,I• THE • STRAW•11•-4,,,- $ -•,•••••-• ", •••--”- HERMOSA-BEACH,,---CA; 90254 4183005074 WIESE,GREGORY A AND 1512 THE STRAND HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 GEOBASE SYSTEM PARCEL NUMBER SEQUENCE , MAILING LIST CODE: B1 STREET ADDRESS REPOT: GB560A PAGE: 4 41) ob4, 4183005075 1,, 4183005076 4183005076 AbA 4183005077 4183005077 1 4183005078 011, , 4183005078 LA 4183005080 4183005060 4183005081 -- 4183005082 4183005081 4183005082 • BRADFORD,RAYMOND P AND OCCUPANT iSTINGLEY;MICHAEL D AND 'OCCUPANT INGRAM,GILDA M ET AL -OCCUPANT FOX, CHRISTOPHER A AND 1514 THE STRAND HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 77 15 ST NO1 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 NELVIA PO BOX 6025 RANCHO PALOS VERDES-- 90732-- 77 15ST NO2 77 015 ST NO 77---15-ST NO 3 77 015 ST OCCUPANT 77 SARGENT;SCOTTIH AND------------- 2008' PARK, NANCY M - 77 - OCCUPANT 77 ANTICH,T J . 3501 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 4 HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 HERMOSA-BEACH, CA ---90254 15 ST NO 5 RHODESST---------7--- 15ST NO 6 15ST--uNT 7 W WESTCHESTER P STE 204 • HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 HERMOSA' BEACH- CA- ----- 90254 ------ - HERMOSA-- BEACH7"-C-90254"` HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 HERMOSA' BEACH, CA 90254 NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073 4 irp 4, 40 4 1 1 r2 0., 4183005091 OCCUPANT- - -77 • 4183005091 COOPER, ROBERT B AND 77 015 ST NO 13 , DATE: v6/23/90 TIME: 13:10 GEOBASE SYSTEM PARCEL NUMBER SEQUENCE MAILING LIST CODE: 81 ----PARCEL--#-:------OWNER/OCCUPANT-------------------STREET ADDRESS • ZIP 4183005083 OSCUPANT- 4183005083 ROBELOTTU,-SALVATORE M JR 4183005084 ,OCCUPANT 4183005084 CLARK, ANTHONY E — 4183005085- 4183005085 ASBURY PROPERTIES INC 4183005086 escusAwx • •77 15 ST 77 015 ST NO 8, 77 015 ST NO 9 P12 8 IIERMOSA-BEACI I. CA 96254- -774.15CT 4183005086 4183005087 4183005087 4183005089 4183005089 4183005090 4183005090 EARRY:PATRICK J OGSUPANT SHEA,THOMAS R AND LESLIE A =CURAwr BARBER, GERALD AND BONNIE OCCUPANT -SCHERBTWINIFRED J1- REPORT: 1560A PAGE: 5 HERMOSA BEACH -CA . 90254 HERMO5A-BEA5Hr-5A---7-9Q254,- HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 UERMOSA-BEACII; CA- 90254" HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 HERM8CA BE -"C 7 HERMOSA-BEACH-CA-----90254----- -HERMOSA- BEACH, -CA----943254- HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 HERMOSA-90254'--C 77 15ST NO10 77 15 GT NG 11 77 15ST --NO 11 77-- 15 ST. ----NO. 12- 77 015 ST NO 12 77 015 ST NO 14 HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 77 15 ST UNIT 4 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 P 0 BOX -49137 LOS ANGELES CA 90049 —4183013049- OCCUPANT I 0.0 1 4183013049 WILLIAMSON, GEORGE CO -TR . ,., • 4183013050 OCCUPANT '-----4183013050-7-------WOLFSON,STEVEN-13 TR ., 4183013062 OCCUPANT 4183013062 EMERY, CALVIN -- 4183013063 -- 4163013063 es,G 4183013064 4183013064 4183013066 4183013066 - 4183013067. 4183013067 4183013068 -4183013068- _T4183013070 [ ---- 4183013070 4183013071 .7.: 418301.3071 0 41 4183013080 4183013080 HERMOSA-ZEACH,CA-----90254-- HERMOSA BEACH CA . 90254 1400 HERMOSA--A- HERMOSA BEACH. CA 90254 952 VIA DEL MONTE PALOS VERDES ESTATES 90273 1416 HERMOSA A HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 373- PALOS-VERDES PALOS VERDESESTATES90274- 1401 MANHATTAN HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 1642 NELSON AVE MANHATTAN BEACH CA 90266 OCCUPANT ---------- 117 -.PIER AVE- ------.-----.-- BILOWITiSEYMOUR 1212 HERMOSA AVE OCCUPANT 1219 PALM DR -----ARNOLDOLIVER-P-IV TR 22535---OAK-CANYON-RD OCCUPANT 1236 HERMOSA A TITLE, CHRISTIAN M TR 6101 VIA ESCONDIDO OCCUPANT 1242 HERMOSA-A BECK, GEORGE 0 CO TR ET AL 1219 026 ST NO OCCUPANT 1312 HERMOSA A HESS,JEROME AND HELEN S TRS P 0 BOX 1549 1332 HERMOSA A LACSON,JUAN B AND MARY A TRS 441 007 ST 4183013069 OCCUPANT 4183013069 OCCUPANT -tft-R5.1-.NTrOAME8-P OCCUPANT ,64-14.64.44,14ES'F- OCCUPANT LA POINT,JAMES P HERMOSA- BEACH.CA90254.-- HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 SALINAS-CA 93908 -- HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 MALIBU CA 90265 HERMOSA BEACH, CA * 90254 - SANTA MONICA CA 90404 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 TORRANCE CA 90505 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 SANTA MONICA CA 90402 145 PIER AVE HERMOSA BEACWCA- - 90254 -2200---PA5.1F1-0-QOAST-5T-E-250—fIERMA-Cf+-5/61----9525.4-----, 129 PIER AVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 2200;,.PAGIFIC;COAST-STE---200=-1-1ERMOSA--BEACH;-CA--;----90254:--:::•-••-; 1331 MANHATTAN UNIT B HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 2200 PACIFIC COAST STE 200 HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 -• - • ••_ 74183013081------- OCCUPANT 1215 MANHATTAN-- - HERMOSA BEACH,- CA - 90254 4183013081 : LA POINT,JAMES P AND MAUREEN A 417 BERYL ST REDONDO BEACH CA 90277 .C.PAL6.5__LCullY 4.04 (Acm4.44cm.. Av7e... 400004 14. 0 41 1-dt,„„L.f_teivIrs.say.:. 11.10. at. ka thy" .A4mtv__ 41) • • situe_ Aei (tAr f1o,4 00\ R0,34,4AL4A Ave, ba 41- \Q. a \ - - ------.----- 5 111 41g 424 c Easy Reader Run Date: June 28, 1990 DISPLAY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hold a public hearing on July 10, 1990 to consider the following: Second Quarter General Plan amendments 1. To either remain R -2B zoning with General Plan amended from Low Density to Medium Density or change to R-1 zoning to be consistent with the General Plan and adoption of a Negative Declaration for Area 10, location generally between Barney Court and Meyer Court, from south City Boundary to the rear of lots fronting on 2nd Street to the north (continued from May 8, 1990 meeting).* 2. Adoption of the "Parks & Recreation Master Plan" as an amendment to the Open Space Element of the General Plan and adoption of a Negative Declaration. 3. To consider General Plan redesignation and rezoning of the Biltmore Site publicly owned portion from a Specific Plan Area for a hotel to residential and commercial designations or to such other designations/zones as deemed appropriate by the City Council and adoption of a Negative Declaration. The areas under consideration are bounded by 15th Street on the north, the Strand on the west, 14th Street on the south & approximately 350' west of Hermosa Avenue on the east, and the area bounded by Hermosa Avenue on the east, the Beach Drive on the west, between 14th, Court & 13th Street.* 4. Adoption of the Final Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element as an amendment to the General Plan, and adoption of a Negative Declaration. *Maps on file in Planning Department in City Hall. SAID PUBLIC HEARING shall be at 8:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested are invited to participate a t„tbat time and place or to write to the City Council in care of the Planning Department at the above address prior to Thursday, July 5, 1990 at 12:00 noon. IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Department at, or prior to, the public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Planning Department at 318-0242. Elaine Doerfling City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the c)2/ -k._ day of c ) _ , 1990 , deposit into the United States Post Office, first class postage prepaid, a copy of the Public Notice attached as Exhibit "A" to each and every person attached as Exhibit "B". I warrant that the persons named on Exhibit "B" are all the persons required by applicable law to receive the Public Notice attached as Exhibit "A". Iunderstand and: agree that it is my responsibility..to cause these Public Notices to be made in an aaccurate and timely fashion andagree 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 causeany approvals given pursuant to those Public Notices to be declared null and void and I agree on behalf -of myself and 'my heirs,assigns 'or" successors -in -interest to hold the City harmless in connection therewith. I declare under penalty. of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. :I.have executed this declaration on this the 3 rel._ day 1990 at 'Hermosa Beach, - California . State of California .) County of Los Angeles ) SS 0 this the j day of , 1990 before me, fir. , t nd signed Notary Public, personally appeared v )/,,9q 4 and proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence o be the person(s). whose name(s) suscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Yiu6- 71,k1 (Name) (S'ignature-)> 4MINrS7"24T/ue AO? (Capacity) (SEAL) OFFICIAL SEAL LAURICE M. DUKE 1 Notary Public - Cntlfnrnle PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN L A. COUNTY My Comm. Exp. Mer. 12, 1993 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH '15 Valley Drive ermosa Beach, CA 90254 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PUBLIC NOTICE BILTMORE SITE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (PUBLICLY OWNED PORTION) • TO CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION AND REZONING OF THE BILTMORE SITE PUBLICLY OWNED PORTION FROM A SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR A HOTEL TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach will hold a public hearing on July 10, 1990, to consider a General Plan redesigna- ftion and rezoning of the Biltmore Site publicly owned portion from a Specific _'lan Area for .a hotel to residential & commercial designations or to such other designations/zones as deemed appropriate by the City Council and adop- tion of a Negative Declaration. The areas under consideration are bounded by. 15th Street on the north, The Strand on the west, 14th Street on the south & approximately 350' west of Hermosa Avenue on the east, and the area bounded by Hermosa Avenue on the east, the Beach Drive on the west, between 14th court & 13th Street. A map of these areas is on the reverse side for your reference. A large scale map is on file in the Planning Department. SAID HEARING shall be at 8:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter may. be heard, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California. ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested are invited to participate and speak at this hearing at the above time and place. Persons wishing to send written com- munication on this project should write to the Planning Department in care of City Hall at the above address prior to Thursday, July 5, 1990 at 12:00 noon. IF YOU CHALLENGE THIS PROJECT IN COURT, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Department at, or prior to, the public hearing [Government Code Section 65009 (b) (c)]. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Planning Department at 318-0242. A copy of the staff report will be available for public review on July 6, 1990 ( at the Hermosa Beach Public Library. JYOFUE : 0 'ACH Michael Schubach Planning Director Easy Reader Run Date: May 24, 1990 DISPLAY (Acct: 7010-2110 PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hold a public hearing on June 5,1990 to consider the following: 1. Conditional Use Permit for off -sale, general alcoholic beverages and adoption of a Negative Declaration at 1031 Hermosa Avenue, Golden Lion Liquor. 2. Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map #22184 for a 2 -unit condominium at 160 Manhattan Avenue. 3. Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow live entertainment from 4:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. on weekends and holidays at 22 Pier Avenue, The End Zone. Second Quarter General Plan amendments 4. Adoption of the "Parks & Recreation Master Plan" as an amendment to the Open Space Element of the General Plan and adoption of a Negative Declaration. 5. To consider General Plan redesignation and rezoning of the Biltmore Site publicly owned portion from a Specific Plan Area for a hotel to residential and commercial designations or to such other designations/zones as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and adoption of a Negative Declaration. The areas under consideration are bounded by 15th Street on the north, the Strand on the west, 14th Street. on the south & approximately 350' west of Hermosa Avenue on the east, and the area bounded by Hermosa Avenue on the east, the Beach Drive on the west, between 14th Court & 13th Street.* 6. Adoption of the General Plan Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element, and adoption of a Negative Declaration. *Map on file in Planning Department in City Hall. SAID PUBLIC HEARING shall be at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested are invited to participate at that time and place or to write to the Planning Commission in care of the Planning Department at the above address prior to Thursday, May 10, 1990 at 12:00 noon. IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Department at, or prior to, the public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Planning Department at 318-0242. A copy of the staff report(s) will be available for public review on June 1, 1990 at the Hermosa Beach Public Library. Michael Schubach Planning Director City of Hermosa Beach CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the (;24-411. day of M1-4, , 1990 , deposit into the United States Post Office, first class .postage prepaid, a copy of the Public Notice attached as Exhibit "A" to each and every person attached as Exhibit ".B!'. I warrant that the persons named on Exhibit "B" -,are all the•"persons required by applicable law to receive the Public Notice attached as Exhibit "A". I understand and agree that it. is my responsibility to cause these Public, Notices to be made in an 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. I have executed this declaration on this the '.3�' i-.. `day (14-T , 1990 at Hermosa Beach, California. YLC - Y'N 77/1/41- (Name) 7AJ r(Name) 12,`ettkl , ,Stiff Gln-ut( etA,..41.7%_C U4a (Capacity) • State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) SS 2,2 On. this the day of '%(�� 199 before me, 40.e;,!'/C �U,` cr�J, the unOersigned Notary Public, personally appeared y% yjr,,-; %/'az and proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) ;457 suscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that ,7J4> executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) �. OFFICIAL SEAL LAURICE M. DUKE Notary Public • Caiitr.rnh PRINCIPAL )FF.(:E rN L. A. COUNTY My Comm. Exp. Mar. 12, 1993 —73— PUBLIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH P15 Valley Drive mosa Beach, CA 90254 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PUBLIC NOTICE BILTMORE SITE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (PUBLICLY OWNED PORTION) TO CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION AND REZONING OF THE BILTMORE SITE PUBLICLY OWNED PORTION FROM A SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR A HOTEL TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach will hold a public hearing on June 5, 1990, to consider a General Plan redesignation and rezoning of the Biltmore Site publicly owned portion from a vecific Plan Area for a hotel to residential & commercial designations or to uch other designations/zones as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and adoption of a Negative Declaration. The areas under consideration are bounded by 15th Street on the north, The Strand on the west, 14th Street on the south & approximately 350' west of Hermosa Avenue on the east, and the area bounded by Hermosa Avenue on the east, the Beach Drive on the west, between 14th court & Street. A map of these areas is on the reverse side for your reference. A large scale map is on file in the Planning Department. SAID HEARING shall be at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California. ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested are invited to participate and speak at this hearing at the above time and place. Persons wishing to send written com- munication on this project should writeto the Planning Department in care of City Hall at the above address prior to Thursday, May 31, 1990 at 12:00 noon. IF YOU CHALLENGE THIS PROJECT IN COURT, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Department at, or prior to, the public hearing [Government Code Section 65009 (b) (c)]. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Planning Department at 318-0242. copy of the staff report will be available for public review on June 1, 1990 the Hermosa Beach Public Library. Y OF HERMOSA :BEAC ;- 10y ac ng Director THOMAS R. FF:ANCIS 15 FIFTEENTH STREET UNIT 2 HERMOSA, BEACH 90254 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH 90254 3 IMO I WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER MY OBJECTIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL'S CONTINUING EFFORTS TO DEVELOP THE BILTMORE SITE, IN. OBVIOUS DEFIANCE OF THE WILL OF THE VOTERS. CITY COUNCILS HAVE, IN THE FAST, CREATED SPECIFIC FLANS TO SATISFY DEVELOPERS OF HOTELS. THE HOTELS WERE FORTUNATELY DEFEATED. SEVERAL TIMES AT THE POLES. CITY. COUNCILS HAVE PLACED PROPOSITIONS ON THE BALLOT 'IN ORDER TO DILUTE A VOTE ON A PARK THIS UNFORTUNATELY WORKED AND SOMETHING WE ALL COULD HAVE ENJOYED WAS DEFEATED. I MUST SERIOUSLY• QUESTION THE MOTIVATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL IN THIS EFFORT TO REDESIGNATE AND REZONE THE GENERAL PLAN AS CONCERNS THE BILTMORE SITE. IN RELATIONSHIP TO THIS PROPOSED REVISION TO THE GENERAL PLAN, I SPECIFICALLY OBJECT TO THE ATTEMPT TO ALLOW THE CITY COUNCIL THE LATITUDE TO DETERMINE REDESIGNATION OR REZONING "AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE". IT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SELDOM DOES ANYTHING IN THE BEST INTEREST IF THE PEOPLE. I REQUEST THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSAL TO REVISE THE HERMOSA BEACH GENERAL PLAN BE CLARIFIED TO LIMIT THE AUTHORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL. I ALSO FEEL THAT ANY FINAL DECISION HAVING A"LONG TERM AFFECT ON THE BILTMORE SITE SHOULD BE DECIDED BY POPULAR VOTE. THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO KNOW, SPECIFICALLY, WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL IS ATTEMPTING. I FEEL THAT ALLOWING THE CITY COUNCIL THE DISCRETION TO DO ANYTHING BASED SOLELY ON ITS DETERMINATION THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE WOULD BE NAIVE. THOMAS R. FRANCIS June 20, 1990 Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Mr. Northcraft, RECEIVED JUN 2 61990 i!3 199 Last night I watched with great interest the broadcast of the recent Planning Commission debate on the perennial issue of "The Biltmore Site", and what the Commission should recommend to the City Council and yourself to do with this both controversial and valuable piece of property. I can empathize with each of the Commissioner's opinions, and the logic behind the various positions; i.e. to designate the parcel Open Space, R-2 Residential, or Commercial/Open Space; all genuine attempts to balance responsible planning with good fiscal and civic responsibilities. After following this issue for over five years, I can certainly understand everyone's personal frustrations; and in the end, the most accurate comment of the session was "unfortunately, this is no longer a planning issue, but a political issue." Might I suggest, however, that perhaps we have all been too close to this subject to truly understand what has happened "politically" in regards to The Biltmore Site and the encompassing Specific Plan Area. As an example ... at what point did the selling -off of this parcel get inexorably linked with the purchase of Open Space in the Greenbelt area? ... By whom, and why? As I'm sure you are aware, any governmental body has a wide variety of choices when deciding on the funding of a civic project or public land purchase. Why then has the Greenbelt Open Space Purchase been considered possible only with the selling -off of The Biltmore Site? Are there not numerous funding alternatives? HOLLYWOOD 1755 N. Highland Avenue • Los Angeles, California 90028 • 213/462-7181 • Telex: 181337 • Fax: 213/466-9072 Operated by Holiday Inns, Inc. _4r— Paae Two CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA If we could all free ourselves from this "linkage" of funding, perhaps the issue could be considered a bit more logically; i.e. that the site in question is located directly between a high-density residential area and a very active commercial area, and as expert city planners, the Planning Commissioners and yourself must agree that the two environs do not mix; that designating the area as Residential, Commercial, or even a combination of both will not work, no matter what the developers may propose. Clearly, The Biltmore Site needs to be designated Open Space. Yes, perhaps you might say that the voters of Hermosa Beach have already made their decision on this topic, however 1 believe the entire issue has been clouded in the voter's minds with this most illogical linkage of The Biltmore Site sell-off and the Greenbelt Open Space purchase. As a responsible civic leader for Hermosa Beach, 1 urge you to separate these two issues when deciding the fate of this very special piece of real estate: The Biltmore Site. Since -I Craig Schwan General Manager and Hermosa Beach Resident 15 15th Street May 25, 1990 .A Q`{ 3 Planning Department CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Re: Rezoning of the Biltmore Site To Whom It May Concern: • After the multitude of rezoning initiatives presented to, and rejected by the voters of Hermosa Beach in the past few years over the ill - famed "Biltmore Site", it amazes me that we are once again being coerced into fighting "another round" with the Planning Department over this perennial issue. The "learning -curve" of the Planning Department in my opinion, is definitely suspect. Hotel, Commercial and Residential zoning proposals for this site have all been offered, and turned down.. by the citizens of this community; however the obvious grassroots support of the Biltmore Open Space proposal is being totally ignored by the Planning Department: As George; Bush -would state, "Read Our Lips ... We Want an Open Space Zoning Designation for The Biltmore Site !" Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Department: ... give up the futile fight for a commercial and residential designation for this long ago decided zoning issue in our community ... withdraw this" latest proposal, listen to your constituents, and offer the only available proposal that we have asked for time and time, again ... Propose An Open Space Zoning Initiative for The Biltmore Site. Craig Schwan, Resident 15 15th Street Hermosa Beach, California 90254 THE REV. CANON RICHARD I. S. PARKER 2110 BORDEN AVENUE HERMOSA, BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 The Hon. Roger Creighton Mayor Hermosa Beach, California `bear Mayor Creighton, August 14, 1990 _ As a resident of ,Hermosa Beach since 1939 and Rector Emeritus of St. Cross'Episcopal Church where I served forty-one years, I am writing as a deeply concerned citi- _zen regarding the use -of the.BILTMORE property. The Biltmore property, the only.open space remaining w, on the entire.HermosaBeach.front, belongs to all the citi- zens and should be developed for their use and enjoyment, ,rather than for commercial or residential use. The City of Hermosa Beach has provided through the years adequate schools, and playgrounds for the children, and more recently, the Green Path for exercizing for ...._____.younger ,.people.... _:I_ urge that the City Council set aside the Biltmore -property. -as a park�where'our older citizens. especially can enjoy the beauty of the ocean and the beach environment. Many of them find it physically impossible to walk in the sand and to sit down on the sand and rise again. 'It is also hazardous for them to walk on the Strand because of the many bicyclers, roller skaters and runners. A park would be greatly appreciated by many of the _, physically handicapped regardless of age. I sincerely hope that the Council will in its wisdom designate the Biltmore site as a park for the whole.com- munity, to be enjoyed by all the residents but especially by our senior citizens. SUPPLEMENTAL (FORMATION 7 7ELEC0 P1ER (2131 376-3531 August 8, 1990. NEWTON AND ,NEWTON 555 PIER AVENUE, SUITE 4 HEH_'KOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 TELEPHONE (2131 372-4636 The Honorable Roger Creighton, Mayor. Members of the City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CAS 90254 Re: BILTMORE.SITE Public Hearing: August 14, 1990 Dear Mayor and Counsel Members: WESTWOOD OFFICE 10880 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 1900; ;j•. LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90024 (2131 208-7300; fiCElltb" AuG o 81990 IP d �1. I am writing 'this `letter' to communicate my thoughts and concerns, relative to your proposed rezoning of the Biltmore Site. I plan to be in attendance at the public hearing on August 14, 1990. I hope at that time to address each of you. However, because of the number of potential speakers and the three, minute time limitation, I thought it prudent to reduce some of my comments and concerns, to writing. As a resident, I have the same quality_ of life concerns as 'Others have expressed on many occasions during debate on the Biltmore Site issue. Traffic, density, pollution and noise are not conditions I - seek • to encourage or draw into' the community Icall home. -In those areas of Hermosa Beach zoned residential; I am as militant as the next person when it comes to these issues. I am also cognizant that I have made a conscientious decision to live in a beach community. I was aware before I•moved here that I would live •on: a 'small -lot close to my neighbors. '`To me, the advantages outweigh -the disadvantages. If Hermosa Beach is to remain a viable municipality and not be absorbed by Manhattan Beach or Redondo Beach, it must take steps to upgrade and improve its commercial base. Most residents seem to ignore this fundamental fact. There are currently pending in the courts several challenges to the current method of taxing residential property, based on equal protection challenges to Proposition 13. Should Hermosa Beach or any other small municipality lose some of these revenues, other sources of income will have to be found. User fees are unpopular for the most part, and are not sufficient to support quality public services. What this town needs is a more receptive approach to commercial development and revitalization. Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach should not be benefiting from the receipt of tax revenues generated by customers and shoppers from Hermosa Beach. There is no reason why Hermosa Beach should be a second-class citizen in the South Bay. Riviera Village is no more quaint or charming than Pier Avenue. It was simply planned better. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION The Honorable Roger CreightOn Members of City Council August 8, 1990 Page Two With all due respect to' each of yoti,, a decision to rezone the entire Biltmore Site residential is fundamentally the wrong.. • decision. I served :on...a :citizens' task force which exhaustively studied this_issue.:,.Eleven residents from vastly different backgrounds -and persuasions spent over one hundred hours talking_ to - cIty_r2- staff-, local residents, business -owne'rs representatives of the Coastal Commission. We explored dozens of. - possible uses for the Biltmore Site, ranging from a skateboard • park to an oil:drilling site. At the conclusion of several-:: months of review, only two igembers of this group favored the, action you are currently seeking to implement. Our recommendation to the City Council consisted of a compromise on -the -part of the -eight -members who co-signed the majority report- (aside- from --the two residential- votes, one vote was for open -space). -.Personally, my original position was that the site should:be:rezoned commercial, given the following: :(1) under our certified land use plan, the area is within the commercial zone; (2) commercial use is "visitor serving" and thus has priority overresidential, within the mandate of Section 30222 of the Public Resources Code (Division 20, California Coastal Act); and (3)-planned,1-_controlled_commercial_development'would_provide both immediate income,. as well as a stream of income over the years. . . . . L.altimatelp›-compromised,Fon ,this.position,to help -forge a consens-ushe;.finaL-recommendation of the task, force was to leave -the original hotel site open space, and rezone (and sell) the back lots as, commercial. Rezoning the back lots as residential was voted down for primarily two reasons: (1) the task_force did .not believe, -based on the presentation' from the Coastal Commission, that residential zoning would be approved -- even if the money derived therefrom went to purchase more open space. According to the representative who spoke with us, the Coastal Commission would not allow trade-offs, i.e., selling this site to acquire open space in some other location. The issue before the Commission will be whether or. not Hermosa Beach can sustain its burden of proof and -establish that the Biltmore Site is not lisuitable .for visitor -serving -commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance '.public opportunities for coastal recreation (Pub.. Res..Code, Section 30222); and (2) residential development in the downtown commercial area was inconsistent with the General. Plan and would only serve to exacerbate the conflict between residents and business. The Honorable Roger Creighton Members of City Council August 8, 1990 Page Three The arguments in favor of -residential zoning (aside from ending the debate on this contentious issue). is financial: the City will -receive a -large sum of -money with which it can acquire more open space.. While facially attractive, this begs the larger issue: theneed to -revitalize and upgrade downtown so th'e residents',needs areserved and a'solid tax' base is provided 'to keep`lerniosaa' Seach an independent :'•municipality. ' - - A better result can: be- accomplished by -following the recommendation ofthetask force.- The -sale -of the': back lots as commercial property, according to testimony before the task force, would produce in excessof$2 million. The tax base' would be increased, additional fees would flow to the City over many years to come, and the' residents -would have their park-. The net effect - is improvement in the downtown area, a substantial sum of 'money realized by the' City, and -avoidance of the residential/business conflict created whenever residents move into areas dominated by commercial,'activity (witness the problem along Pacific Coast Highway). There-- 'need- be -no fear of ',what -type . of =commercial development would take place on the back lots. Through your use of the CUP process, or through deed -'restrictions, you could make'sure that any development would serve the-'needs'of the residents, provide additional revenue to the City, and enhance the downtown area. DuringD:the task- i'force' meetings; -consideration- was given to a qua 1°i ty: resturant'' or upscale ,:retai'l establishments ', :Whatever ulti'inately ' was 'built "on those lots would be more beneficial to the city than the addition of a few more wealthy residents living in expensive Strand property complaining about the noise and traffic generated"by the downtown commercial establishments. In conclusion, -I want to thank each of you for taking the time to read this letter. No matter what decision you come to, I urge you to reach a decision. Any decision, even a wrong one from my perspective, is better than no decision. JLN:ksh August 7, 1990 CMayor Roger Creighton and` Members of the. City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mayor and City Council: I am writing this letter to encourage you to reconsider your action of last month, which was to rezone the Biltmore Site (by a straw vote).Residential, and to ask that you approve a compromise plan which would allow for the development -of a park on the front portion of the site -and commercial development on the back portion. • _ As you know, the Biltmore Committee, appointed by the City Council, made a similar recommendation early last year; that recommendation was modified and ultimately placed on the ballot alongside the Parker Herriott 100% Open Space Park measure. During the campaigning process, it was very confusing for people to see the mixed uses (park, residential and commercial) and I feel that many people simply chose to vote against such uses because they weren't sure what they meant. However, it is very clear that a majority of the people do want to see a park on the site (if you combine the votes for each of the measures) and I feel that the compromise measure would be good for several reasons, including: 1. If the Council so desired, it could provide income from the sale of the rear property to be used to purchase open space property in .other areas of the city. 2. As commercially -zoned property, the parking area could be maintained --or even expanded --at the discretionof the City Council, since parking seems to be one of the deterrents for viable commercial development m the downtown area., 3. It allows the City Council to decide exactly what improvements will or will not be allowed at the park and allows for changes to be made as times change. As you know, the proposed Parker Herriott measure locks the site into specific, very restrictive uses that can only be changed by another vote of the people. Please adopt a measure to provide for a park and commercial development on this site. It's time for a compromise on both sides. Sincerely, u. ,ciut.4),khu Merna Marshall 360 - 33rd Place Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 7 • . r • a i\n- c;" c,p7 Rs kir ce r P)bi o'vfi-t( covPdtill to fpm& 6fe_S l RECEIVED 4J/ 7-L ,4 JUL 231990 //2 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATIO4 )2 7 -city /9g(3 1.11) ,7/' H n?r..•a; f= ••_ILS /719 9oar"7 1e you Sflou!Mt)r 5Cv-)t)A /Y)? SucGbs -S �(�o!"o SAL F�(- Rbuiu7ai of 7716 s ,.,nno/J) ) 673 7/v/9 77/A -T ft S NoTE-A .o44 r t:1/0A) g5. -in . l-, AT yov2 N6 7-- (1)66T7tJ 6%,>.A; a/ 3 ---tet, 11,0 ) f)Sfr''E/' 7-C, .L Fv e7') 6t Sv c c b -s % A 7 77i' -row Tf/ Fut (.0!) 4v6 , Ti1117 you _1-7/74 m61yATLy pov5-7 rc ►, Ta zrsoe� -'i-f Ar TIS" A P onV 3" Sr'6 c'W ' 15';^.7V6 Dg. .Sf 6zl,9L . 19e17 's I - • 7-b 77) fece wr T} ()-r- You a)) L1,, W net. 6- To PuT A S/NGLc. gFl.0°7- 0^511Sver. aN 77.1 Nov enlace Gi;:'1�5f-n c.._ L_bL.T ' Ar TN rs B cLor m 6 -PS CCPF 43 c s o f 6/.1196- }I ALONG 77!r 4' '6-S. CCS' or"sftJG otvui 41 aDA) r .eMj� inn 3 F ?O.;z --PLAN TO — A 6\) f 'x(7/17 k) TV ./Jo `}3 PRoPO.s&r /N m y cGCC& 171 or / \D w • -•Krr•J6- fl (-Tip N y'bS (N rrt4 l E, c! ,) NO- ,f()..,:; --,r) i . • CAS kJfThi n 6'6'DPC& gbS6R9NG T Es t- Tv, t i N r I .r'r ; f'r' _ .n / ,,J s/T5-7 co ( 7,i fi y 1I' •1 fl Z I Itv)s �l�• ,. Rfi F*6-lt1/i1 1 A) ... ► T1J n N. 7 11/yc) H AY OF (cS r Ti -f e E;6 (N') E; r-) S ("as c 0 cA a( .H s6 -»J U�' Nt7T �0 4..G" ,R, -To ;6l�Iv�G�T-b•Isig )C77ON y -3-ttS7' Tell$ C7l`I COO.N At7"' p z)P! (.� A S '/\,1G1- r 0016=6- GF S-) r 'n) -r- ted" .sFI6^Ae.., Foc.4.-Y, 1.6 `L TO" ?R\) Pus/1L . . A C c (re Q0 rn. !sr UM: 'C H n '- —r fin, ex)(c.C o) f': iz F= Tr. (1^ OkS{... -7) ,/:2:,? bilTA 74.2/51) 11 ! ' 'i'i 9L :;J '-,.; )D%)6y•'•. bj 8th IS 0 r.,b i Jt .'N^'Pl /t b_' Imo. J � � 10 NOTr :,, N 1 Cow NC.: toe , 77.1 G 1.#1 PJ L SS 1/O Tb' — Fl S is U, 4, . oR Som d 67-6-s spur/ % • C e- E r . (Y) p ti t- J t � 01� f , ' , I. • , / l r / 1 j ..,:f :L =-1-,? N b2). v/s, 02,E -.e SOLL4nap) ,i/ • s ! .;i .4� •'A I •..., Y C' �•I S'7 I. p f i.i i . ' i( ! .1 C., t • T— 1 1`gin ;� , b �/ q7.(>�. l« .5H ' " t �f'14:r i'Ll R i i 1!.?11 2E'1t) s� f'1` • i R.04-:--- /An/ VR `' `` 0 7771 1 1 • ,. . _ 1yi'4 •• fy . -1117sNrr .x 1 . ti.. G3.75- • a e,t , g • AC> , it 1 Cl 3 ( / 11 SR 451 .i ..a. (EX : > • f' ' •-• IMR/N%fi/ 406) ,,..) , • r / _ '' 3 -Lor L/A4 • • 10' NOTE' i);'/ 1-orUf .'� : ". C+ s Q FEET f 1--t- c L&J/N / 0" 1S F141,2 L& '.4.61452C-2 Ti-/'3rJ /,v F 3 4Lor 04= . c-� T L�1 Fi (C.H v -)o .i . j PS' 7Y 7 0.• ti N i / , T 1 / E� r') �• � • � DoT" S I -P G'" is C) o(.4 r,) T G 7"7 1E 1 J /1 I F. c ).� � ..� (• ' ,� . f"t'� C.??, L C C C7) 1 r 'NAG 4`; /I • , 80 '1 , . • . i ...... k_, T -, • 1 1 / - 1 • 1. ... . i . • . 7 I 1 •-. 0 , 1 • A /.1 ..? t ;A•I .; ., 1 4 ...11. r\ i . 75-....., , u r? `,i ': , .1 ) • • • '. 1 1EX VS,771J6'11 I LP L f) il il r-, ......, ... -..r. , ..., it.- 1• , 1 ..,, • 1 .,• ; . 1 ;,-7 .' ,,ii.:•;e.") 4 , L. ....„ 1 . C.,>1.., 1 .1) 7.. /..: 1 , 1. i 0 D ,... 3 . .:, • , 1-.).%.-,,,,,- . ‘,..1 €, •' ',.... . --D.. --- .. - --i !. Is° • el .,:-. Ls( ,...1 ,. ; 1, F1t • ; ... ., ....., „) ..7..›...,.... i , ___...... . . , 7..-tc.: 1.1. I3QAS' 1 I 1 1 4; .e;': lei:. /.!.. ;"1"-'4":. • •'. f'. / -T-'-3,., ' .... I 1 '\,_..'• )1Z7P 10 / .• \ t'') \ / i„ v ...---- .......„ ,,,,, L2 / i/\ 1 I 1 • • • ; , 'Cy g, r?6'.• .• Ali f m 77/f FOt:.L(760/t'fr 5c)Gu-70l`i p O r)PPS" p o.5 A ri ,\J P • ova/gc. 1:)- ( Li / '-'-mo ;! • NO -TY 3 w ' ILL 1, b'Yy i:4(. (a U V) r) fJ 1-51,-.S (i C 013 SMC- Fl if ry D ,i N S u P p iia A Lt.- c f i.c""' PRcr /N/77,92,-,/,2, cPbT. S CG Oma_ o ,tGi i J OL. / orb -2 . / , , Pc_us cor'11r1biz )mL pi s/?& fRo 2 t 4m12 . ,s r" o o 6-1R.9-1 R J,� C ort) in 6-62. !AC C 6-S A)0T [ ti -t &6-. o & Thh AY /oC T7 Ai , it.L iSR/i' o (. To 2. 1 fLLI DN osv C JnO b eC.1 iiL GI1ItL. Cji (7 -OTT. i -k ai3. L oPt � SPMS- z N o R I17IN A(- 5/Th, C7 N PC) T7 on) rn.Q-r 0 F- L 611•C( 4 7b MILL DN -is. of-ungS '•�1 / L. L,. G b b i J1�IC!�`G�j, C:1'SPC AR(0) 31'''-c,(4. L ,,'s /�f � b if°,977/ ti+J/ t .�4 foR f 6 ,jS6-1,J2'K6 , No GROSS. A f 6 -)v -Ter ol= s(: ^I/ 4"-x(.g' 4-4( NG Rut= �LA, Su dG 7 12L 11a b ,3 1 - 07 -,E -/A 63 7a igr R1sTb1, Jff?Lim Pvo7 btJ?bb-- /Ylo 6 i i aF tlC47/1- 177 63 bg C.d,fcr!ivt.c; 0 f /fl:47-4N-el/tL4 ,8620 ,2.. t O D .K1 IAC 7 (` T -/r)'1 o a 6- S' /76r , O i;b.- O P (s1-) .S C C l3b��'�../�-� v . 7��>' Cbz /s IVO /11 Fab -S3/ T `1 rO /r 6 r✓o v vrn. k 1,007-1 I" HumtW 9 bfbs, ti` /✓ RtCE1VfU JUL 16 1990 igQ APPQ%f Ji TF 13 LU 51) Cr IF ,97- 'fou 12 b /1.7 b-6-7-4 %i- Yo coobi F! You R. Lr`1i') (Ti a 0 ivt r- �N� �� O ff' � '�' j� 14pL E� � �; �- A j�1j /,BVI � 3`�1,� `---��32� C'L�^ P� -- w.: S ?bibs og I pi -R(7 -P �. g • 14/04;— s0 aS i ©1 Ue.I(A/oq. twit L i9cHi v q 72, -/ate o6L1=t,ef ff e "kis 0P. A/J 77 f fir j oU 113 U.- . 0 a' -' Sfist;t? rr` .• �g 4- -7726 . f R K- (4.)it-C.- . 1,4 iv t-1 g ?_ N oT V lr? L L'"...1 ft. srt}-s r DTA" s uG% ;,-STa1\ EL NJ Prq- - v' 3 h'7hc%Li/ O.- &n to thouf6-(2 g 4A/ 4 APPENDI: VIII Notice of Determi( :tion To: Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street. Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 X County Clerk County of Los Angeles P.0.. Box 151 Main Post Office Appendix H From: (Public Agency) City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive (des) Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Corporation Room 106 L.A. CA 90053 Subject: Filing of`Noticeof Determination in with Section 21108 or 21152 of. the Public Resources:Zode. Biltmore Site and' Parking' Lot C Project Title 90010574 Michael Schubach (213) 318-0Z42 State CIearinghouse•Number Lead Agency Area CodeiTelephonelExtension Bf submitted to Clearinghouse) Contact P n iltmore Site: East side of the Strand generay between 14th Street and 15th Street, 'and extending to r_ approx. 350' west of Hermosa Avenue, City of Hermosa Beach, County of L.A. a atiking Lot "" :.. rom 13th St. to 14th _Ct. oetw eri Hermosa h\e: ue Sr Beach. Dr.., Hemosa.._ -Project Locatfoti (include county) Beach, County of Los Angeles Project Description: Bil tmore Site: General Phan amendment from Specific Plan Area to Medium Density Residentia. Zone Change from Specific Plan Area for hotel use to residential use. Parking Lot "C": General Plan amendment from Specific Plan Are to General Commercial. Zone' change from Specific Plan Area to C-2 Restricted Commercial. This is to advise• [Fiat the i. t y . o € Hermosa_ Beach has approved the above described project on CaLeactAgericy ( Responsible Agency August 14, 1990 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project (Date) 1. The project [(will ®will not] haves significant effect on the environment.• 2. ( An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. DA Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures [(were ®were not] made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations [(was ®was not] adopted for this project. 5. Findings [(were were not] made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the final E1R /litRommentes and reslpoanses anaon recora of project approval is available to the General Public at City of_Hermosa.Beach, Planning Dept. 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, CA 902E Date received for filing at OPR: Revised October 1989 Notice of Determ " ition To: Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk County of Los Angeles P.O.Box 151 Main Post Office Corporation Room 106 L.A. CA 90053 C Appendix H From: (Public Agency) City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Maims) Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. • Biltmore Site and- Parking Lot C Project Title 90010574 Michael Schubach (213) 318-0242 State Clearinghouse Number - Lead Agency Area Codefl'elephone/Extension (If submitted to Clearinghouse) Contact Person Biltmore Site: East side of the Strand generally between 14th Street and 15th Street, and extending to approx. prox. 350' west of Hermosa Avenue, City of Hermosa Beach, County of L.A. p_Packing Lot' "' : , r. rom l3tn St. to 14th Ct_. oetween Hermosa Aye.:ue & Beach. Dr. , Hermosa .. -Project Location (include county) .Beach, County of . Los Angeles Project Description: • Bil tmore Site: General 'Plan amendment from Specific Plan Area to Medium Density Residentia Zone Change from Specific Plan Area for hotel use to residential use. Parking Lot "C": General Plan amendment from Specific Plan Are to General Commercial. Zone, change from. Specific Plan Area to C-2 Restricted Commercial. This is to advise that the City of - Hermosa Beach . has approved the above described project on [tread Agency (2 Responsible Agency August 14, 1990 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project (Date) 1. The project [Owill ®will not] have a significant effect on the environment. 2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. DA Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures [Owere ®were not] made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations [Owas ®was not] adopted for this project. 5. Findings [Owere ®were not] made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This iswcertif that the finalEIlZwN /Negative Declaration Y to comments antlresponses anrecord of project approval is available to the General Public at City of Hermosa Beach, Planning Dept. 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, CA 902`. Signature (Pu (f)/2-/ro Date received for filing at OPR: Date Title ctiue �9.�d Revised October 1989 _ STATE OF CALIFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 July 5,1990 Ken Robertson City of Hermosa Beach Planning 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA .90254 Subject: Biltmore Site/Parking Lot C SCH# 90010574 Dear Mr. Robertson: JUL9199 The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above named proposed Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period is now closed and the comments from the responding agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. On the enclosed Notice of Completion form you will note that the Clearinghouse has checked the agencies that have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete. If the comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Remember to refer to the project's eight -digit State Clearinghouse number so. that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104 of the California Public Resources Code required that: "a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be .carried out or approved by the agency." Commenting agencies are also required by this section to support their comments with specific documentation. Should you need more information or clarification, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency at your earliest convenience. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact Barbara. Ceran at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, David C. Nunenkamp Deputy Director, Permit Assistance Enclosures ;;.ATE OE CALIFORNIA C, GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD - LOS ANGELES REGION 101 CENTRE PLAZA DRIVE MONTEREY PARK, CALIFORNIA 91754-2156 (213) 266-7500 June 22, 1990 - Ken'"R�btrtnon- City of Hermosa Beach Planning Department 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 File: .700. 339 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST - ZONE CHANGE TO LOW OR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN, BILTMORE SITE. SCH#90010574: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH .We have reviewed the subject document regarding the proposed- -project, and.. have the following comments: Based on -the information provided, =-we •recommend -the following: - E. We have no further comments at this time. The proposed project should address the attached comments. Thank you for this opportunity to review your document. If you have any questions, please contact Eugene C. Ramstedt at -•(213) 266- 7553. JOHN L. LEWIS,, Uriit.Chief Technical Support Unit • cc: Garrett Ashley, State Clearinghouse Attachment(s): Sewage/Waste Disposal (07-13-89) Robertson Page 1. 1. Sewage/Waste Disposal Concerns: a. Identify the type(s) of waste(s) to be discharged. b.—Specify-the projected sewage flow rate. c." The disposal of wastewaters for the proposed project may be subject to Waste Discharge Requirements issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. Therefore, a permit application should be submitted to this office at least 120 days prior to the projected opening of this facility. d. The projject must demonstrate that wastewaters from the project will be adequately collected, transported, and that the receiving treatment plant will have adequate capacity to treat, and dispose of the wastewaters in a satisfactory manner. e. An analysis of the cumulative flows generated by allmproposed, pending and approved projects within the service area of the designated treatment plant. If expansion of the treatment plant facilities will be required to meet projected wastewater demand, the applicant must demonstrate that additional capacity will be available prior to new connections for ... ; proposed development.:. - .a. f. We require that a statement of sewer availability be obtained from the Central District, Bureau of Engineering; .• stating that there will be available treatment capacity at the time of connection. A copy of this letter must be sent to this Regional Board prior to the approval of this project. g. In order to determine whether Waste Discharge Requirements will be needed, we request that the applicant list the types of services that will be allowed to operate under the proposed project. A copy of this list must be forwarded to. this Regional Board. Sewage/Waste Disposal Mate or ..aurornia Memorandum To Ms. Barbara Ceran Cl ear,nghouse c --et, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 Gary McSweeney - District 7 From DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • Subject : Project -Review Comments.: SCH No`. 90010574 nosiness, Iransporrarion ono Housing agency Date . File No.: June 14, 1990 Neg. Dec. Biltmore Site/Parking Lot rr C rr 13th, 14th, & 15th Sts. City of Hermosa Beach Vic. LA -1-21.34. Caltrans has reviewed the Environmental Check Listrconsideration i _o .cons deraat ion of a General Plan Amendment/Zone Change for the public portion of the Biltmore Site from a Specific Plan. Area for a Hotel Project.to a low or medium•density residential specific plan. Based on the information received we find no apparent impact on the State transportation system. If you have any, questions. regarding this . response, please call Ms. Shigeko mokubo_of my. staff .at ATSS 5-640-4369 or (213) 620-4369. J 1 GARY' McSWEENEY IGR/CEQA Coordinator Transportation, Planning &:Analysis, Branch cc: Ken Robertson City of Hermcna Beach Planning Department 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach,_CA 90254. /1\lotice of q''" ipletion Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 Project Title: Biltmore Site/Parking Lot "C" Lead Agency: City of Hermosa Beach, Planning Department Street Address: 1315 Valley Drive City: . Hermosa Beach 7ip: 90254 Appendix( See NOTE below 916/445-0613 SCH # 9 0 0 1 0 5 7 4 Contact Person: Ken Robertson Phonc: ( 213) 318-0242 County: Los Angeles Project Location County: Los Angeles City/Nearest Community Hermosa Beach Cross Streets: 13th St., 14th St. & 15th St. 4183003900, 901,902Station Total Acres: 73,211 sq. ft. arc Assessor's Pel No. TNP Range: Base• Within 2 Miles: State Hwy ri: Waterways. Airports: Railways: Schools: Document Type CEQA: ONOP ❑Supplement/Subsequent NEPA: ❑ Early Cons ❑ EIR (Prior SCH No.) ®Neg Dec 0Othar ❑ Draft EIR ❑ NOI Other: ❑ Joint Document ❑ EA 0 Final Document ❑ Draft EIS 0 Other ❑ FONSI Local Action Type ❑ General Plan Update 21 General Plan Amendment ❑ General Plan Element o Community Plan ❑ Specific Plan ❑ Master Plan ❑ Planned Unit Development ❑ Site Plan ® Rezone ❑ Annexation 0 Prezone 0 Redevelopment ❑ Use Permit 0 Coastal Permit ❑ Land Division (Subdivision, 0 Other Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.) Development Type ❑ Residential: Units Acres • ❑ Office: Sqii• Acres Employees ❑ Commercial: Sgft. • Acres Employees ❑ Industrial: Sgft. Acres Employees ❑ Educational ❑ Recreational ❑ Water Facilities: Type ❑ Transportation: Type ❑ Mining: Mineral MGD ❑ Power: Type Warts ❑ Waste Treatment: Type ❑ Hazardous Waste:Type ❑ Other. Project Issues Discussed In Document ❑ Aesthetic/Visual ❑,Agricultural Land ❑ Air Quality ❑ Archeological/Historical ❑ Coastal Zone ❑ Drainage/Absorption ❑ Economic/Jobs ❑ Fiscal ❑ Flood Plain/Flooding 0 Schools/Universities ❑ Water Quality ❑ Forest Land/Fire Hazard 0 Septic Systems 0 Water Supply/Groundwater O Geologic/Seismic o Sewer Capacity 0 Wetland/Riparian ❑ Minerals ❑ Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading 0 Wildlife ❑ Noise ❑ Solid Waste ❑ Population/HousingBalance 0 Growth Inducing ❑ Toxic/Hazardous 0 Landuse o Public Services/Facilities 0 Traffic/Circulation ❑ Cumulative Effects ❑ Recreation/Parks 0 Vegetation ❑ Other Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use Vacant lot & parking lot/ SPA / SPA Project Description To consider a General Plan amendment and zone change to amend the current Specific Plan Area designation for a hotel and change it to a residential designation for the Biltmore Site and to return it to General Commercial and C-2 for Parking Lot "C" • :LLAtINGHOUSE CONTACT; !111/41,3-0$13 BARBARA CERAN STATE REVILV RItGArfr j - S - % ° OUT REV TO AGENCY, % . - o Con Lon o risk & Cana CMS UT _ 0 Itraoerers Asracy - • Coastal Cor *GE>ICY REV TO RCN s RCN COtt?LIANCEi t 2L0411IETC,i/ LIES VITi.ALL Comers £i lAPCDt _ (Resources' (7 / 4:1 _) • Packs & Rsc/Ott! —7--403OP `;3.. . o DMR ,.o Caltrans 1•s• - ,,nt by jr d l ••• — sant by ICYI Malik OCT RWT 0 All -- Walla im6g=migaRla ALRms. 11QCI I /? Projects SS 89-13 The adoption of the "Parks & Recreation Master Plan: as an amendment to the open space element of the general plan. Mr. Robertson stated that we would have to postpone this item because the actual final document has not been received from the 'consultant.:'": Projects SS 90-1 To consider re -designating and rezoning the Biltmore site to residential as requested by the City Council. Mr. Robertson stated that the general plan and zone changes will- actually involve changing it to a less intense zone then what it is now, since it is, currently zone specific plan area for the purpose'of a qlotel.:.... _ Mr. -Robertson 'recommend -a-fiegative'declaration. Second by Mr. Antich, so ordered. : Project SS 86-9 Environmental assessment and adoption of the General Plane Circulation, Transportation and Parking Element. Mr. Antich expressed concern over a list of projects that had been eliminated from the Circulation. element that were suppose to be implemented =the -boo-k `and do -not appear to be present. :... . `r' Mr. Antich stated in the front of the book there was suppose to be specific projects that should have been outlined. Mr.. Robertson expressed his understanding that this was the final document. Mr. Grove stated in order to clarify what this element is about, everything is stated in the council minutes. So it could be easier to go over the minutes. Mr. Antich stated the action of the council will be lost unless they implement all the policies into this book. He stated he has not had enough time to check the document. Mr. Antich also stated he was responsible for implementing this, and right now he does not know what reasonable efforts, by the understanding of this document, would consist of. Mr. Grove asked if this is scheduled so that it can not be continued until another time. Mr. Robertson replied that we can continue it on the next meeting. . •S �'Q N1 V/i9/fo AGENDA STAFF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Note: Minutes No Smoking April 19, 1990 10:00 A.M. is allowed in the Council Chambers Project GP 89-9 ZON 89-10 Project CUP 90-6 Approval of April 5, 1990 Minutes General :Plan amendment/zone change from "General Commercial GC/C-3 to Specific Plan Area for a 10 -unit senior housing complex at 1224 Corona Street (continued from :January 4 and April 5 1990 meetings). Recommended Action: To determine. Environ- mental Impact. Conditional Use Permit for on -sale general ,.. alcoholic beverages at 11 Pier Avenue, Mer- maid Restaurant. Recommended Action: To determine Environ mental Impact. 2nd Quarter General Plan Amendments: 1) Project SS 89-13 Adoption of the "Parks & Recreation Master Plan" " as an - 'amendment to the Open Space -.Element of the =General Plan. T 2) Project SS 90-1 To consider redesignating and rezoning the Biltmore Site to residential. 3) Project SS 86.:9 Environmental assessment and adoption of"` the General Plan Circulation, Transporta- tion and Parking Element. CC: Recommended Action: To determine Environ- mental Impact. Building:Department Public Works -Department Fire Department.. . •" Police Department Business License -ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (.To.Be.completed by Lead.Agency) I Background 1. Name of Proponent City of Hermosa Beach 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 1315 Valley Dr 318-0242 3. Date of Checklist. Submitted .4/18/90 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable Consideration of a General Plan Amendment/Zone Change for the public portion of the Biltmore Site from a Specific Plan Area for a Hotel Project to Low or Mediumdensity residential specific plan II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes ingeologic substructures? b: -Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the, soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologicor physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, depos.i.tionor. erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Yes Maybe No x g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth e quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or de- terioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in amount of surface water in any water body? x e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temper- ature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? x . Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? x g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? 1. Exposure of people of property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity ofspecies, or number of any species (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants) b. Reduction of the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ c. Introduction of a new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the -. normal replenishment of existing species? . d. Reduction in acreage of any agri- cultural crop? _ 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell fish, benthic organisms or insects? x b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? x c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? - x d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise.. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? x Explanation: The proposed change would mean the entire site could only beused for residential purposes 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? x 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:. a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emer- gency response plan or an emergency. evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of thehuman population in an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect exist- ing housing, or create a demand for addi- tional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. c. Effects onexisting parking facilities, or demand for new parking? Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/ or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?-. x f. Other governmental services? x 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? x b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? x 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alter- ations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? x b. Communications systems? x c. Water? x d. Sewer or septic tanks? x e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? x 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? x b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? x 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? x 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? x 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alter- ation of or the destruction of a pre historic or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of.a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish. or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal community or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? _ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period or time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Narrative description of environmental impacts.) The proposal involves a change from a current zoning and general plan designations which allow a high intensity hotel use to a designation that would allow a much lower intensity residential use. This will significantly reduce the potential environmental impacts in regards to traffic, congestion, and public services. Also, althogh.the view impact may be different under the proposed zoning, the overall impact will be reduced as the current specific plan area allows a height of 45 feet - the proposed zoning would establish a limit at 30 feet or less. IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be -prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL PREPARED. We find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required which focuses on the items noted 'maybe' or 'yes' on checklist as the other items have been determined not to be effected by the proposal. . Date 1 C't/ For Staff Environmental Review Committee rT •21.•2•.., . • GENERAL 'PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONE CHANGE AREA BILTMORE SITE (PUBLICLY OWNED PORTION) SPA: Specific Plan Area MD: Medium Density • HD: High Density OS: Open Space GC: General Commercial CR: Commercial Recreation OJ OJ . NATURAL RESOURCES (State Designated Form) ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM '- (To be completed by applicant) Type or Print Legibly Date Filed 4/ ('7 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: acL/St tiA Lc ery 2. Addressof project: Thx., S-i-Nc8cAd, 4-4t4 ) 0._QW10/104\1 lc-MlczkA '\S 4AI,Q 3ll4tkAzre-Ss*C 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this --:-E5rojeCii \ e_\ S Jo-ack c3t F--) CD L 4. Indicate number of the -permit application for the project to which this form Q, PIN/1 A pertains: <5? er-kika. SAlActj) CCAS tc_42 r kgsnl?Th, (-Awl/ -4-tr-gtti -6 -get, i ctc,,k 5. :List and describe any other -related permits and other public approvals required sivta this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: C-OfY\ 6(\ k5S 0Y1 6. Existing zoning district: cx..p\-acn (7, 7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): 0-emeraA Qc,cz, Re -s kdo--(441ZW, c P.lao lAectwty) PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8.-- _Site size: 11 - 16 9. Square footage ;k3-1 A--. 10. Number of floors of construction 1•3 A- 11. Amount of off-street parking provided: tQi 4- 12. Attach plans. 13. Proposed scheduling: 14. Associated projects: 15. Anticipated incremental development: ) 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, and type of household size expected: 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally orientated square footage of sales - area, .and loading facilities: _ 0) A __... 18. If .. industrial, indicate . type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities:Pr 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, -estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: pi Pr 20. If the project involves..a variance,conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: ��.t' 6.1 P Ic"a. nl Alytoci Vl/K2..01 Ttf e2. zoil t 7 ``G a - t Uc;W ort L l V M� �!% S JZQ S M a • V Q_C -- Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO 21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes or hills or substantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. ' 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. X27. Substantial change in existing noise, or vibration levels in the vicinity. 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. 29. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. X --30. Substantial -change in•demand-for municipal services (police, fire,•: water, sewage, etc.). 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical Or' scenic aspects: ffescribe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. c ,y— l'e O -C 1.0 \ 1+1C''P't.• �. �P.1 C _� .u.1o��S�• � \ C.c L'f Vl0 10_ 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores,. etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATE (Signature) NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 21803 and 21807, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21000-21176, Public Resources Code. November 5, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council November 13, 1990 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT CUP 90-3 LOCATION: 8 PIER AVENUE, HENNESSEY'S TAVERN APPELLANTS: COUNCILMEMBERS MIDSTOKKE AND WIEMANS APPLICANT: PAUL HENNESSEY 8 PIER AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUEST: APPEAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW EXTENDED ENTERTAINMENT HOURS TO INCLUDE 9:00 P.M. TO 1:15 A.M. ON WEEKDAYS AND 2:00 P.M. TO 1:15 A.M. ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS, NATIONAL HOLIDAYS, CINCO DE MAYO, AND ST. PATRICK'S DAY Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission approved the amendment to the entertainment hours as requested by the applicant subject to the conditions contained in Resolution P.C. 90-78. A draft resolution to sustain the Planning Commission's action is attached. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends an amendment allowing entertainment to begin at 7:00 p.m. on Saturday, Sunday and holidays and end at 1:15 a.m. (resolution attached). Alternative: Allow entertainment to begin at 7:00 p.m. and end at 1;15 a.m. on all days of the week (no resolution attached). Background At their meeting of October 2, 1990, the Planning Commission granted the requested amendment to an existing conditional use permit (CUP) for on -sale alcohol and entertainment, expanding the allowed entertainment hours previously limited to Saturday and Sundays from 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M., to include weekday nights from 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. and to include afternoon hours on weekends beginning at 2:00 P.M. The approved CUP incorporates applicable conditions from the original CUP, additional conditions concerning noise, and currently applicable standard conditions for alcohol establishments. The applicant applied for this CUP amendment, as agreed with staff, to resolve a discrepancy in hours limitations for live entertainment in two older CUP's. Staff's position is that Resolution BZA 154-391 (12/15/80), limiting the hours of entertainment to between 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on Saturdays and Sundays only is the currently applicable CUP requirement. - 1 - s For further background please refer to the attached Planning Commission Staff report, and for background on the original CUP's please refer to the attached chronology of entertainment at Hennessey's. Analysis Please refer to the attached Planning Commission Staff Report for staff's analysis of the request. Also, please refer to the attached comparison chart of entertainment hours. It should be noted that it would not appear to staff that starting at 7:00 p.m. would be a detriment with all the other conditions imposed particularly keeping all windows and doors closed. Michael Schubach Planning Director obertson Associate Planner Kevin B. Northc,*aft City Manager Attachments 1. Resolution to sustain P.C. decision 2. Alternative resolution w/different hours of operation. 3. P.C. staff report/chronology dated 9/11/90 4. P.C. Resolution 90-78 5. P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 6. Site Map 7. Staff Review Minutes 8. BZA Resolutions 154-391, 154-365 9. Application 10. Public Notice Affidavit a/pcsr8 CITY MANAGER COMMENT A reasonable principle to follow is to maintain the same live enter- tainment hours for the saloons on Pier west of Hermosa Avenue. An appropriate standard would be 7:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m., all days, as as these hours were previously approved for Thurs.-Sun. and holidays. This protects and separates family day use from evening nightclub use while allowing historic commercial activity to continue. COMPARISON OF ENTERTAINMENT HOURS HENNESSEY'S: AUTHORIZED BY B.Z.A. RESO 154-365, 5/5/80, REVOKED 9/15/80 WEEKDAYS WEEKENDS/ HOLIDAYS 9:00 PM - 1:15 AM 2:00 PM - 1:15 AM AUTHORIZED BY B.Z.A. NONE 9:00, PM - 1:15 AM RESO 154-391, 12/15/80 (SAT/SUN ONLY) STAFF RECOMMENDATION 9:00 PM 1:15 AM 7:00 PM - 1:15 AM STAFF ALTERNATIVE 7:00 PM - 1:15 AM ON ALL DAYS THE END ZONE: APPROVED BY P.C. 7:00 PM - 1:30 AM 7:00 PM - 1:30 AM 1/6/87 (THURS/FRIDAY) REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL AFTERNOON HOURS ON WEEKENDS, STARTING AT 4:00 P.M. WAS DENIED BY P.0 AND COUNCIL IN JUNE/JULY 1990 3 1 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION 90- A -RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE .PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING BAR AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE'DECLARATION FOR 8 PIER AVENUE, HENNESSEY'S, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHERLY 45 FEET OF LOT 5, BLOCK 12, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on November 13, 1990, to receive oral and written testimony regarding the appeal of a Planning Commission decision to grant Conditional Use Permit amendment and made the following findings: A. The Board of Zoning Adjustments approved Resolution BZA 154-391 on December 15, 1980 to allow amplified entertainment at a bar at 8 Pier Avenue; B. The sale of general alcoholic beverages is being conducted in an existing establishment already licensed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; C. The applicant is proposing amending the allowed hours for entertainment, to clarify the hours specified in BZA Resolution 154-391 and to expand those hours; D. The proposed entertainment hours are compatible with surrounding uses; E. Strict compliance with the conditions of approval will mitigate any negative impact resulting from the issuance of the conditional use permit; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit Amendment on appeal, to authorize live entertainment in conjunction with an existing 2 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 bar at 8 Pier Avenue, subject to the conditions contained in P.C. Resolution 90-78. 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: c.A.flif,_ a/ccrs8 CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 6- 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ALTERNATIVE - STAFF PROPOSED RESOLUTION 90- A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING BAR AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 8 PIER AVENUE, HENNESSEY'S, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHERLY 45 FEET OF LOT 5, BLOCK 12, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on November 13, 1990, to receive oral and written testimony regarding the appeal of a Planning Commission decision to grant Conditional Use Permit amendment and made the following findings: A. The Board of Zoning Adjustments approved Resolution BZA 154-391 on December 15, 1980 to allow amplified entertainment at a bar at 8 Pier Avenue; B. The sale of general alcoholic beverages is being conducted in an existing establishment already licensed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; C. The applicant is proposing amending the allowed hours for entertainment, to clarify the hours specified in BZA Resolution 154-391 and to expand those hours; )J. The proposed entertainment hours are compatible with surrounding uses, except that the proposed starting time of 2:00 P.M. on Saturdays and Sundays, creates a conflict with nearby uses, and is not compatible with hours of similar establishments; E. Strict compliance with the conditions of approval, and allowing the entertainment to begin no sooner than 7:00 P.M. on Saturdays and Sundays will mitigate any negative impact resulting from the issuance of the conditional use permit; 1 2 3 4 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit Amendment on appeal, to authorize live entertainment in conjunction with an existing bar at 8 Pier Avenue, subject to the following conditions, which supersede the conditions contained in P.C. Resolution 90-78: 1. The hours for live entertainment shall be limited to the hours from 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. Monday through Friday, and from 7:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on Saturday, Sundays, and Federal and State Holidays, Cinco De Mayo, and St. Patrick's day. 2. The establishment shall not adversely affect the welfare of residents, and/or commercial establishments nearby. 3. The business shall provide adequate management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of the patrons outside the business or in the immediate area. 4. Noise emanating from the property shall be within the limitations prescribed by the City's Noise Ordinance and shall not create a nuisance to the surrounding residential neighborhoods or commercial establishments. a. During the performance of amplified live entertainment, the exterior doors and windows shall remain closed b. Prior to this conditional use permit being effective an acoustical study shall be prepared by an acoustical expert,including a proposed sound dampening features to baffle and direct sound away from the entrance/exit and window areas to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. Said study and sound dampening features shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and shall be implemented in the building. c. Management shall be responsible for the music/entertainment volume levels. d. A maximum of three entertainers shall be allowed to perform at any one time. 5. Screens shall be installed on all openable exterior windows at ground floor level to prevent pass through of alcoholic beverages and to control flies. 6. Signs shall be posted conspicuously and prominently at all exits and all check-out stands warning patrons who purchase any and all types of alcoholic beverages that "possession and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages in any public sidewalk, parking lot, beach, and/or any public place is prohibited by law and subject to citation and fine. The City of Hermosa Beach vigorously enforces its liquor laws" Said signs shall be at least 12" X 14", shall be printed in a large type, permanentlymaintained, and shall be posted in visible locations. 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. An employee who is aware of the conditions of this conditional use permit shall be on the premises during business hours. . All employees shall be given a copy of the conditional use permit and shall acknowledge by signature that the conditional use permit has been read and understood. 8. The business shall provide adequate management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of patrons outside to business or in the immediate area. 9. The exterior of the premises shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner at all time. 10. All signs shall comply with the City Sign Ordinance. 11. All alcoholic beverages shall be served in non -throw -away glass containers, including beer and wine. 12. 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. 13. The police chief may determine that a continuing police problem exists and may require the presence of a police approved doorman and/or security personnel paid by the business. 14. Any changes to the exterior or interior design shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. 15., Dancing shall be prohibited. 16. Maximum permissible occupancy must be clearly posted and may not be exceeded at any time. If the Department of Public Safety determine that the maximum occupancy is being violated, they may cite the business and initiate a conditional use permit revocation. 17. Food service shall be available between the hours of 11:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. daily. 18. 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. 19. A conditional use permit shall be recorded with the deed, and proof of recordation shall be submitted with the planning department. 20. 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. 4 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21. Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if any of the conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. 22. This resolution incorporates and supersedes BZA Resolution 154-391 23. This resolution supersedes P.C. Resolution 90-78 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1990, by: ATTEST: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY a/pers8 APPROVED AS TO FORM: (),L CONTINUED FROM 9/18/90 MEETING September 11, 1990 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission September 18, 1990 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP 90-3 LOCATION: 8 PIER AVENUE, HENNESSEY'S TAVERN APPLICANT: PAUL HENNESSEY 8 PIER AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND ENTERTAINMENT HOURS TO INCLUDE 9:00 P.M. TO 1:15 A.M. ON WEEKDAYS AND 2:00 P.M. TO 1:15 A.M. ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit amendment subject to the conditions contained in the attached resolution, and except that entertainment shall not begin until 7:00 P.M. on weekends and holidays. Background The applicant has applied for this C.U.P. amendment as agreed with staff, to resolve a discrepancy in hours limitations for live entertainment in two older C.U.P.'s.. Staff's position is that Resolution BZA 154-391 (12/15/80), limiting the hours of entertainment to between 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on Saturdays and Sundays only is the applicable requirement. For further background on these original C.U.P.'s please refer to the attached chronology of entertainment at Hennessey's. The Staff Environmental Review Committee recommended a mitigated environmental negative declaration, recommending the following mitigation measures: 1. That the building shall be sound reinforced to contain noise inside the building. 2. An acoustical study shall be prepared by an acoustical expert to identify the appropriate improvements necessary for containing the sound. 3. Musical entertainment volume shall be the responsibility of the, management not the entertainer. 4. Noise readings shall be performed by the City to verify compliance once the mitigation measures are implemented. The Planning Commission recently denied a request by the End Zone, located at 22 Pier Avenue, to extend its hours to include 4:00 to 7:00 P.M. on weekends, This decision was upheld by the City Council on appeal, and therefore the End Zone's allowed - /0 - 7 entertainment hours are restricted to between 7:00 P.M. and 1:30 P.M. on Thursday through Sunday and Holidays. Analysis The primary concern with extended hours of live entertainment is the expanding of the noise problems. Problems relating to excessive noise and non-compliance with the C.U.P. have been documented by the Police for several years. On some occasions, the violations have been corrected. Often, however," the same problems arise again and require further police monitoring and enforcement. The Police Department indicates that because of the utilization of the special enforcement unit this summer, that the establishment was kept under control, and that problems were minimal. Itdoes not appear that the establishment has ever been in compliance with the restriction that entertainment be only on weekend nights. Also, the police department has historically had difficulty obtaining compliance with the condition that doors and windows be closed during amplified entertainment. Given the history of the problems at this location staff is hesitant to recommend extending the hours. However, a precedent has been set with the End Zone for the week -nights of Thursday and Friday nights (The End Zone never requested entertainment for Mon Wed), and Hennessey's has been using these nights for entertainment for several years. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of weekday night hours from 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. In regards to the hours for Saturday and Sunday, staff believes that to be consistent with the hours granted for the End Zone that the entertainment be allowed to begin no sooner than 7:00 P.M. Additional conditions are being recommended to require that the building to be sound -proofed. Also, several standard conditions applicable to, alcohol establishments not previousl,,y a pad t of the BZA Resolutions are included. CONC,1R: icbael Sch b ch Planning Director Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Chronology 3. Site Map 4. Staff Review Minutes 5. BZA Resolutions 154-391, 154-365 6. Application 7. Photographs 8. Public Notice Affidavit obertson Associate Planner a/pcsr8 ENTERTAINMENT AT 8 PIER IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 5/5/80 The Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) granted a Conditional Use Permit for live amplified entertainment in the form of amplified bands (Resolution B.Z.A. 154-365). The C.U.P. included a condition limiting the hours to between 9:00 P.M. and 1:15 A.M on weekdays, and from 2:00 P.M. to 1:15 on weekends. Prior to that time, Hennessey's was operating legally as a bar',_with provision for non -amplified entertainment with less than three performers, grandfathered from previous establishments. 9/15/80 The B.Z.A. revoked the C.U.P. because of failure to comply with the condition to keep doors and windows closed during entertainment 10/14/80 The City Council upheld the revocation, however, it gave Hennessey's 60 days to apply again if another solution to the noise problem was considered. 12/15/80 The B.Z.A. granted a C.U.P. for amplified live entertainment, by adopting Resolution 154-391. One of the reasons for granting the C.U.P. this time was that the house amplification system. was modified to orient the speakers away from the street. The condition relating to closing doors and windows was modified to read "If the sound emanating from the business is sufficient enough to cause a nuisance evidenced by complaints or sound measurements... exterior windows and doors shall be closed". This language in the resolution is corroborated by the minutes of the meeting. Resolution 154-391 also contained new limits onthe hours for entertainment -- 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on Saturdays and Sundays only -- a change which is not at all noted inthe minutes, or mentioned in the staff report. A further problem is that a signed copy of Resolution BZA 154-391 has not been found. 6/2/87 The Planning Commission granted a C.U.P. to authorize the change of the use of site from a bar to a restaurant. This was to enable Hennessey's to change the type of A.B.C. license to allow minors on the premises. The conditions of approval contained the same limits on the hours of. entertainment as Resolution B.Z.A. 154-391 (9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on Saturdays and Sundays). This C.U.P. was never implemented by the applicant. SENT'5Y: Olivetti FX 2000 ;11- 9-90 •;`4';42PM ; 2134314067-► CITY HERMOSA BEACH ;# 3 RESOLUTION NUMBER 1352 A RESOLUTION OF TME PLANNING CCePUSSi0ft OF THE CITY •OF SEAL BEACH APPiadlr1NlG CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT .18-84, A REQUEST TO AIL CN -SALE BEER, WINE AND DISTILLED SPIRITS IN CONJUNCTION WITH.A NEW RESTAURANT (138 1/2, 140 MAIN mem) The Planning Crnmission of the City of Seal Beach hereby resolves: WNF:PEAS, an application was duly filed by Hennessey's 'Taverna, Inc., 30 Pier Avenue, Hermosa mach, California 90254; and ,11 REA: , the subject property is recorded by the Recorder of .tax~ County of Orange as tat 38 and 40, Block 9 of the pay City Tract; and WHEREAS, the subject property cv taro,: approximately 5,875 aq. ft. ani is located 130 ft. southwest of the centerline of Central Avenue (138 1/2, 140 Main Street); and) WERFAS, the subject property has approximately 50 ft. offrontage on main Street; and WHEREAS, the subject property :mbntains d 2,775 sq. ft. vacant commercial space, a 737 sq.ft. retail commercial space and a residence over the true car garage located in the alley.. WHEREAS, the surrounding land use and zoning is ss follows: North, South i nest • A mixture of offices, coirercial. retail, and commercial service Uhdef, 3ocatad in thn r_1. (Service Commercial) zone. EMSt - A mixture .of legal nonconfor%tirng duplexes, and triplexes, and conforming single fe<tti:y, residerrceS, located in the R.3 (High Density Residuntia.) zone; and WHEREAS, Main Street is a primary street developol to its ,;ltii ate planed width of t,0 feet. • WH1=RE iS, the market and tenant stir study prepared. tar the City as part of the Downtown Revitalization Study by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., land use and roil estate economic consultants, noted that an increase in the .amount of restaurant space by,10,000 to 20,000 sq. ft. from the existing 40,000 sq. ft. 'would be the ideal market tenant distribution for the specialty .retail nature of the downtown area. WHEREAS, the Market 1 Business Analysis Task Force on Downtown Revitalization rid the following specifically iddressi;y tenant mix: A) It shall to explicitly clear that the following be only in the fore% of a ration es near term strategy to iaprow. the store mix in dm existing epee* and that the city in no way be able to legislate or mandate thea' Choices of tenancy. it is desirable to: 1) decrease the amt of personal service and convenience goods spume, 2) increase the.amoudt of -restaurant spas. ► end • 3) retain the present amount of caoplri'cn goods space. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION WHEREAS, no schools ere located within 600 feet of the property; ODP church •{Grime Brethren) is located within 300 feet of the.property. ihr appItcant requested the establishment of a 3.511 restaurant incorporating an existing 2,775 sq. ft. vacant fease space and a 737 r:q. ft. rc•t.,ii space providing lrrstx thaw, the- rsqulrod parKinf., and the, pritt'tsion of on -sale beer. Vine, and dirt i I le•d spirits; and 1sHCklAS, i`ili.i:l:AS , the Planning 1.'ormr i sir. i nn hold a public hLie i i.p ot. t.un,: , , ro,t,, i ,. Use Permit OP1-64 un December 5, ]9b41 and i:I1Ei!.A$. they Downtown Revitalization T4ak Force• held a meeting December 17, 1984. held upon the request of the City Council. The Task Porto vedr mpe'e i f is rtc.an'n' nda: i an;, in those issues raised at the December 'a, 1464 Planning Commission meeting. ltREE::E;s. they Planning Cotrmissiott held a public hearing on Conditional tlae:•Permit 018•84 on December 17. 19tt4; and WHEREAS, the request at: conditioned is compatible with the surrounding 'land u;se, and zoning and is expected to have no'impacts on. the community as conditioned; and 6(11;, 7t:f.t<Fp(R£. HE IT f:ESC'1.iE:lt that the Planning Corn',!;I r: ' duets horerb% Ipprot•s Cond ; ioat,l Use Permit lb -S4 subject to the: following conditions; 1. Conditional Use Permit it Approved for on --sale beee,.vine and distilled spirits it 136 1/2 and 14(1 Main St z,.ot end issued to Henness,ey'rs Taverna, inc. 2. Thi' zi11 a1c4h,olic bevtzragesc.ha:f be ccenyumod within the building. 3. That the applicant shall.ceaply with all restrictions placed an his license by the State bet•partmeht of Alcoholic Beverage Control. 4. Conditional fJ.e Persit is non-transferr,ble. There Athol) be no nlr.,holit beverages advertir;inf nis;pi.ei• dc•viet•:. 9r.c:ut•e iinnet r,t,dur• sties.. 6. That the CL's shall be automatically tottinue,.q it t1',t• operation in no longer r•taihtaincd as ,a "bone fide publir eating place" es defined Fir 'tht. ; tate• Be?artmcnt of Alcoholic lievtrug,. Cuntrul. A. That the tary of•this permit shat: be for nix fbi *unthe,, after vhich tine the Planning Commission can extend the permit for another itis (6) month period of time provided that' all conditions of Approval haver been satisfied And no serious police ProbleMs have.occutred. At the end of'the second miss (6) month period of.tsar,•the Planning Commission "WY estand the permit indefinitely provided that' all eeedieiona eof.erpproval hayu been Satisfied and no aigatii,ficint police. problems have uccurrrd, B.. No sale of'aleeho•lic beverages alter 1120 A.M.' 9. Approval subject to all conditions established for:Variance 14:84. 10. That:the development be in ticcerdante.vlth the' floor piens. as ;approved -by the Planning.Commission 'and es Rmdiferd by the above. eou.dtttan,i*.. • 11.. That the ieor deur of 140 Main wrr,eet adjacent to they propocod tteet,,enclosurt'not N. . opened oftet l0 p.m. Or before 7100 a.m: fur tr:e,sh removal or doliwery purpoaea. - t'. 5 ryyho(:s 7,•7.; ..`w` ,h ;a 'id^�:;T�e Tn. i� '.:.'�:`=.'S�•ii*'.a..,ri:»'.' i�S` . ^1 %�ti . 12, That no noise generated from this property exceeds 50 dN(n) from 14400 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. as meaturfd from the exterior boundaries of the wd;jacent rRs�dnnt�,:.lr znnbd pioptrtlrs.per sectinu 1311-5 o! the Seal Beach Municipal CodF. VAS;ED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City ui-•Seal Beach at a meetinfi thereof . htjld un the I9th cloy December , 1W4.by the. following vote: AYES: Commiastoners 4pyintltpn,At$ner, P rri,7.. Nunk.iRipperdan NoE:: Ccmmisvioners . Afi,1:�t: Commissiunrra none Dec ryt:5r.• lc • ✓/ hairman o titling Commission. •cream i ss i on HERMOSA BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 323 PIER AVENUE/P.O. BOX 404 HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 (213) 376-0951 November 12, 1990 Hon. Mayor and City Council Members City of Hermosa Beach City Hall Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 Re: Appeal of C.U.P. for Hennessey's Dear Council Members: At the regular meeting of the Board of Directors on November 8, 1990, action was taken to support Mr. Hennessey in his opposition to an appeal of his C.U.P. for his business at 8 Pier Avenue. The vote was unanimous. Similar action was taken on November 1 by the Downtown Revitalization Committee. That vote was also unanimous. Your consideration of our position on this matter will be appreciated. Respectfully, Wesley . Bush Execut ve Director SUPPLEMENTAU 'INFORMATION HERMOSA BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 323 PIER AVENUE/P.O. BOX 404 HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 (213) 376-0951 November 12, 1990 Hon. Mayor and City. Council Members City of Hermosa Beach City Hall Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 Re: Appeal of C.U.P. for Hennessey's Dear Council Members: At the regular meeting of the Board of Directors on November 8, 1990, action was taken to support Mr. Hennessey in his opposition to an appeal of his C.U.P. for his business at 8 Pier Avenue. The vote was unanimous. Similar action was taken on November 1 by the Downtown Revitalization Committee. That vote was also unanimous. Your consideration of our position on this matter will be appreciated. Respectfully, Wesley. Bush Execut ve Director p �/�g� r/�, g SUPPLEMEW 1 AL 9 November 5, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council November 13, 1990 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT CUP 90-3 LOCATION: 8 PIER AVENUE, HENNESSEY'S TAVERN APPELLANTS: COUNCILMEMBERS MIDSTOKKE AND WIEMANS APPLICANT: PAUL HENNESSEY 8 PIER AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUEST: APPEAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW EXTENDED ENTERTAINMENT HOURS TO INCLUDE 9:00 P.M. TO 1:15 A.M. ON WEEKDAYS AND 2:00 P.M. TO 1:15 A.M. ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS, NATIONAL HOLIDAYS, CINCO DE MAYO, AND ST. PATRICK'S DAY Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission approved the amendment to the entertainment hours as requested by the applicant subject to the conditions contained in Resolution P.C. 90-78.' A draft resolution to sustain the Planning Commission's action is attached. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends an amendment allowing entertainment to begin at 7:00 p.m. on Saturday, Sunday and holidays and end at 1:15 a.m. (resolution attached). Alternative: Allow entertainment to begin at 7:00 p.m. and end at 1;15 a.m. on all days of the week (no resolution attached).' Background At their meeting of October 2, 1990, the Planning Commission granted the requested amendment to an existing conditional use permit (CUP) for on -sale alcohol and entertainment, expanding the allowed entertainment hours previously limited to Saturday and Sundays from 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M., to include weekday nights from 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. and to include afternoon hours on weekends beginning at 2:00 P.M. The approved CUP incorporates applicable conditions from the original CUP, additional conditions concerning noise, and currently applicable standard conditions for alcohol establishments. The applicant applied for this CUP amendment, as agreed with staff, to resolve a discrepancy in hours limitations for live entertainment in two older CUP's. Staff's position is that Resolution BZA 154-391 (12/15/80), limiting the hours of entertainment to between 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on Saturdays and Sundays only is the currently applicable CUP requirement. - 1 - For further background please refer to the attached Planning Commission Staff report, and fo'r background on the original CUP's please refer to the attached chronology of entertainment at Hennessey's. Analysis Please refer to the attached Planning Commission Staff Report for staff's analysis of the request. Also, please refer to the attached comparison chart of entertainment hours. It should be noted that it would not appear to staff that starting at 7:00 p.m., would be a detriment with all the other conditions imposed particularly keeping all windows and doors closed. CONCUR: ////--<(15-1 Michael Schubach Planning Director pe/ 71i,5 NC Kevin B. Northctaft en Robertson Associate Planner City Manager Attachments 1. Resolution to sustain P.C. decision 2. Alternative resolution w/different hours of operation 3. P.C. staff report/chronology dated 9/11/90 4. P.C. Resolution 90-78 5. P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 6. Site Map 7. Staff Review Minutes 8. BZA Resolutions 154-391, 154-365 9. Application 10. Public Notice Affidavit a/pcsr8 CITY MANAGER COMMENT A reasonable principle to follow is to maintain the same live enter- tainment hours for the saloons on Pier west .of Hermosa Avenue. An appropriate standards would be 7:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m., all days, as as these hours were previously approved for Thurs.-Sun, and holidays. This protects and separates family day use from evening nightclub use while allowing historic commercial activity to continue. COMPARISON OF ENTERTAINMENT HOURS HENNESSEY'S: AUTHORIZED BY B.Z.A. RESO 154-365', 5/5/80, REVOKED 9/15/80 WEEKDAYS WEEKENDS/ HOLIDAYS 9:00 PM - 1:15 AM 2:00 PM - 1:15 AM AUTHORIZED BY B.Z.A. NONE 9:00 PM 1:15 AM RESO 154-391, 12/15/80 (SAT/SUN ONLY) STAFF RECOMMENDATION STAFF ALTERNATIVE THE END ZONE: 9:00 PM - 1:15 AM 7:00 PM 1:15 AM 7:00 PM - 1:15 AM ON ALL DAYS APPROVED BY P.C. 7:00 PM - 1:30 AM 7:00 PM - 1:30 AM 1/6/87 (THURS/FRIDAY) REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL AFTERNOON HOURS ON WEEKENDS, STARTING AT 4:00 P.M. WAS DENIED BY P.0 AND COUNCIL IN JUNE/JULY 1990 3 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION 90- A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING BAR AND ADOPTION OF AN' ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 8 PIER AVENUE, HENNESSEY'S, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHERLY 45 FEET OF LOT .5, BLOCK 12, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on November 13, 1990, to receive oral and written testimony regarding the appeal of a Planning Commission decision to grant Conditional Use Permit amendment and made the following findings:, A. The Board of Zoning Adjustments approved Resolution BZA 154-391 on December 15,. 1980 to allow amplified entertainment at a bar at 8 Pier Avenue; B. The sale of general alcoholic beverages is being conducted in an existing establishment already licensed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; C. The applicant is proposing amending the allowed hours for entertainment, to clarify the hours specified in BZA Resolution 154-391 and to expand those hours; D. The proposed entertainment hours are compatible with surrounding uses; E. Strict compliance with the conditions of approval will mitigate any negative impact resulting from the issuance of the conditional use permit; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit Amendment on appeal, to authorize live entertainment in conjunction with an existing 1 2 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 bar at 8 Pier Avenue, subject to the conditions contained in P.C. Resolution 90-78. PASSED, day of ATTEST: APPROVED, 1990. and ADOPTED this PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: CbC\et,",. a/ccrs8 CITY CLERK ,[ CITY ATTORNEY 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ALTERNATIVE - STAFF PROPOSED RESOLUTION 90- A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING BAR AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 8 PIER AVENUE, HENNESSEY'S, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHERLY 45 FEET OF LOT 5, BLOCK 12, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on November 13, 1990, to receive oral and written testimony regarding the appeal of a Planning Commission decision to grant Conditional Use Permit amendment and made the following findings: A. The Board of Zoning. Adjustments approved Resolution BZA 154-391 on December 15, 1980 to allow amplified entertainment at a bar at 8 Pier Avenue; B. The sale of general alcoholic beverages is being conducted in C. an existing establishment already of Alcoholic Beverage Control; The applicant is proposing amending the allowed hours entertainment, to clarify the hours specified in Resolution 154-391 and to expand those hours; The proposed entertainment hours are compatible with surrounding uses, except that the proposed starting time of 2:00 P.M. on Saturdays and Sundays, creates a conflict with nearby uses, and is not compatible with hours of similar establishments.; . Strict compliance with the conditions of approval, and allowing the entertainment to begin no sooner than 7:00 P.M. on Saturdays and Sundays will mitigate any negative impact resulting from the issuance of the conditional use permit; licensed by the Department for BZA 2 3 4 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit. Amendment on appeal, to authorize live entertainment in conjunction with an existing bar at 8 Pier Avenue, subject to the following conditions, which supersede the conditions contained in P.C. Resolution 90-78: 1. The hours for live entertainment shall be limited to the hours from 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. Monday through Friday, and from 7:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on Saturday, Sundays, and Federal and State Holidays, Cinco De. Mayo, and St. Patrick's day. 2. The establishment shall not adversely affect the welfare of residents, and/or commercial establishments nearby. 3. The business shall provide adequate management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of the patrons outside the business or in the immediate area. Noise emanating from the property shall be within the limitations prescribed by the City's Noise Ordinance and shall not create a nuisance to the surrounding residential neighborhoods or commercial establishments. a. During the performance of amplified live entertainment, the exterior doors and windows shall remain closed b. Prior to this conditional use permit being effective an acoustical study shall be prepared by an acoustical expert, including a proposed sound dampening features to baffle and direct sound away from the entrance/exit and window areas to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. Said study and sound dampening features shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and shall be implemented in the building. c. Management shall be responsible for the music/entertainment volume levels. d. A maximum of three entertainers shall be allowed to perform at any one time. 5. Screens shall be installed on all openable exterior windows at ground floor level to prevent pass through of alcoholic beverages and to control flies. 6. Signs shall be posted conspicuously and prominently at all exits and all check-out stands warning patrons who purchase any and all types of alcoholic beverages that "possession and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages in any public sidewalk, parking lot, beach, and/or any public place is prohibited by law and subject to citation and fine. The City of Hermosa Beach vigorously enforces its liquor laws" Said signs shall be at least 12" X 14", shall be printed in a large type, permanently maintained, and shall be posted in visible locations. 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. An employee who is aware of the conditions of this conditional use permit shall be on the premises during business hours. a. All employees shall be given a copy of the conditional use permit and shall acknowledge by signature that the conditional use permit has been read and understood. The business shall provide adequate management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of patrons outside to business or in the immediate area. 9. The exterior of the premises shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner at all time. 10. All signs shall comply with the City Sign Ordinance. 11. All alcoholic beverages shall be served in non -throw -away glass containers, including beer and wine. 12. 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. 13. The police chief may determine that a continuing police problem exists and may require the presence of a police. approved doorman and/or security personnel paid by the business. 14. Any changes to the exterior or interior design shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. 15. Dancing shall be prohibited. 16. Maximum permissible occupancy must be clearly posted and may not be exceeded at any time. If the Department of Public Safety determine that the maximum, occupancy is being' violated, they may cite the busiess and initiate a conditional use permit revocation. 17. Food service shall be available between the hours of 11:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. daily. 18. 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. 19. A conditional usepermit shall be recorded with the deed, and proof of recordation shall be submitted with the planning department. 20. 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. 2 4 5 6 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21. Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if any of the conditions of,approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. 22. This resolution incorporates and supersedes BZA Resolution 154-391 23. This resolution supersedes P.C. Resolution 90-78 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this , 1990, by: ATTEST: day of PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY a/pers8 APPROVED AS TO FORM: (VLJIL, CONTINUED FROM 9/18/90 MEETING September 11, 1990 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of September 18, 1990 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP 90-3 LOCATION: 8 PIER AVENUE, HENNESSEY'S TAVERN APPLICANT: PAUL HENNESSEY 8 PIER AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND ENTERTAINMENT HOURS TO INCLUDE 9:00 P.M. TO 1:15 A.M. ON WEEKDAYS AND 2:00 P.M. TO 1:15 A.M. ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit amendment subject to the conditions contained in the attached resolution, and except that entertainment shall not begin until 7:00 P.M. on weekends and holidays. Background The applicant has applied for this C.U.P. amendment as agreed with staff, to resolve a discrepancy in hours limitations for live entertainment in two older C.U.P.'s. Staff's position is that Resolution BZA 154-391 (12/15/80), limiting the hours of entertainment to between 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on Saturdays and Sundays only is the applicable requirement. For further background on these original C.U.P.'s please refer to the attached chronology of entertainment at Hennessey's. The Staff Environmental Review Committee recommended a mitigated environmental negative declaration, recommending the following mitigation. measures 1. That the building shall be sound reinforced to contain noise inside the building. 2. An acoustical study shall be prepared by an acoustical expert to identify the appropriate improvements necessary for containing the sound. 3. Musical entertainment volume shall be the responsibility of the management not the entertainer. 4. Noise readings shall be performed by the City to verify compliance once the mitigation measures are implemented. The Planning Commission recently denied a request by the End Zone, located at 22 Pier Avenue, to extend its hours to include 4:00 to 7:00 P.M. on weekends, This decision was upheld by the City Council on appeal, and therefore the End Zone's allowed -/0- entertainment hours are restricted to between 7:00 P.M. and 1:30 P.M. on Thursday through Sunday and Holidays. Analysis The primary concern with extended hours of live entertainment is the expanding of the noise problems. Problems relating to excessive noise and non-compliance with the C.U.P. have been documented by the Police for several years. On some occasions, the violations have been corrected. Often, however, .the same problems arise again and require further police monitoring and enforcement. The Police Department indicates that because of the utilization of the special enforcement unit this summer, that the establishment was kept under control, and that problems were minimal. It does not appear that the establishment has ever been in compliance with the restriction that entertainment be only on weekend nights. Also, the police department has historically had difficulty obtaining compliance with the condition that doors and windows be closed during amplified entertainment. Given the history of the problems at this location staff is hesitant to recommend extending the hours. However, a precedent has been set with the End Zone for the week -nights of Thursday and Friday nights (The End Zone never requested entertainment for Mon Wed), and Hennessey's has been using these nights for entertainment for several years. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of weekday night hours from 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. In regards to the hours for Saturday and Sunday, staff believes that to be consistent with the hours granted for the End Zone that the entertainment be allowed to begin no sooner than 7:00 P.M. Additional conditions are being recommended to require that the building to be sound -proofed. Also, several standard conditions applicable to alcohol establishments not previously a pant of the BZA Resolutions are included. CONC,,I4R : icniael Schubach Planning Director Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Chronology 3. Site Map 4. Staff Review Minutes 5. BZA Resolutions 154-391, 154-365 6. Application 7. Photographs 8. Public Notice Affidavit (41 Robertson Associate Planner a/pcsr8 ENTERTAINMENT AT 8 PIER IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 5/5/80 The Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) granted a Conditional Use Permit for live amplified entertainment in the form of amplified bands (Resolution B.Z.A. 154-365). The C.U.P. included a condition limiting the hours to between 9:00 P.M. and 1:15 A.M on weekdays, and from 2:00 P.M. to 1:15 on weekends. Prior to that time, Hennessey's was operating legally as a bar, with provision for non -amplified entertainment with less than three performers, grandfathered from previous establishments. 9/15/80 The B.Z.A. revoked the C.U.P. because of failure to comply with the condition to keep doors and windows closed during entertainment 10/14/80 The City Council upheld the revocation, however, it gave Hennessey's 60 days to apply again if another solution to the noise problem was considered. 12/15/80 The B.Z.A. granted a C.U.P. for amplified live entertainment, by adopting Resolution 154-391. One of the reasons for granting the C.U.P. this time was that the house amplification system was modified to orient the speakers away from the street. The condition relating to closing doors and windows was modified to read "If the sound emanating from the business is sufficient enough to cause a nuisance evidenced by complaints or sound measurements... exterior windows and doors shall be closed". This language in the resolution is corroborated by the minutes of the meeting. Resolution 154-391 also contained new limits on the hours for entertainment -- 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on Saturdays and Sundays only -- a change which is not at all noted in the minutes, or mentioned in the staff report. A further problem is that a signed copy of Resolution BZA 154-391 has not been found. 6/2/87 The Planning Commission granted a C.U.P. to authorize the change of the use of site from a bar to a restaurant. This was to enable Hennessey's to change the type of A.B.C. license to allow minors on the premises. The conditions of approval contained the same limits on the hours of entertainment as Resolution B.Z.A. 154-391 (9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on Saturdays and Sundays). This C.U.P. was never implemented by the applicant. BACKGROUND MATER/Al 2 3 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 90-78 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING BAR AND ADOPTION OF A ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 8 PIER AVENUE, HENNESSEY'S, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHERLY 45 FEET OF LOT 5, BLOCK 12, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 18, 1990, to receive oral and written testimony regarding a Conditional Use Permit amendment request and made the following findings: A. The Board of Zoning Adjustments approved Resolution BZA 154-391 on December 15, 1980 to allow amplified entertainment at a bar at 8 Pier Avenue; B. The sale of general alcoholic beverages is being conducted in an existing establishment already licensed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; C. The applicant is proposing amending the allowed hours for entertainment, to clarify the hours specified in BZA Resolution 154-391 and to expand those hours D. The proposed entertainment hours are compatible with surrounding uses; E. Strict compliance with the conditions of approval will mitigate any negative impact resulting from the issuance of the conditional use permit; NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit Amendment, to authorize live entertainment in conjunction with an existing bar at 8 Pier Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. The hours for live entertainment shall be limited to the hours from 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M._ Monday through Friday, and from 7:00 P.M. to 1:15 P.M. on Saturday, Sundays, and Holidays. 2. The establishment shall not adversely affect the welfare of residents, and/or commercial establishments nearby. 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. The business shall provide adequate management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of the patrons outside the business or in the immediate area. 4. Noise emanating from the property shall be within the limitations prescribed by the City's Noise Ordinance and shall not create a nuisance to the surrounding residential neighborhoods, or commercial establishments. a. During the performance of amplified live entertainment, the exterior doors and windows shall remain closed b. Prior to this conditional use permit being effective an. acoustical study shall be prepared by an acoustical expert, including a proposed sound dampening features to baffle and direct sound away from the entrance/exit and window areas to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. Said study and sound dampening features shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and shall be implemented in the building. c. All music/entertainment volume levels shall be controlled by the management, not by the entertainers. 5. Screens shall be installed on all openable exterior windows at ground floor level to prevent pass through of alcoholic beverages and to control flies. 6. Signs shall be posted conspicuously and prominently at all exits and all check-out stands warning -patrons who purchase any and all types of alcoholic beverages that "possession and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages in any public sidewalk, parking lot, beach, and/or any public place is prohibited by law and subject to citation and fine. The City of Hermosa Beach vigorously enforces its liquor laws" Said signs shall be at least 12" X 14", shall be printed in a large type, permanently maintained, and shall be posted in visible locations. 7. An employee who is aware of the 'conditions of this conditional use permit shall be on the premises during business hours. a. All employees shall be given a copy of the conditional use permit and shall acknowledge by signature that the conditional use permit has been read and understood. 8. The business shall provide adequate management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of patrons outside to business or in the immediate area. 9. The exterior of the premises shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner at all time. 10. All signs shall comply with the City Sign Ordinance. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11. All alcoholic beverages shall be served in non -throw -away glass containers, including beer and wine. 12. 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. 13. The policechief may determine that a continuing police problem exists and may require the presence of a police approved doorman and/or security personnel paid by the business. 14. Any changes to the exterior or interior design shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. 15. Dancing shall be prohibited. 16. Maximum permissible occupancy must be clearly posted and may not be exceeded at any time. If the Department of Public Safety determine that the maximum occupancy is being violated, they may cite the business and initiate a conditional use permit revocation. 17. Food service shall be available between the hours of 11:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. daily. 18. 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. 19. A conditional use permit shall be recorded with the deed, and proof of recordation shall be submitted with the planning department. 20. 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. 21. This resolution incorporates and supersedes BZA Resolution 154-391 VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 90-78 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of September 18, 1990. Scott Ingell, Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary Date a/pers8 -15- S REVISED, AS A GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT AND ADOPTION OF #N E RONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION; Resolut . P.C. 90-77, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE'CITY OF HERMOSA :EACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PRECISE DEVELOPM ' T PLAN REQUEST FOR AN AUTO BODY REPAIR AND PAINTING ESTABLISHME T 1081 TO 1087 AVIATION, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS'LOTS 49 AND 50, AND THE SOUTHE "4. 58 FEET OF LOTS 47 AND 48, HERMOSA HEIGHTS TRACT; Resolution P.C. 90-79, A HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFO REMODEL AND ADDITION TO 44 7TH STREET; SOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CO APPROVING A CONDITION NIT WITHIN A FOUR -U Resolution P.C. 90-80, A RESOLUTION THE HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVI SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTIO ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLA ION RESTAURANT, AND LEGALLY DESCRI % D BEACH TRACT. ISSION OF THE CITY OF SE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONDOMINIUM APPROVED AT P NING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ON- TH A RESTAURANT, AND ADOPTION OF AN R 11 PIER AVENUE, THE MERMAID -4, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 13, HERMOSA AS LOTS AYES: Comms. Ketiz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell NOES: None ,,---- ABSTAIN: - ABSTAIN: Comm. Aleks ABSENT: Nsfie J COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one.appeared to address the Commission. CUP 90-15 -- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND ALLOWED ENTERTAINMENT HOURS TO INCLUDE 9:00 P.M. TO 1:15 A.M. ON WEEKDAYS AND 2:00 P.M. TO 1:15 A.M. ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 8 PIER AVENUE, HENNESSEY'S TAVERN (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1990) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 11, 1990. Staff recommended approval of the requested CUP amendment. subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution, and except that entertainment shall not begin until 7:00 P.M. on weekends and holidays. The applicant has applied for this CUP amendment as agreed with staff to resolve a discrepancy in the hours and limitations for live entertainment which were . in two older conditional use permits. Staffs position is that Resolution BZA 154-391 (December 15, 1980) limiting the hours of entertainment to between 9:00 P.M. and 1:15 A.M. on Saturdays and Sundays only is the applicable requirement. The staff environmental review committee recommended a mitigated environmental negative declaration and recommended several mitigation measures: (1) that the building shall be sound reinforced to contain noise inside the building; (2) an acoustical study shall be prepared by an acoustical expert to identify the appropriate improvements necessary for containing the sound; (3) musical entertainment volume shall be the responsibility of the management, not the entertainer; and (4) noise readings shall be performed by the City to verify compliance once the mitigation measures are implemented. The Planning Commission recently denied a request by The End Zone, located at 22 Pier Avenue, to extend its hours to include 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. on weekends. This decision was P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 upheld by the City Council on appeal, and therefore The End Zone's allowed entertainment hours are restricted to between 7:00 P.M. and 1:30 A.M. on Thursday through Sunday and holidays. The primary concern with extended hours of live entertainment is the expansion of noise problems. Problems relating to excessive noise and non-compliance with the CUP have been documented by the police for several years. On some occasions, the violations have been corrected. Often, however, the same problems arise again and require further police monitoring and enforcement. The police department indicates that because of the utilization of the special enforcement unit this summer, the establishments were kept under control, and problems were minimal. It does not appear that the establishment has even been in compliance with the restriction that entertainment be only on weekend nights. Also, the police department has historically had difficulty obtaining compliance with the condition that doors and windows be closed during amplified entertainment. Given the history of the problems at this location, staff is hesitant to recommend an extension in the hours. However, a precedent has been set with The End Zone for the weelmights of Thursday and Friday nights (The End. Zone has never requested entertainment for Monday through Wednesday), and Hennessey's has been using these nights for entertainment for several years. Therefore, staff recommended approval of weekday evening hours from 9:00 P.M. until 1:15 A.M. In regard to the hours for Saturday and Sunday, staff felt that to be consistent with the hours granted for The End Zone, the entertainment should be. allowed to start no sooner than 7:00. P.M. Additional conditions were recommended to require that the building be soundproofed. Also, several standard conditions applicable to alcohol establishments not previously a part of the BZA resolutions are included. Public Hearing opened at 7:10 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Paul Hennessey, owner and applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that he has worked with staff and he has applied for a clarification of Condition No. 1 of the CUP; (2) passed out copies of the past BZA resolutions and stated that it is apparent that a typographical error was made, in that BZA 154-365, Condition No. 1, contains additional wording not found in Condition No. 1 of BZA 154-391, related to the hours of entertainment; (3) noted that BZA 154-365, Condition No. 1, states: "Electronically amplified musical entertainment shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on weekdays and from 2:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on Saturdays and Sundays; (4) said that Hennessey's has had live entertainment for the past 14 years, prior to The End Zone ever even applying for an entertainment permit; (5) therefore did not feel that the decision made related to The End Zone is applicable in relation to Hennessey's. Mr. Hennessey continued and: (1) in response to a question from Chmn. Ingell related to the changes made from BZA 154-365 to BZA 154-391. stated that at the time BZA 154-391 was approved, the Board made no comments related to the hours for live entertainment; (2) discussed closure of the windows and said that the Board at that time said the doors and windows could remain open during live entertainment, so long as no complaints were received from the neighbors, and none have been received; (3) passed out copies of letters he has received from the City (one dated 1988 and one dated summer of 1990) commending this establishment on its compliance with City regulations and requirements of the conditional use permit. Mr. Hennessey went on and: (1) passed out a copy of a document dated October 8, 1986, "Status Report Regarding Downtown Noise Enforcement," and he said the report makes no mention whatsoever of any noise problems emanating from Hennessey's; (2) said that Hennessey's has established a good track record for complying with. City requirements; (3) stressed that there P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 has been live entertainment at this establishment on Saturdays and Sundays for 14 years, and it is apparent to him that there was a typographical error on the second approval by the BZA, 154-391. Comm. Peirce noted that a standard condition has been to require that all windows be screened in order to prevent the passing through of alcoholic beverages, to which Mr. Hennessey replied that the front windows currently do have screens. He stated, also, that he has never seen drinks being passed out through the windows. Comm. Rue noted that the police department has historically had problems enforcing the condition that doors and windows must remain closed during live entertainment. He noted that there appears to be a discrepancy in the CUP related to this condition. Mr. Hennessey said that the current conditions do not specifically state that doors and windows must remain closed during live entertainment. The police have come to the establishment requesting that the windows and doors be closed during entertainment, and they have voluntarily complied. He felt, however, that the police department is having a problem in determining which CUP should be enforced. Comm. Peirce countered that BZA 154-391, Condition No. 2, states: "If the sound emanating from the business is sufficient to constitute a nuisance evidenced by complaints or sound measurements, the outer doors and exterior operable doors and windows shall be closed at all times when electronically amplified entertainment is occurring." He further noted that the same condition is included in BZA 154-365. He felt, however, that this point is academic, noting that he has been in the area many times, and music from this establishment is booming out into the street. He stressed that the doors and windows must be closed during live entertainment, and he asked whether Mr. Hennessey intends to comply with the condition. Mr. Hennessey stated that the doors and windows are being closed now. Further, he has been told by the police that this establishment is in compliance. He said that he will continue to close the doors and windows, if so required by the City. He said that his main objection relates to Condition No. 1, regarding the hours of entertainment. Public Hearing closed at 7:20 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Aleks asked what differences there are between this establishment and The End Zone, to which Mr. Schubach explained .that The End Zone is more of a sports -oriented bar. Essentially, however, they are both alcoholic establishments. They are located very near to each other, and they are on the same side of the street. He said that The End Zone's band area is slightly larger than Hennessey's; however, there are many similarities between the two businesses. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Aleks, stated that approval of additional hours would set a precedent, which he did not feel would be desirable, noting that there have been problems in the past. He felt that the hours should be the same for the two establishments. Comm. Rue asked whether there is data from the police department related to the noise, to which Mr. Schubach explained that reports have been received, butit would be necessary for staff to locate them. Comm. Rue stated that the police department has historically had difficulty enforcing the condition that doors and windows shall be closed during live entertainment. Mr. Schubach stated that there has recently been more compliance with that condition, and the number of complaints has been reduced. P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 Comm. Rue noted that there have been many problems throughout the City with noise; however, it is difficult to specifically address the problem without having additional information, such as police reports. He noted also that one of the conditions requires that an acoustical study be done to identify appropriate improvements for containing the sound, and he questioned when that study would be completed. Mr. Schubach stated that this is the same requirement imposed on The End Zone, and that the applicant will be required to provide staff with the appropriate data related to the noise level and what can be done to resolve the problem. He continued by explaining what The End Zone has done to mitigate the noise. He said that this applicant must provide the data within a reasonable time period. Chmn. Ingell felt it is inappropriate to compare Hennessey's with The End Zone. He noted that Mr. Hennessey himself asked for this clarification; whereas, The End Zone was being considered for a revocation hearing due to their noncompliance. Mr. Schubach stated that this applicant has an existing CUP in effect at this time. The applicant approached staff in regard to the hours of operation and asked for clarification on the hours. Comm. Peirce stated that it appears that the only operable differences between past CUPs and the current CUP being proposed is Condition No. 4(b) which requires an acoustical study to be prepared and the attendant mitigation measures, and the hours of operation. Chmn. Ingell stated that it appears that Hennessey's hours of operation have been grandfathered in. He noted that new businesses would not necessarily have the same conditions imposed as older businesses. Comm. Peirce stated that the condition related to the sound study in this CUP appears to be an extension of BZA 154-391, which also required sound measurements (Condition No. 2). He felt that such a condition is appropriate, no matter how long this business has been in existence. He felt that during the periodic reviews, the Commission should attempt to make recommendations for improvements based on what is best for the City. Comm. Peirce opposed an extension in the hours of operation, stating that the main question is when the party should begin in the downtown area. He therefore did not feel that longer hours are necessary, and he thought that 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on weekdays and 7:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on the weekends is adequate. Chmn. Ingell stated that this case differs from The End Zone, especially in light of the fact that the applicant was not aware that he would be losing his hours of operation in the new conditional use permit, and the applicant has been operating for years with the understanding that his hours of operation were in compliance. He further noted that he could find no mention of the hours in the minutes of the BZA meetings at which this business was discussed; therefore, he did not feel hours of operation was a major concern of that board. Comm. Peirce asked whether the Board of Zoning Adjustments kept detailed minutes in 1980, to which Mr. Schubach replied that the sparse minutes proved to be a problem, and more thorough, detailed minutes are now prepared in an attempt to avoid this very type of problem. Comm. Peirce noted concern that the resolution adopted by the Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA 154-391) was not signed. Comm. Rue asked whether there would be any objection to allowing live entertainment to start at 5:00 or 6:00 P.M. on the weekends, noting that such a starting time would not be in the middle of the afternoon, which was a previous concern of the Commission. He noted that many people like to relax after a day at the beach, and he felt such a starting time would be acceptable and would be a fair compromise. P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 Comm. Peirce noted that The End Zone cannot start live entertainment until 7:00 P.M., and he questioned what the rationale would be to allow this business to start its entertainment earlier. Comm. Rue said that this is an older CUP which has not been signed, and the minutes do not detail the specifics of the conditions. He did not feel that the earlier starting time would be detrimental. Comm. Peirce stated that the Commission should be consistent, and he did not feel it would be appropriate to allow one business to begin entertainment earlier than another. Comm. Ketz agreed that the businesses should be treated similarly; therefore, she favored the hours being the same for each. Comm. Rue and Chmn. Ingell agreed that the type of entertainment offered at the two businesses differs. Hennessey's entertainment is on 'a smaller scale; whereas, The End Zone has larger groups performing. It was also noted that Hennessey's has been in operation for many years at this location. Comm. Peirce cautioned that the CUP runs with the business, and another owner could come in and have much larger groups performing. Public Hearing reopened at 7:33 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Paul Hennessey, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) replied to a question from Chmn. Ingell regarding his opinion of the new staff -proposed conditions, to which he replied that several of the conditions have been met, such as that requiring a sound study; (2) explained that a sound study was done in 1981 and the study was given to the City, and there were no objections at that time; (3) said that the speakers and volume control methods were changed at that time; (4) said that there have been no complaints from the City since that time. Mr. Hennessey continued and: (1) stressed that he is not asking to expand the hours of entertainment; (2) rather, he is asking to continue with the hours he has had for the 14 years they have been in operation; (3) again noted that this problem arose because of a typographical error in the resolution; (4) said that this business is not physically large enough to accommodate any more than two or three performers at one time; therefore, he would have no objection to a condition limiting the number of performers. Chmn. Ingell referred to Condition No. 4(c): "All music/entertainment volume levels shall be controlled by the management, not by the entertainers." Mr. Hennessey replied that that condition is not feasible, explaining that the musicians themselves control the volume of their own instruments and amplifiers. He said that it is a matter of the musicians policing themselves. Comm. Rue stated that the Commission desires the management to monitor the sound, even if they do not actually control the volume levels of the instruments, to which Mr. Hennessey replied that management has no problem with monitoring the noise level. Mr. Hennessey stated that the business has built its reputation on its entertainment, and any changes now would be very 'detrimental to the business. He stated that by providing entertainment, higher prices can be charged, therefore ensuring a higher -quality clientele. He did not feel that afternoon entertainment is detrimental, and he did not feel it would disturb the neighborhood. Comm. Rue felt that there would be no objection to earlier hours for live entertainment, so long as there is a guarantee that the noise would be contained within the building. He said that the P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 biggest problem is that noise can be heard on the streets, and it almost seems as though the bars are competing with each other for business. Mr. Hennessey again noted that his business was never cited for noncompliance. He stated that he is asking for nothing new; he merely wants to continue with the hours he has had for many years. He did not feel it is fair to be penalized for problems which have been created by other businesses. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked whether Chmn. Ingell might have a conflict of interest due to his interest in Scotty's Restaurant, to which Chmn. Ingell explained that he has had no involvement with Scotty's since last January; (2) stated that Hennessey's is a nice business, however, he did not feel there is a significant difference between it and The End Zone; (3) opposed the increased hours, based on the fact that increased hours would mean increased alcohol consumption, which he does not favor. Comm. Rue asked whether it is possible to have quieter entertainment in the afternoon hours, to which Mr. Hennessey replied that that 'would be possible, but it involves hiring the appropriate entertainment and having proper monitoring by management. He stated that it would be detrimental for his business to have entertainment that is very loud, since that tends to drive people away. Mr. Hennessey explained that last summer he instituted a new policy whereby the entertainers are required to sign a form stating that they are aware that if they are asked too many times to turn down the volume, they will not be hired to perform again. Dave Reimer, 802 Monterey, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and suggested that the applicant be required to purchase a sound monitoring device and maintain records of the noise levels. Mr. Hennessey stated that they have already purchased noise meters which they have been using to control the noise. Public Hearing closed at 7:44 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Rue felt that Hennessey's managers are making an effort to comply with the requirements, noting that noise meters have been purchased. He felt that if the noise can be controlled and kept inside, the Commissions' goal would be reached. So long as the noise is kept inside, he had no objection to the hours. Comm. Ketz stated that she could support approval of the request if the noise can be kept inside, and if there can be a limit on the number of entertainers. She felt that the main objective is to have businesses meet the noise requirements, and if this can be accomplished, she has no objection to the hours of operation. Chmn. Ingell felt that if the hours of operation had been a major concern, the minutes of the BZA would have reflected that fact; therefore, he felt that this problem arose due to a typographical error. He agreed that if the noise can be kept inside and the business can stay in compliance, he would have no objection to the hours. He felt that the Commissions' purpose at this point is to correct a clerical error. Comm. Aleks did not see this as a noise issue, but rather one of alcoholic consumption and hours of operation for this and other businesses. He felt that just because this business has been in operation for a long time is not adequate reason to approve extended hours; therefore, he favored approval of staffs recommended hours for live entertainment, from 9:00 P.M. until 1:15 A.M. P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 Comm. Rue stated that the Commission does not want to be arbitrary; however, this business has a track record and has not been cited for noncompliance. He noted that violations at The End Zone were well documented, and their hours were imposed based on that documentation. Comm. Peirce felt that to allow different hours for this business would constitute special treatment, which he did not favor. He felt that the decision should be' based upon what is actually happening in the area at the present time. Chmn. Ingell did not feel that the standards would be different for the different businesses. He stated that this problem arose solely because of a clerical error, and the applicant merely came in to request clarification on the issue of hours of operation. Comm. Peirce stressed that this decision should be based upon what is best for the City today, not what happened years ago. He could see no difference between this business and The End Zone. Comm. Rue questioned whether it would be feasible to include a condition related to the maximum decibel level which could be allowed inside the building. Mr. Schubach stated that Condition No. 4(c) could be modified to indicate that noise levels shall be controlled by the management. Comm. Peirce stated that noise inside is not the issue; rather, the issue is the level of noise emanating outside the business. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve Resolution 90-78 with the following modifications: (1) Condition No. 1 shall be modified to read: "The hours for live entertainment shall be limited to the hours from 9:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M Monday through Friday, and from 2:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on Saturdays. Sundays. and national holidays, as designated by the City of Hermosa Beach; (2) Condition No. 4(c) shall be amended to specify that management shall be responsible for the music/entertainment volume levels; and (3) a condition shall be added specifying that there shall be a maximum of three entertainers at any one time. Comm. Rue stated that the intent is to have the expanded hours on holidays when people are off work. Comm. Rue commented on findings and stated that one of his reasons for allowing the additional hours is that this conditional use permit is affected by the physical layout of the building, and any changes in the layout require Planning Commission approval. He included more findings; i.e., the past history of this establishment, and the fact that.management has purchased noise meters which they are using in an attempt to keep the noise level down. Chmn. Ingell offered an additional finding; i.e., the applicant was requesting a clarification of the hours. Comm. Peirce questioned whether it is the intent to leave Condition 4(b) in the resolution (related to the sound study), to which the maker of the motion replied in the affirmative. AYES: Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell NOES: Comms. Aleks, Peirce ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Chmn. Ingell announced that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 SL.:mommimaimmimmommemommirnml hu�.Y+"I Si • /oo HERMOSA BEACH ►J o I _7C._ 7!; /oo /2 -7 -Fs 670208 69/2/0620 . i//X7 mmander Altfeld expressed that this area of downtown is alrea hi. 1y impacted with several alcohol establishments, that a spec 1 enforcement unit is necessary to monitor the establ'• hments and the related problem of noise, public drunkenn:ss, loitering, etc. and as such the Police Depar ment recommend against an additional alcohol establishment n this area of the ity. He said that it would definitely ace an additional bu •en on the Police services. Mr. Robertson agr=ed to change #14(b) to "Mayb Mr. Robertson asked mitigate the problem. mmander Altfeld how felt they could Commander Altfeld stated t»at if allo•-d, there should be an intensely detailed C.U.P. Mr. Grove felt that in regards ►• item #21 of the Environmental Checklist, that it should be ec ed yes under #21(c) as this project would have impacts t -at are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Mr. Terry stated that the curbs and s.dewalks were in ' disrepair, the appli =nt would be require • to repair them. Motion by Mr. Gr category of im cumulatively require mit that in t mitigat use p e that because this project cts that may be individually 1 onsiderable, that they planning co gation measures to address the impacts, past alcohol businessess have not succes the problems, recommend against granting a t. alls under the ' 'ted, but ssion must and seeing ully c• ditional S- and by Commander Altfeld. No objections, so ordered. PROJECT CUP 90-15 Conditional Use Permit amendment to extend entertainment hours at 8 Pier Avenue, Hennessey's Tavern. APPLICANT: Paul Hennessey Mr. Hennessey explained that there are two C.U.P.'s, and there is a discrepancy on which is the correct one. The most current C.U.P. shows the hours permitted for live entertainment to be weekends only. It was agreed that we would request an amendment to clear up the matter. The requested hours of live entertainment are: 2p.m. - 1:15a.m. Saturdays and Sundays 9p.m. - 1:15a.m. Weekdays He added that these have been the hours for entertainment for several years. - Commander Aitfeld•stated that the current C.U.P. does not permit live entertainment during the week. This condition has not been enforced, and it has been determined that it will not be enforced until this C.U.P. request is resolved. Mr. Robertson stated that the oldest C.U.P. does allow entertainment on the weekends and weekdays. Mr. Grove added that he believed that hours of the current C.U.P. were based on the original C.U.P.. In reading the minutes,, they showed no discussion regarding a change in hours, and he is not sure why the hours were changed or if they were meant to be changed. Mr. Grove asked if there were any other existing conditions in violation. Chief Wisniewski stated that condition #2 regarding the closing of doors and windows when amplified music is played is consistently in violation. Mr. Grove asked that applicant if they had considered installing an air conditioner in the building. Mr. Hennessey replied that the property is in trust, and restricts their ability to make changes as the length of their lease is in question. Commander Altfeld added that the building should be sound reinforced to eliminate the exterior noise. Mr. Robertson stated that this is clearly an environmental issue, and that staff should require mitigation measures to address the present problems. Motion by Mr. Robertson to recommend a negative a declaration with the following mitigating measures: 1. That the building should be sound reinforced to contain noise inside the building. 2. An acoustical study shall be prepared by an acoustical expert to identify the appropriate improvements for containing the sound. 3. Musical entertainment volume shall become the responsibility of the management. 4. Noise readings shall be performed by the city to verify compliance once the mitigation measures are implemented. Second by Mr. Grove., No objections, so ordered. t RESOLUTION B.Z.A. 154-391 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 PIER AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Adjustments of the City of Hermosa Beach, at a public hearing held on December 15, 1980 in the Coun- cil Chambers of the City Hall, considered the request of Mr. Paul E. Hennessey for live entertainment in the form of amplified bands in conjunction with the operation of a bar at 8 Pier Avenue, legally described as Lot 5, Block 12, Hermosa Beach Tract; and WHEREAS at said public hearing, the Board reviewed the data sub- mitted by the applicant and city staff; and WHEREAS, the proposed conditional use. permit is not in conflict with the area's zoning or general plan designation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Zoning Adjust- ments of Hermosa Beach does hereby approve a conditional use per- mit for live entertainment in the form of amplified bands in con- junction with the operation of a bar at 8 Pier Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. Electronically amplified.musical entertainment shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 p.m. to 1:15 a.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. 2. If the sound emanating from the business is sufficient to constitute a nuisance evidenced by complaints or sound mea- surements, the outer doors and exterior operrable doors and windows shall be closed at all times when electronically am- _ plified entertainment is occurring. 3. Chapter 19 of the City Code entitled Noise Regulation ,shall be complied with. Specifically, this conditional use permit is not a permit to violate Section 19 1/2-3 entitled Noise Limits. 4. Maximum permissible occupancy must be clearly posted and may not be exceeded at any time. If the Police/Fire Departments determine that the maximum permissible occupancy of the building is being violated, they may cite the business and initiate a conditional use permit revocation. 5. If the operation of this establishment causes a risk ofharm to persons or property, the Police Department may assign two policemen as doormen during hours of operation of the appli- cant's expense. 6. No admission, or service of alcohol, to anyone on skates. �,. I. '. �t 4.,• • Posting of sign :-:-in'- the 'interior advising patrons of illegali- ty of open containers on sidewalks, streets, the Strand, and the beach ▪ Installation of screens on all exterior,,openable windows to prevent -any possible pass'thru of alcoholic beverages and for control of flies. Exterior doors shall be self-closing or screened or use Health Department approved fly fans. • Operator of business must police the sidewalks which are -di- rectly adjacent to the business for litter and loitering -•--- 'problems and maintain in a clean and orderly manner on a dai- ,c. ly:bas'is , 10. Hours of operation to be 6:00 a.m. 2:00 a.m. daily. 11. Any changes to the interior design of this establishment - shall require that it be retruned to the Board of. Zoning Ad- justments, and it may revoke the conditional use permit if -new interiors`-are,not consistent with 'the original approval. 12. Food service available (hot and cold sandwiches) at a minimum of -from 11:00 a.m.::to: 10:00 p.m. ,13. Conditional use permit is to be for only this use as defined .inithe present -conditions; ariy-change`in use or concompli-ance of : any '.condition of operation will be cause for revocation of the permit. 14. -No daric ing at 'any 'time - 15. First review for compliance with these conditions shall be. three months after date of approval. 16. In the event that any one condition is found to be illegal or unenforceable by court of competent jurisdiction, then the parties agree that all other conditions shall remain in full force and effect. The parties understand that theapplicant is represented by counsel at all steps of these proceedings and it is the opinion of the City Attorney that the condi- tions meet Constitutional requirements, and in the even that either attorney is in error both parties agree that no aciton for damages shall be brought against the other party and that the exclusive remedy on behalf of the applicant is for a Man- date of Declaratory Relief to make the determination that any one or more conditions is illegal and undenforceable, and --parties wiive all ' rights --to -damages. 17. This conditional use permit shall be reviewed every six 'months. VOTE: AYES: Comms. Beard, DeBellis, Merrill, Moore, Walker, Chmn. Ebey. NOES: None ABSENT: - None _. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that.the.foregoing-Resolution BZA 154-391'was adopted by the Board of Zoning Adjustments at a regular meeting held on the December ,15, 1,980.... ,,.,:; Date • CORALIE EBEY, CHAIRMAN JIM WALKER, SECRETARY. . .Pr.:fl .. :ii.... //; C) C RESOLUTION B.Z.A. 154-365 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CON- JUNCTION WITH THE OPERATION OF A BAR ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 PIER AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Adjustments of the City of Hermosa Beach, at a public hearing held on May 5, 1980 in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, considered the request of Mr. Paul E. Hennessey for live entertainment in the form of ampli- fied bands in conjunction with the operation of a bar at 8 Pier Avenue, legally described as Lot 5, Block 12, Hermosa Beach Tract; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the Board reviewed the data submitted by the appli- cant and city staff; and WHEREAS, the proposed conditional use permit is not in conflict with the area's zoning or general plan designation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Zoning Adjustments of Hermosa Beach does hereby approve a conditional use permit for live entertainment in the form of amplified bands in conjunction with the operation of a bar at 8 Pier Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. Electronically amplified musical entertainment shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 p.m. to 1:15 a.m. on weekdays and from 2:00 p.m. to 1:15 a.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. 2. That outer doors and exterior openable windows be closed at all times when electronically amplified musical entertainment is occurring. 3. Chapter 192 of the City Code entitled Noise Regulation shall be complied with. Specifically, this conditional use permit is not a permit to violate Section 192-3 entitled Noise limits. 4. Maximum permissible occupancy must be clearly posted at all times and may not be exceeded at any time. If the Police/Fire Departments determine that the maximum permissible occupancy of the building is being violated, they may cite the business and initiate a conditional use permit revocation. 5. If the operation of this establishment causes a risk of harm to persons or prop- erty, the Police Department may assign two policemen as doormen during hours of operation at the applicant's expense. 6. No admission, or service of alcohol, to anyone on skates. 7. Posting of sign in the interior advising patrons of illegality of open containers on sidewalks, streets, the Strand, and the beach. 8. Installation of screens on all exterior, openable windows to prevent any possible pass thru of alcoholic beverages and for control of flies. Exterior doors shall be self-closing or screened or use Health Department approved fly fans. Operator of business must police the sidewalks which are directly adjacent to the business for litter and loitering problems and maintain in a clean and orderly manner on a daily basis. - Continued - I PAGE TWO - RESOLUTION B.L.A. 154-365 8 PIER AVENUE 10. Hours of operation to"be 6:00 a.m. - 2:00 a.m. daily. 11. Any changes to the interior design of this establishment shall require that it be returned to the Board of Zoning Adjustments, and it may revoke the conditional use permit if new interiors are not consistent with the original. approval. 12. Food service available (hot and cold sandwiches) at a minimum of from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 13. Conditional use permit is to be for only this use as defined in the present" conditions; any change in use or noncompliance of any condition of operation will be cause for revocation of the permit. 14. No dancing at any time. 15.. First review for compliance with these conditions shall be three months after' date of approval. - 16. In the event"that any one condition is found to be illegal or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, then the parties agree that all other ?conditions shall -remain in.full force and effect. The parties understand -that the applicant is represented by counsel at all steps of these proceedings and It is the -opinion of the City Attorney that the conditions meet Constitutional requirements, and in the event that either attorney is in error both parties ?agree that,:no action -for damages shall be brought against the other party and (that the exclusive remedy..on..behalf of the applicant is for a Mandate or Decla- tory Relief to make the determination that any one or more conditions is illegal :and unenforceable, and parties waive all rights to damages. • VOTE: AYES: Comms. Beard, DeBellis,'Merrill, Moore, Walker, Chmn. Ebey. NOES::.; None ABSENT:None I hereby certify that of Zoning Adjustments Date /�,/ / CERTIFICATION the foregoing Resolution BZA 154-36,5 was adopted by the Board at a regular meeting held on the 5th day of May,.1980. ) /1/7 /1/ (../1 JIM WALKER, SECRETARY :I AC\ CORALIE EBEY, CHAIRMAN 'Y .f'hfY.• Planning Dept. City, of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach May 18, 1990 1990 Enclosed please find our application for an.Amendmen.t to our Conditional Use Permit. Ede are requesting that #1 read the same as Resolution B.Z.A. 154-365. "Electronically amplified musical entertainment shall be limited to the hours of 9:.00 pm to,1:15 am on weekdays and from 2:00 pm to 1:15 am on Saturdays and Sundays". Although we feel strongly that we should not be obligated to apply for an Amendment to our current Conditional Use Permit, in intrest of avoiding litigation and in intrest of cooperation with the city, we are submitting the enclosed package 'for consideration. Thank you for your consideration and help. Enclosures PH/cf Sincerely, Paul Hennessey—� HENNESSEY'S TAVERN, INC. HENNESSEY'S TAVERNS, INCORPORATED` '31 CORPORATE OFFICE: 1845 SOUTH ELENA, SUITE 300, REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90277 - PHONE: (213) 540-2274 TY OF HERM O $ A E A C H PROJECT ADDRESS Hennessey's Tavern Project Name (If applicable) LEGAL DESCRIPTION 8 Pier Ave, Hermosa APPLICANT INFORMATION: MAY 2 1 lgop Beach ZONING Name(s) Mailing Address 1845 S. Elena #300, Phone Redondo Beach 90277 Applicant's Relationship to Property Renter APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE PROJECT REQUEST Amendment Conditional Use Permit -Commercial Conditional Use Permit -Condominium Number of Units Development Agreement Environmental Staff Review X Final Subdivision (Parcel/Tract Map) General Plan Lot Line Adjustment Lot Split Parking Plan Precise Plan Specific Plan Specific Plan Amendment Tentative Subdivision (Parcel/Tract Map) Zone Change Zone Variance Total Fees FOR OFFICE USE ONLY — DATE OF SUBMITTAL: RECEIVED BY: DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: .Restaurant / Bar (attach additional pages if necessary) OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT* We/I being duly sworn, depose and say that we/I are/am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the fore- going sttements and answers herein contained and the inf•rmation herewith submitted are true and correct to the best o `•i/my k •le• and belief. Su cribed and sworn before me this / ?'qday of i 1,- , 199e. 2.gPC-ao,PaQP"-- NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the County of Los Angeles, State of California. o er's Si. -ture Addre s j •c(�-, %PA 5-cA0 6C%� l.'L Telephone 5L-2.. 7t OFFICIAL SEAL WWLUAM A. HERRO Not.,y putsltc • California WRINCIPk6 6ittcE IN L A. COUNTY * Signature required from current property owner, not owner in escrow. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the 3Ofh day of OC.,tobe-' , 199C) , deposit into the United States Post Office, first class postage prepaid, a copy of the Public Notice attached as Exhibit "A" to each and every person attached as Exhibit "B". I warrant that the persons named on Exhibit "B" are all the persons required by applicable law to receive the Public Notice attached as Exhibit "A". I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to cause these Public Notices to be made in an 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. I have executed this declaration on this the cc2f4- day , 199 (✓' at Hermosa Beach, California. / cam.— /9c/G^-A.`0-- State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) SS 6 Yu- (Name) u- (Name) (Si jatl. re- 21-') (Capacity) On this the day of n/o ✓c= 14 , 199a , before me, ,e49- ic' . /Th> c,/ S 9/ /, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared .yU_y,, 7i//r1 and proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence/to be the person(s) whose name(s) IS suscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) OFFICIAL SEAL KAREN K. MIZUSAKI Notary Public—California LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Comm. Exp. Mar. 16, 1992 NOTARY PUBLIC FLT I r r-Vokrr (omma.)Ot,t\ 'li0nS MAR 2 4 1987 1-61,16%6Ys -1-Aq6izis 146fLMoSA Bglic4 )C� TAVN.. 4)_11E1Z N+=KMoM eEar,N,ca 90 -- /t November 8, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 13, 1990 FEE RECOMMENDATIONS RESULTING FROM USER FEE STUDY AND STAFF RESEARCH Recommendation: That the City Council accept the user fees study and cost allo- cation plan from the firm of David M. Griffin and Associates, and adopt the implementing ordinance and resolution. Background: The City Council held a workshop lasting nearly three hours on this topic on October 30, 1990. The attached memo, dated October 25, 1990, was prepared for that workshop, and contains the background and broad analysis information on this topic. Analysis: There are several matters that have been finalized and new information developed since the workshop, as follows: (1) The questions of the Council were reviewed and responses prepared, as reflected in Attachment A. (2) An ordinance to modify the article in the City code related to fees, as well as numerous sections referring to fees, has been finally drafted and is included as Attachment B. (3) Additional current fees not reviewed by the consultant were added to the fee master resolution (Attachment C) as schedule 6. Two current fees were added to schedule 1, Building and Safety, and one current fee to schedule 5, Public Works. These documents include the staff's current recommendations. Some changes since the workshop are reflected in Attachment A. Others are as follows: (1) Conditional use permit - the Planning Commission had previously requested consideration of a reduced fee for existing businesses who are now being required to apply for CUP due to the amortization ordinance. In researching the matter pursuant to this request, it apparent that existing operations that now require a CUP result in less cost to the City in processing the application, as the nature of their activities is well known and easily observed. This also applies to businesses with current CUP's requesting amendments that do not affect their entire operation. Accordingly, staff is recommending that the recommended increase in permit fees for CUP'S only apply to new businesses, or existing businesses wishing to change their operations to include activities requiring a CUP. The existing fee, at a substantially reduced rate, 1 then would apply for existing businesses that either desire amendments to their CUP, or are required to apply for a CUP for the first time as a result of the amortization ordinance. (2) The Permitted Use, Text Amendment, and Planning Commission Appeal Request - while processing these applications initially benefit the applicant, they also serve to clarify, interpret, and improve the City's code for others in the future. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to charge 100% of cost for these fees, and staff is recommending 75% of the current cost be recovered by the fees for these applications. Two new fees also were considered by the staff, but are not being recommended at this time. One would be a fee for mailing out the agenda. The fee would approximate $25.00 per year. After reviewing, it seems apparent that the processing cost to collect and account for the fee may absorb much of the revenue. Further, it may discourage people from requesting copies of the agenda, which work against our high priority goal to improve communications with the public. As a alternative, staff is planning on notifying current recipients periodically that their continued receipt of the agendas will require affirmative notice to us of their continued interest. A second fee used by some cities is a research fee when elaborate research is requested of city records. -Since a certain amount of effort is expected, it is unclear at what point this fee should be charged, so staff is not recommending at this time. We will continue to monitor requests to see whether city time is being invested in efforts that are clearly for individuals rather than for the public at large. Since fee adjustments will result in different demand levels for request for services, it is impossible to know the exact fiscal impact for these recommendations. However, together with the $11,000 increase in revenue for implementation of the cost allocation plan and the changes since the October 30, 1990 meeting, it is estimated the annual impact on our Citys budget will be between $100,000 and $250,000. Perhaps as significant, the indexing of our fees will permit the value of those fees to stay constant as the value of the dollar fluctuates in future years. One final note; the recommendations contained here do not include any charges that are classified as taxes, rentals or leases, fines, charges set by contract, recreation fees, or developer impact fees. These other areas are continuing to be reviewed by staff and will be updated as staff time and priorities allow. Respectfully submitted, evin B. North City Manager 2 RESPONSE TO CITY COUNCIL QUESTIONS/COMMENTS ON USER FEES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 30, 1990 Comment: FIN/PLN 1. Noticing for appeals to Council would cost less than 300' noticing fee. Need to consider special fees. Answer: Staff agrees and recommends that the 300' noticing fee minus the costs of the contractor ($250) that prepares the noticing list be charged as a noticing fee for appeal to City Council. The new fee of $90 allows for the fact that the noticing list has been prepared. The fee is included in the master fee resolution. Question: FIN/PLN 2. 300' noticing not currently done inhouse would have new cost to offset. Impact would be less. Are there other fees where impact is overstated? Answer: Comment: BLD Answer: Question: FIN/PS 3. Non -transport fee. Who determines when to charge? DMG will supply chart of other cities fees for comparison. Not charge for all? Does not include readiness costs. The new cost to have a contractor perform the noticing services will be approximately $26,000 of the total $27,200 impact therefore the City will recover $1,200 in administrative costs if all work is done by contractor. Other fees contained in the. user fee study are based on costs being incurred. currently, not new costs, therefore no other fee impacts would be overstated. 2.1 Zoning enforcement costs should be better recovered from violators - civil method used in Los. Angeles. A separate report will be presented to City Council at a future meeting. • Answer: There are several options that could be used to charge for paramedic responses: 1) charge for all non-residents and give residents free service using the rationale that residents principally pay taxes for us to provide the service, non-residents do not; 2) charge for all calls that are non -life threatening. The paramedics and the Chief can ATTACHMENT A -3- determine which ones would receive billings after the response is made and the reports are filed; 3) charge for all calls with no exceptions or exemptions; or 4) charge 50% of cost for all non-resident responses and for resident calls that would be categorized as non -emergency, non -life threatening calls. The Chief and the paramedics would•determine which are non -life threatening calls such as those for headaches, broken fingernails, small cuts, drug related problems, helping people into bed and other calls considered to be an abuse and misuse of the emergency medical system; 5) charge $50 for all resident emergency calls, $100 for non-resident and non -emergency resident calls. Staff recommended alternative 3 at the October 30th workshop. Charging less than full cost reduces costs for insurance companies and Medicare, which seems an unintended benefit. Attached are the comparison charts of paramedic fees provided by DMG and a survey of neighboring cities provided by ourparamedic coordinator. Question: FIN/PS 4. Do we have to provide clearance letter? Cost seems too low. Answer: The City does not have to provide clearance letters...it is a courtesy service. The Chief has checked the costs and they seem to be appropriate based on the time and rates for the employees involved. Comment: FIN/PS 5. Sign off tickets - cost seems too high. Answer: The costs calculated should have included only one officer, not two. After discussions with records staff, the Chief has reached the conclusion that it may be in the best interest of the departmentand the City for public relations to discontinue charging for the sign -offs. Some of the surrounding agencies do not charge for this service and the Marshalls provide the service free. The City is not required to provide this service, it is a courtesy. Only the Marshalls are required to provide the service. The records staff feels that the fee should be discontinued since the individuals now have to pay the fine for citations for registration tags (this was not the case in the past). Many complaints are received about the fee for vehicle inspection. The recommended resolution for vehicle inspection. The recommended resolution reflects no charge for this service. Comment: FIN/PS 6. Review historical fiesta/film/special event income for police fees to determine impact of changes. Answer: Staff recommends that special event security fees be left at the present rate of $55, therefore there would be no impact or increase in revenue. The summary sheets presented at the workshop assumed no increase in revenue. The cost data presented by DMG assumed the cost of two officers for each event. The full cost for one officer would be $53.05, which is equivalent to our current fee of $55. Question: FIN/PW 7. Do other cities charge utility companies for street excavation. KN - Are not many excavations caused and paid for by contractor even if utility company does work? Answer: Comment: A survey of neighboring cities fees is attached. The Public Works Director has confirmed that many street excavations performed by utility companies are a result of requests by contractors performing residential development. FIN 8. Beach volleyball fee should indicate "application" in title. Answer: The title of the fee has been changed to include the word application. Comment: PW Answer: Comment: Report on volleyball courts - where are they, how many have permits, how far from Strand wall, what is current procedure for permit issuance. A separate report will be presented to City Council at a future meeting. FIN/PW 10. Review $.50 per square foot encroachments. Answer: Staff intends to review the rate in the future. charge on commercial reasonableness of this a Comment: FIN Answer: 11. Consider using deposits, late fees. Government Code allows 1.5%/mo according to Councilmember Creighton. The Deputy City Attorney finds no specific reference to late fees or monthly interest charges in the code, however, suggests that a reasonable fee could be implemented. Staff is recommending an escalation in the rate for some fees (paramedic transport, fire inspection) if unpaid after a certain period of time which is similar to a late fee. Deposits are currently used on some fees such as facility rentals and street excavations. Most fees are paid in advance, alleviating the need for deposits, however if collection problems arise in some areas, deposits could be implemented. PR CH Response Fee (BLS) Response Fee (ALS) Transportation Fee (BLS) la Transportation Fee (ALS) 1a Resident (ALS, BLS) Nara -Resident (ALS, BLS) Merle -Care Fee Subscription+ Service (yearly) ADDITIONAL CHARGES- Nigtstli-toliday Charge Mileage Fee Additional Patient Oxygen Charge Stand-by Charge/15 minutes Wait lime Charge/15 minutes Code 3 Charge Extra Handling IV EKG Airway (with oxygen) Medical Anti -Shock Trousers OR Krt Bum Kit Mulli-Traurna Dressing Decontamination of tlnit Report Copies Incubator Surgical Collar Fee for Transportation beyond nearest hospital VACAVILLE MANHATTAN BEACH EIRE DEPT FIRE DEPT Id �►d 160.00 $250.00 $375.00 $78.00 $125.00 COMPARISON OF PARAMEDIC FEES CULVER CITY FIRE DEPT $90.00 $150.00 ANAHEIM FIRE DEPT to $150_D0 $250.00 $24.00 BEVERLY HILLS FIRE DEPT $85.40 $85.40 $45.50 $45.50 nuRBANK LONG BEACH EIRE DEPT FIFIE DEPT $80.00 580.o0 $1200 $5.00 $40.00 $12.00 $12.00 $151.00 $151.00 $8.50 $28.00 $56.00 NOTES la II there is no RESPONSE FEE. then the TRANSPORTATION FEE reflects the transportation and response charges together. lb Reflects charges for non—subscribers only. Alsothis fire department only responds and does not transport_ tc Charged pe; item, per call Id Charged only if patient is transported_ to Redacts charges for non -subscribers only_ Ftp OR CHARGE:-' Response Fee (BLS) Response Fee (ALS) Transportation Fee (BLS) 1a Transportation Fee (ALS) 1a Resident (ALS. BLS) Non -Resident (ALS. BLS) Medi -Care Fee Subscription Senrice (yearly) 1 iptli t_ C1- A lGES: Night/Holiday Charge Mileage Fee Additional Patient Oxygen Charge Stand-by Charge/15 minutes Wait tune Charge/15 minutes Code 3 Charge Extra Handling lV EKG Airway (with oxygen) Medical Anti -Shock Trousers OB Kit Burn Kit Multi -Trauma Dressing Decontamination of Unit Report Copies Incubator Surgical Collar Fee tor Transportation beyond nearest hospital ORANGE FIRE DEPT FULLERTON FIRE DEPT tb $75.00 $125.00 $14.00 COMPARISON OF PARAMEDIC FEES CARLSBAD FIRE DEPT $165.00 $165.00 $55.00 $100.00 $10.00 t PIEDMONT FIRE DEPT ie $125.00 $225.00 $337.00 $15.00 MERCY PENNINSULA AMBULANCE (S -F-) $18300 $240.00 $30.75 $7.40 $30.25 $21.60 $26.75- $51.00 $212.30 $440.00 $38.50 $8.25 $38.50 $53.75 NOTES to tb tc td to there is no RESPONSE FEE. then the TRANSPORTATION FEE ieitocts tho transportation and response charges together. Rogectscharges tor non-subscribms only_ Also /Ns fire dop utrnont only responds and docs not transport_ Charged per dom. per call. Charged only it patient istransporled. Reflects charges for not rsubsxxibers only_ r :913 c>1A Response Fee (BLS) Response Fee (ALS) Transportation Fee (BLS) tia Transporlafiotr Fee (ALS) la Resident (ALS, BLS) Non -Resident (ALS. BLS) Medi -Care Fee Subscription Service (yearly) >.ADI]i11O0 AL'ct1ARf ':1 Night/Holiday Charge Mileage Fee 1 Additional Patient Oxygen Charge Stand-by Charge/15 minutes Wait time Charge/15 minutes Code 3 Charge Extra Handling N EKG Airway (with oxygen) Medical Anti -Shock Trousers OB Kit Burn iOt Multi -Trauma Dressing Decontamination of Unit Report Copies Incubator Surgical Collar Fee for Transportation beyond nearest hospital PROF AMBULANCE SVCS, INC. (LA COUNTY) $156.00 $260.00 COMPARISON OF PARAMEDIC FEES SACRAMENTO AMBULANCE SERVICE $175.00 $350.00 $350.00 $37.25 $40.00 $8_75 1 $7.50 $29.00 $23.00 $58.00 $50.00 $30.00 $50.00 $50.00 $45.00 $75.00 $25.00. $15.00 $5.00 $30.00 25 10 METRO DOCTOR' AMBULANCE AMBULANCE SERVICE (SACTO) (MODESTO) $175.00 . $350_00 $40.00 $7.50 $50.00 $30.00 $12.50 $45.00 $30.00 $30.00 $170.00 $365.00 $35.00 $8.00 $30.00 $15.00 $45.00 $50.00 $65.00 $15.00 ACME AMBULANCE (ALAMEDA) $170.00 $375.00 $46.00 $8.60 ; $50.00 $10.00 $30.00 $40.00 $48.0 - $50.00 NOTES to it there is no RESPONSE FEE. then the TRANSPORTATION FEE reflects the transpiration and response charges Ingather_ 1b Selects charges for non -subscribers only. Also this fire department nary responds and does not transport. tc Charged per item. per cell_ I Id Charged unlyifpationtistransported_ to Rodeos charges for non -subscribers only_ CITY OF H ERMOSA BEACH. INTER -OFFICE MEMO TO:Director Of Public Safety SUBJECT' Paramedj r Fees DATE• 11-5=90 FROM•Paul Hawkins, Paramedic Coordinato The following is a list of local Cities Paramedic fees. Inglewood Beverly Hills. Santa Monica Culver City Gardena Torrance. Hawthorne Manhattan Beach El Segundo Redondo Beach Transport 100.00 Resident 200.00 Non -Res. 100.00 150.00 90.00Resident• 150.00 Non -Res. 56.00 N.C. 150.00 75.00 Res. 125.00 Non -Res. 120.00 Non -Res.. N.C. Response 100.00 Non -Res. N.C. for Res.. 100.00 N.C. N.C. N.C. 75.00 N.C. 175.00 Advanced Life Support CHARGES TO UTILITY COMPANIES FOR STREET EXCAVATION FEE PLUS 2 HOURS CITY FEE CHARGED INSPECTION Hermosa Beach Manhattan Beach Existing: Permit Fee: $ 25.00 $145.00 Inspection Fee @ Hr/Inspec.: $ 25.00 Proposed: Permit & 2 hr.s Inspection: $145.00 Permit Fee: $ 11.30 $ 56.40 Inspection Fee @ Hr/Inspec. $ 22.55 "After -The -Fact" Permit Fee: $100.00 Excavation Construction Permit Deposit: $369.00 Plan check fee for construction plans related to private development: Based upon the direct and overhead costs incurred by the City. Hawthorne N/A N/A El Segundo Permit Fee: $ 90.00 $150 Inspection Fee: Actual direct labor cost (Hermosa Bch.Est.$30) vehicle charges Torrance Rancho Palos Verdes Underground Alert Fee $ 16.00 (If applicable) Util. Co. Blanket Fee: $2,000.00 Inspection Fee: Actual direct labor cost x 1.8 vehicle charges No charge to Utility Co. Excavation Permits: Inspection Fee (per hour): Redondo Beach Excavation Permit: Excavation Inspection: $ 25.00 $ 46.00 $ 40.00 $ 40.00 $117.00 $120.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ORDINANCE NO. 90- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE XIII OF THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE RELATED TO FEES AND SERVICE CHARGE REVENUE/COST COMPAR- ISON SYSTEM AND AMENDING VARIOUS OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE INCONSISTENT THEREWITH. WHEREAS, the City has conducted a general review of its user fees and cost allocations as part of a study performed by David M. Griffith Associates; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this review is to update fees and charges and clarify the procedure by which fees and charges are kept current, to allow more frequent and routine updating; and WHEREAS, the procedure developed in 1984 during the last general update has not proven to be a clear or efficient method to keep fees and charges updated; and WHEREAS, fees and charges are typically set by resolution, where they can be consolidated for easier reference and updating; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Article XIII of the Hermosa Beach City Code is 19 hereby amended by deleting in their entirety Sections 2-110, 2- 20 112, 2-113, and 2-114; by amending Sections 2-109 and 2-115; by 21 adding a new Section 2-111, and by renumbering sections so that 22 Article XIII is amended to read as follows: 23 "ARTICLE XIII. FEE AND SERVICE CHARGE REVENUE/COST 24 COMPARISON SYSTEM. 25 Sec. 2-109. Intent. 26 Pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, it 27 is the intent of the City Council to require the ascertainment 28 and recovery of costs reasonably borne from fees and charges ATTACHMENT 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 levied therefor in providing the regulation, products or services. Sec. 2-110. "Costs reasonably borne" defined. "Costs reasonably borne," as used and ordered to be applied in this article are to consist of the following elements: (a) All applicable direct costs including, but not limited to salaries, wages, fringe benefits, services and supplies, operations expenses, contracted services, spe- cial supplies, and any other direct expense incurred. (b) All applicable indirect costs including, but not re- stricted to, building maintenance and operations, equip- ment maintenance, communication, printing and tion, and like distributed expenses. (c) Fixed assets recovery expenses, consisting of tion on fixed assets, and additional charges, reproduc- deprecia- calculated on the cost divided by the approximate life expectancy of the fixed asset. (d) General overhead, expressed as a percentage, distribut- ing and charging the expenses of the city council, city manager, finance department, city treasurer, city clerk, city attorney's office, community promotion, personnel office, and all other staff and support services. (e) Departmental overhead, expressed as a percentage, dis- tributing and charging the cost .of each department head and his or her supporting expenses. Sec. 2-111. Schedule of Fees and Service Charges. Fees and service charges, whether or not provided for else- where by ordinance, shall be set and adjusted by resolution of the City Council following a public report and recommendation 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 from City staff reflecting the cost reasonably borne and the recommended percentage of recovery, except that the City Manager is hereby empowered to set fee for service requests, not sub- ject to Section 54990 et. seq. of the California Government Code, when no fee has otherwise been established, and the request can- not be met unless the City incurs costs that can be reasonably borne from fees and charges. Fees specified in Sections 54990 and 54991 of the California Government Code shall be effective only after meeting the requirements set forth in Section 54993. To the extent possible, the City's fees and charges shall be fixed by one master fee resolution of the Council. Sec. 2-112. Appeal to City Council. Any person who feels that any fee or- charge is in excess of the percentage of costs reasonably borne to be recovered, or is inappropriately set, may appeal in writing to the City Council. SECTION 2. Section 4-4(a) is hereby amended to read as fol- lows: "Anyperson desiring to keep, harbor, possess, or maintain any nonhousehold animal as required under the provisions of this article shall make application for such permit in writing, ad- dressed, and file the same with the general services department on a form to be supplied by that office. Each application shall be accompanied by an application fee, payable to the City, of an amount fixed by resolution of the City Council, which shall be retained by the city to cover its costs in connection with the processing of such application and which shall not be refunded. Such application shall state the kind of animal for which the permit is desired, the location of the premises where the same is to be kept or maintained, and the manner in which.. the applicant proposes to keep the same, giving details as to enclosures, 1 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 tethers, cages or other means which the applicant proposes to employ in the event the permit is granted and their distance from the nearest dwelling or other structure used for human habitation." SECTION 3. Section 4-4.1 is hereby amended to read as fol- lows: "Upon the granting or denial of a permit or revocation, the applicant and all parties expressing concern shall be. notified of the decision by the General Services Director in writing. Appeals shall be in writing, including specific items of dis- agreement with the General Services Director's decision or find- ings. Appeals shall be filed with the city clerk's office within fifteen (15) days of the issuance of the report of decision and findings. The fee for appeals shall be an amount fixed by resolution of the City Council. The filing of an appeal with the City Clerk shall stay the decision of the General Services Direc- for until the appeal has been acted on. When an appeal is filed, the General Services Director shall forward the record of the case to the City Council. The City Council shall conduct a public hearing. Such hearings shall be held within forty (40) days of the Council's receipt of the written appeal. The City Council shall announce its decision and findings within sixty (60) days of the closing of the hearing, unless good cause is shown for an extension of time. The Council may incorporate by reference the findings of the General" Services Director. Within thirty (30) days of the final decision on the administrative pro- cess, the City Council shall mail notice to the appellant and applicant. A copy of this notice shall be included in the General Services Director's files." 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 4. Section 4-11 (a) is hereby amended to read as follows: "Every person owning, harboring or controlling any dog within the City shall before the first day of October of each year applyfor and procure a license and license tag for each such dog and shall pay to the City an amount fixed by resolution of the City Council. Exception: For dogs owned by senior citizens of the City aged sixty (60) or over, fifty (50) per cent of the rate established by this section when said owner's annual household income is less that seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) per year. A dog owner seeking to qualify for this exemption shall file a statement under penalty of perjury certifying as to the facts of • eligibility upon payment of each annual fee. Exception: Seeing eye dogs shall be licensed, but no fee shall be charged." SECTION 5. Section 4-18 is hereby amended to read as fol- lows: "(a) For the first, second and third redemptions of the dog, increasing fees in amounts set by resolution of the City Council shall be paid to the city. (b) In all cases, if the animal has been impounded at the con- tracting animal shelter facility, said fee shall be paid prior to payment of the appropriate impound fees to the poundmaster. Any license required by such dog shall be purchased from the city prior to the redemption of an impounded dog if said license has not been previously obtained or is not in full force and effect. SECTION 6. Section 4-40 (c),(e) & (f) is hereby amended to read as follows: (c) "The registration fee shall be in an amount fixed by resolu- tion of the City Council per cat so registered. Registration 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 shall be valid for the life of the cat. The fee may be reduced to 50% if a certificate of spaying or neutering is presented. upon application for registration hereunder. (e) There shall be a fee in the amount fixed by resolution of the City Council for the duplication of a lost cat tag. (f) There shall be a fee in an amount fixed by resolution of the City Council to have a change in ownership entered upon the records." SECTION 7. Section 7-1.3, Sec. 304 (b) is hereby amended to read as follows: "The fee for each permit shall be as set forth in the most recent resolution of the City Council adopted pur- suant to the requirements of Chapter 2, Article XIII of the City Code. The determination of value or valuation under any of the provisions of this code shall be made by the building official. Where work for which a permit is required by this code is started or proceeded with prior to obtaining said permit, the fees above specified shall be quadrupled, but the payment of such quadrupled fee shall not relieve any persons from fully complying with the requirements of this code in the execution of the work nor from any other penalties prescribed herein." SECTION 8. Section 7-4.3 Sec. 304 (b)is hereby amended to read as follows: "The fee for each permit shall be as set forth in the most recent resolution of the City Council adopted pur- suant to the requirements of Chapter 2, Article XII of the City Code." SECTION 9. Section 11-2 first paragraph is hereby amended to read as follows: " Section 304 of said electriccode is here- by amended to replace the term "Table No. 3-A." with the term "the most recent resolution of the City Council adopted pursuant 1 2 3 to the requirements of Chapter 2, Article XIII of the City Code." SECTION 10. Section 13-15 is hereby amended to read as fol- lows: "Eligible organizations desiring to obtain such permit to conduct bingo games in the City shall file an application in 4II` writing therefor and a fee in an amount fixed by resolution of 5 the City Council in the office of the Business License Depart - 6 ment. The issuing authority shall be the City Manager, or his 7 authorized representative. The permit issued shall be for a term 8 of six (6) months from the date of issuance. The issuance of a 9 permit or permits shall not confer upon any applicant any rights 10 whatsoever that any subsequent permit shall be issued. The City 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Council reserves the right to rescind this article for any reason at any time whereupon all permits shall immediately be termi- nated, canceled and of no further force or effect, whereupon the City shall forthwith return to the applicant the application fee and the applicant shall immediately cease all bingo activities." SECTION 11. Section 17-16.1 is hereby amended to read as follows: "A duplicate license may be issued, with the consent of the license collector, to replace any license previously issued hereunder which has been lost or destroyed upon the licensee filing statement of such fact, and at the time of filing such statement paying to the license collector a duplicate license fee in an amount fixed by resolution of the City Council." SECTION 12. Section 17-55.14 (a) is hereby amended to read as follows: "A service charge in an amount fixed by resolution of the City Council shall be paid to the City by each subscriber or permittee of an alarmsystem, for each response made by the Police or Fire Department to the location of a false alarm after the first three (3) responses are made during the same calendar • 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 year." SECTION 13. Section 19-61.1 (b)is hereby amended to read as follows:. "Payment of fees as fixed by resolution of the City Council." SECTION 14. Section 19.5-21 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Prior to the issuance of the permit, a permit fee in an amount fixed by resolution of the City Council per day, or any portion thereof, shall be paid to the City. No fee shall be paid by any nonprofit organization." SECTION 15. Section 24-2.4 is hereby amended to read as follows: "The schedule of fees contained in section 20.7 of the Uniform Plumbing Code is hereby deleted and the schedule of fees most recently enacted by resolution of the City Council pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 2; Article XII of the City Code is hereby substituted therefor." SECTION 16. Section 29.5-12 (b) is hereby amended to read as follows: "A filing fee fixed by resolution of the City Coun- cil shall be submitted by the applicant to cover costs of filing and examination of tentative maps. This fee shall be nonrefundable." SECTION 17. 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 18. 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 19. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and adoption of this 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 proceed- ings 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 90 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING A MASTER SCHEDULE OF SERVICE CHARGES AND FEES WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIIIB of the Constitution of the State of California, it is the intent of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach to ascertain and recover costs reasonably borne from fees and charges levied therefore in providing certain City regulation, products or services; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of this objective the Hermosa Beach City Council authorized a study in 1990 by David M. Griffith and Associates and City staff to review the City's revenue structure and costs related to` non -tax supported services to the public; and WHEREAS, such study was completed pursuant to --the- requirements of Article XIIIB Section B (6), and found that revenue from fees and chargesfor certain services ,benefiting only portions of the general taxpaying public, or which are used in varying amounts by rate payers, were inadequate to avoid being subsidized by the general tax paying public, and in a few cases were higher than appropriate; and WHEREAS, increases in service fees and charges will in many cases cause the services to be self-supporting, thereby freeing much needed tax revenue to provide services to our citizens at large; and WHEREAS, it is organizationally beneficial to consolidate as many fees and charges as reasonable into one resolution for easy reference and updating; and ATTACHMENT C 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 WHEREAS, notice and public hearing requirements for fee subject to Government Section 54992 have been met prior t passage of this resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of th City of Hermosa Beach that a master schedule of service fees an charges for services performed by City Departments shall be a shown on the attached schedules for the departments set fort below: SECTION 1. BUILDING AND SAFETY 2. FIRE 3. PLANNING 4. POLICE 5. PUBLIC WORKS 6. MISCELLANEOUS FEES 7. All fees and charges specified in this resolutio shall be administratively adjusted annually September 1 of each year up a maximum percentage o the lower of the following: a. the percentage increase in the. City's Genera Fund operating appropriations over the prio fiscal year, or b. the percentage change in the Consumer Price Inde for all urban consumers, Los Angeles/Long Beac area, all items, for the twelve months ending th prior May of the same calendar year. 8. All portions of prior resolutions conflicting wit this resolution are hereby superseded. 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 9. This resolution, following its adoption by the City Council, shall take effect upon the effectiveness of its companion ordinance on the same subject. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day o 1990. PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY BUILDING BUILDING PERM/INSP PLBG/MECH PERM/INSP ELECTRICAL PERM/INSP PLAN CHECKING SIGN REVIEW TEMP.SIGN PERMIT RBR RES INSP OCC PERMIT COMM INSP BOARD OF APPEALS .LEGAL DET HEARING ZONING APPEALS REFUSE LIEN FEE TENANT REFUSE BILLING SCHEDULE 1 LEGAL AUTHORITY HBMC 7-1.3 HBMC 24-2.4/7-4.3 HBMC 11-2 Ord 84-762 Ord 77-574 New Res 84-473 Exec Ord 9/84 Ord N.S. 508 New New Res 87-5024 Res 87-5024 FEE * REFER TO SCHEDULE REFER TO SCHEDULE REFER TO SCHEDULE * 65% OF BLDG PERMITS $80 $30 $40 $40 $150 $1,000 $450 $10 $10 *EXCLUDED FROM COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS, BASED ON VALUATIONS BUILDING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE Total Valuation Fee $1.00 to $500.00 $25.00 $500.00 to $2000.00 $25.00 for the first $500.00 plus $4.00 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof, to and in- cluding $2000.00 $2001.00 to $25,000.00 $85.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $15.50 for each additional ,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $441.50 for the first $25,000.00 plus $11.75 foreach additional $1000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00 $50,000.00 to $100,000.00 $735.25 for the first $50,000.00 plus $7.75 for each $1000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00 $100,001.00 and up $1122.75 for the first $100,000.00 plus $6.50 for each additional $1000.00 or fraction thereof OTHER INSPECTION AND FEE SCHEDULES 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours - (minimum charge - two hours) $25.00 per hour 2. Reinspection fee assessed under provisions of Section 305 (g) - $25.00 each 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated - (minimum charge - one half hour) $25.00 per hour 4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans - (minimum charge - one half hour) $25.00 per hour ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE New General Use Branch Circuits Rating, Type or Use of Branch Circuits 15 or 20 amp. 120v lighting or general use recept.; and dwelling appliances 15 to 50 amps. and non -dwelling motors or appliances supplying loads not exceeding 3 HP or KVA. 1. 1 to 10 branch circuits 2. 11 to 40 branch circuits 3. 41 or more branch circuits 4. 15 or 20 amp. 208v to 277v lighting 5. All other lighting branch circuit 600v or less Fee for each Branch Circuit $ 12.00 11.00 10.00 15.50 19.00 Fees for adding outlets (to existing br. cir.) or temporary lights & yard lighting. Fee Number of Outlets or Lampholders 1. 1 to 5 inclusive $ 14.00 2. 6 to 10 inclusive 18.00 3. For ea. additional 10 outlets or fraction thereof 8.00 4. 50 or less lampholders, total fee 10.00 5. 51 to 100 lampholders, total fee 20.00 6. Ea. 100 Lampholders or fraction thereof over 100 10.00 Fees for Motors, Transformers, Heating App. & Misc. Equipment or Appliances. H:P., K.W., or K.V.A. Rating of Equipment 1. Over 3 and not over 5 $,.13.00 2. Over 5 and not over 20 20.00 3. Over 20 and not over 50 30.00 4. Over 50 and not over 100 66.00 5. Over 100 100.00 Fees for Required Fire Warning, Communications and. Emergency Control Systems. 1. Up to 50 devices 2. 51 to 100 devices 3. 101 to 200 devices 4. 201 to 300 devices 5. 300 to 500 devices 6. Over 500 devices 7. Each control panel, standby power panel, annunciator panel, or similar main piece of control equipment $ 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 20.00 ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE continued Fees for Service and Switchboard Sections. Ampacity and voltage ratings of service entrance conductors, services switches or circuit, breakers or switchboard sections. Services 1. 200 amp or less rating - 600v or less $13.00 2. 201 to and incl. 600 amp - 600v or less 26.00 3. Over 600 amp - 600v or less 54.00 4. Over 600 volt ratings 100.00 5. Temporary Power Pole 13.00 Switchboard Sections $12.00 20.00 30.00 60.00 Miscellaneous: Fee for issuing each permit Fee for issuing each supplemental permit 20.00 6.00 MECHANICAL PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE (HEATING, VENTILATION, AIR CONDITIONING OR REFRIGERATION) Forced -air or Gravity Up to 100,000 B.T.U. 12.00 type Furnace including ducts and vents: Over 100,000 B.T.U. 15.00 Floor Furnace 12.00 Heater - Suspended, Recessed wall or floor mounted 12.00 Gas Piping System of 1 to 4 outlets 10.00 Gas Piping System of 5 or more outlets, per outlet 2.00 Appliance vent - only 6.00 Boiler - Up to 3 H.P. or 100,000 B.T.U. 12.00 Compressor - 3 to 15 H.P. or 100,001.to 500,000 B.T.U. 22.00 Absorption - 15 to 30 H.P. or 500,001 to 1,000,000 B.T.U. 30.00 System -: 30 to 50 H.P. or 1,000,000 to 1,750,000 B.T.U. 45.00 Over 50 H.P. or 1,750,000 B.T.U. 75.00 Air Handling Unit Including Ducts - Under 10,000 C.F.M. 9.00 Over 10,000 C.F.M. 15.00 Evaporative cooler (non-portable) Vent fan / single duct Mechanical Vent Mechanical exhaust hood Domestic type incinerator Commercial / Industrial incinerator Repair, alter, addition to each heating appliance, refrigeration unit, comfort cooling unit, or system including controls Any equipment regulated but not included above Fee for issuing each permit Supplemental Permit 9.00 6.00 9.00 9.00 15.00 60.00 12.00 9.00 20.00 6.00 PLUMBING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE Each plumbing fixture, trap, or set of fixtures on one trap (including water, drain piping & backflow protection) Each building sewer or trailer park sewer Rainwater system per drain (inside building) Each water heater and/or vent Each piping system of 1 to 5 outlets Each gas outlet over 5 Each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including trap & vent, excepting kitchen type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps Each installation, alteration or repair of water piping and/or water treating equipment Each repair or alteration of•drainage or vent piping Each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter including backflow protection devices Atmospheric type vacuum breakers not incl. above: 1 to 5 Over 5, each Each backflow protective device other than atmospheric type vacuum breakers: 2 inches and smaller Over 2 inches Fire sprinkler piping system 1 to 10 heads 11 to 25 heads 26 to 50 heads 51 to 100 heads 101 to 200 heads 201 to 300 heads 301 to 500 heads 501 to 1000 heads 1001 or more heads Fee for issuing each permit Supplemental Issuance Fee 8.00 20.00 8.00 10.00 10.00 2.00 16.00 4.00 4.00 12.00 10.00 2.00 10.00 20.00 10.00 15.00 24.00 34.00 54.00 74.00 94.00 124.00 184.00 264.00 20.00 6.00 FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE REPT COPIES P/M RESP TRANSPORT P/M RESP NON -TRANS LOCK -OUT (CAR) LOCK -OUT (HOUSE) FLOODING WATER REM. SPRAY BOOTH PERM SPRAY BOOTH INSP FIRE PROT SYS EXIST OPEN FIRE PERMIT SPRINKLER CERT TEST COMM BLD / APT INSP FUMIGATION PERM/INSP Ord HAZ-MAT STORAGE AUTO REP PERMIT CAPTAIN HRLY RATE ENGINEER HRLY RATE FIREMAN HRLY RATE FF/PARA HRLY RATE SCHEDULE 2 LEGAL AUTHORITY Dept Policy Res 83-4657 New New Note 1 Note 2 Note 3 Note 4 Note 5 n n New New New 84-762 New n n n n FEE $9 $100/150 Note 1 $50/100 Note 2 $60 $95 $87 $15 $300 $105 Note 3 $43 $92 $175 Note 4 $43 Schedule Note 5 $57 $65.26 $54.92 $41.95 $45.68 $100 for residents, $150 for non-residents, paid within 60 days Fee increases to $150/200 after 60 days $50 if paid within 60 days, increases to $100 Firstinspection and re -inspection free, $105 First inspection and re -inspection free, $175 Schedule of fees as follows: Category I 0-500 gallons 0-5,000 pounds 0-2,000 cubic feet Category II Category III Category IV after 60 days each thereafter thereafter $100 annual fee 501-2750 gallons $300 annual fee 5,001-25,000 pounds 2,001-10,000 cubic feet Over Over Over 2,751 gallons $700 annual 25,001 pounds 10,001 cubic feet Governmental agencies Exempt fee SCHEDULE 3 LEGAL PLANNING AUTHORITY FEE ENVIRON ASSESSMENT Res 84-4735 $295 CUP CONDO 2 UNITS " $900 * CUP CONDO 4 UNITS " $1,200 * CUP CONDO 8+ UNITS " $1,800 * ** CUP COMMERCIAL " $600 *** CUP COMMERCIAL AMENDMENT $320 FINAL MAP it $225 ZONE CHG / GPA It $1,200 NONCONFORM REMODEL Res 89-5326 $670 PARKING PLAN Res 85-4884 $920 PRECISE DEV PLAN Res 90-5351 $1,145 TENT MAP SUBDIVISN HBMC 29.5-12 $920 ZONING VARIANCE " $925 FINAL/TENT MAP EXTEN New $225 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Res 88-5144 $515 PERMITTED USE REQ New $325 TEXT AMEND PRIVATE ' $445 VOLUNTARY LOT MERGER " $160 PLAN COMM APPEALS " $330 300' RADIUS NOTICING " $340 300' RADIUS NOTICING, " $90 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL * $600 BASE FEE PLUS $150 PER UNIT ** NEW ACTIVITY *** AMENDMENT OF EXISTING ACTIVITY OR AMORTIZATION OF EXISTING GRANDFATHERED ACTIVITY POLICE DEPARTMENT SCHEDULE 4 LEGAL AUTHORITY FEE FALSE ALRM RESPONSE HBMC 17-55.14 $100/AFTER 3 YR ALARM PERMITS " $30 JAIL SVCS PROGRAM Ord 84-762 $125 TRUSTEE ADMIN PROG " ACTUAL COST AMPLIFIED SOUND PERM HBMC 19.521 $35 CLEARANCE LETTERS CC Act 8/85 $5 ACC REPT T/C W/INJ ti $18 ACC REPT T/C NO INJ " $12 FINGER PRINT SVC IT $12 POLICE PHOTOGRAPH Dept Policy $7 INCID REPT PROCESS Ord 84-762 $12 CRIME REPT CC Act 8/85 $18 BICYCLE REGISTRATN " $6 SPEC EVENT SECURITY " $100/HOUR VEHICLE INSPECTION CC Act 8/85 $0 VEHICLE TOWING CC Act 8/85 $35 DISPATCH HRLY RATE *' New $31.02 PSO HOURLY RATE * it $34.90 SGT HOURLY RATE * " $63.62 OFFICER HRLY RATE * " $49.03 * HOURLY RATES WILL BE USED FOR DUI AND ,2ND PARTY CALL BILLINGS TO RECOVER ACTUAL COST PUBLIC WORKS BANNER PERMIT STR EXCAV CONSTR STR EXCAV UTIL CO SEWER PERM LATERAL DEMO SEWER PERMIT CASH DEP SIDEW PROC. LIEN AGR SIDEW PROC LIBRARY GEN MAINT' ENCROACH FILING FEE STRAND PERMIT DUMPSTER DROP SPEC CURB MKG-SURVEY SPEC CURB MKG-INSTAL BEACH VOLLEY CTS COMM OUTS DINE ENCR DIRECTOR HOURLY SUPERINTNT HOURLY CREW LDR HOURLY MAINT II HOURLY MAINT I HOURLY SWEEPER HOURLY HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE 5 LEGAL AUTHORITY Memo 6/84 Ord 84-762 Ord 84-762 Dept Policy n n Res Ord Res Res Res Ord 82-4499 84-762 88-5202 79-4303 79-4304 84-762 New CC Act 5/88 New n n n Ord 84-762 Note 1 Projects with estimated value time and material costs Note 2 Plus $6.00 per parking space Note 3 Handicap marking requests would be exempt Note 4 Plus $.50 per square foot FEE $185 $145 Note 1 $115 $150 $150 $75 $75 $4,788 $285 $20 '$40 Note 2 $250 $170 Note 3 $200 $280 Note 4 $93.96 $64.26 $53.75 $40.95 $31.57 $37.6.3 Actual cost over $5,000 will be based on MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENTS BUSINESS LICENSE DEPARTMENT GARAGE/YARD SALES BINGO PERMITS DUPLICATE BUSINESS LICENSE CITY CLERK PUBLIC NOTICE POSTER APPEAL TO COUNCIL COPIES, ZONING CODE SUBSCRIPTION, ZONING CODE SUPPLEMENTS DUBBING AUDIO TAPES VIDEO TAPE COPIES PHOTOCOPIES * GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DOG LICENSES CAT LICENSES ANIMAL/FOWL PERMITS ANIMAL REDEMPTION FEE PARKING PERMITS/ANNUAL DAILY PARKING PERMIT DRIVEWAY PERMITS GUEST PERMITS CONTRACTOR'S PERMITS BOOT RELEASE FEE SCHEDULE 6 LEGAL AUTHORITY ORD. 82-682 HBMC 13-15 HBMC 17-16.1 RES.78-4239 HBMC 2.27 RES. 82-4500 FEE $3 $50 $5 $10 $266.50 + COST OF AD $16 $10 RES. 82-4515 $20/ONE SIDE, $25/TWO SIDES $25 RES. 82-4500 $1.00/FIRST COPY, $.15/ADDITIONAL HBMC 4-11 HBMC4-40 HBMC 4-4 HBMC 4-4.1 HBMC 4-18 RES 88-5162 n HBMC 19-61.1 RES. 85-4793 RES. 86-4962. $18 $9 NEUTERED 50% DISCOUNT SENIOR CITIZEN $10 $5 NEUTERED $5 LOST TAG $10 CHANGE OWNERSHIP $5 CHANGE OWNERSHIP, NEUTERED $50 PERMIT $50 APPEAL $20 FIRST $35 SECOND $50 THIRD $25 $5/DAY $27.50/ONE TIME FEE $1/PERMIT, $5 MAXIMUM $20/MO/VEHICLE $35 COMMUNITY RESOURCES SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS: COMMERCIAL GROUPS - PUBLIC OUTDOOR AREAS/MISC FACILITIES STILL PHOTOGRAPHY RES. 89-5327 FILMING NON-PROFIT GROUPS - PUBLIC OUTDOOR AREAS/MISC FACILITIES PASS THRUS FUNDRAISING/PARKS RESIDENT BLOCK PARTIES FINANCE DEPARTMENT. RETURNED CHECKS SALE OF MAPS RES. 84-4734 RES 82-4500 MINIMUM $1500/DAY $50 PERMIT $50/DAY LOCATION FEE $700/DAY LOCATION FEE $300/PERMIT FEE $10/DAY PARKING METERS $1/PARTICIPANT & SPECTATOR $100 $25 $25 PERMIT $30 AMPLIFICATION FEE $10 $0.60 * PHOTOCOPIES OF CANDIDATE DISCLOSURE STATMENTS ARE $.10/PAGE IF FILED PURSUANT TO POLITICAL. REFORM ACT. DOCUMENTS OVER FIVE YEARS OLD MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL $5 RETRIEVAL FEE ,s4cKcRaaND Mil TFR/Al October 25, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members Workshop Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of October 30, 1990 WORKSHOP ON CITY USER FEES Recommendation: That the City Council review the information to be supplied at your workshop meeting of October 30 in order to look in some detail at the David M. Griffith's User Fee Study information and the staff's recommendations for fee adjustments. While questions in order to understand fully this complex issue are encouraged, this meeting is not intended to formulate decisions. The formal presentation of the report is scheduled as part of a public hear- ing at the regular Council meeting of November 13, 1990. Background: In 1984, the City commissioned a major study of user fees. This study, occurring at a time of major fiscal problems -for the City, was the first comprehensive look at our fees, and resulted in a listing by ordinance of our fees, with percentages of recovery to be accomplished. Instaff's view, that study, while useful and well implemented at the time, is very cumbersome to keep up to date and has a difficult and confusing process for updating. Because the City Council's continuing top priority goal is to improve the City's financial picture, updating the City's user• fees is high on the list of projects to accomplish and rep- resents the most significant effort that likely will be conducted during the current fiscal year to accomplish that specific goal. As a result of this priority, the City Council on March 13, 1990 authorized contracting with David M. Griffith and Associates for development of a cost allocation plan and user fee study for our City. In order to keep consultant costs to a minimum, the study was limited to four departments, and omitted any recommendations. As a result, staff has used in-house resources to cover other areas. Analysis: The consultant's summary report and presentation discuss the study methodology and rationale for setting fees in California. In brief, the concept is that fees for special services should be adequate to fund those services, rather than relying on the general taxes of.a city paid by all taxpayers. This allows tax- payer funds to go for services used by all citizens, such as police and fire protection, streets, parks and open space, etc. The state law requires fees be set at not higher than the cost reasonably borne in providing the services for which the fee .ap plies. This requires a rather sophisticated study to ascertain the direct, indirect, and overhead costs that should be assigned to every service for which a fee is appropriate. For example, the services of our police officers for special events such as filming are appropriate to charge fees, as they benefit the film maker and should not be subsidized by Hermosa taxpayers. Accordingly, the City should charge (costs are esti- mated for illustrative purposes only) $20 per hour direct cost for the officer, plus $18/hr. pro -rated cost for health in- surance, retirement, uniforms, etc. as indirect costs, plus $17 per hour for the pro -rated costs of the officers' supervision, the police department building, the Council, Clerk, City Manager, and Finance time, the mechanics time for the officer's vehicle, the vehicle's gas and depreciation costs, etc. the total is $55 per hour. There are obviously limitations to this procedure. First, not all services are appropriate for assigning fees, and clearly no amount of reasonable effort could be precise to the penny for every individual request for service. To provide some allowance for this fact, the staff recommendation does not adjust the '89- 90 data used to take into account the current year's higher costs. Staff actions - To follow up and continue the work initiated by the consultant, the staff has developed recommendations based on the following goals and criteria: 1)As pointed out on Page 6 of the consultant's handout, the factors in determining appropriateness of a fee include the elasticity of demand, the subsidization policy, the economic incentives, and the competitive restraints. 2) Continuation of the basic concept adopted by the City Coun- cil in 1984 that special services should be paid by the in- dividuals causing and/or receiving those services, not the taxpayer that does not receive them. The process by which fees are established in the City should be set by ordinance, and that their actual amount should be set by a master resolution adopted by the City Council to assure ease of administration and updating, as well as full public accountability. A procedure should be developed that causes fees to be regu- larly and routinely updated to assure that the value of the fee amounts remain constant despite fluctuations in the values of the dollar. This is consistent with the Council's direction to develop a system that would avoid repeated need for comprehensive studies by consultants. The recommended fees should not appear to be "ridiculous", in that they would be out of line with what other cities charge or be so high as to result in a shock and resentment from our citizens. 6) That the method of adjusting fees be clear and require public input at the Council level as well as Council approval. Application of these criteria to the findings of the consultant result in staff recommendation to increase 42 existing fees, while decreasing 11 existing fees. Staff is also recommending that 37 new fees be created to charge for services for which no charge has been previously assessed, but which would be consis- tent with the City's fee policy. The estimated annual impact of these recommendations would be elimination of up to $249,826 in taxpayer subsidy of special ser- vices. In turn, that same amount would represent an annual in- crease in revenue to the City's budget to be utilized for ser- vices affecting all our residents. (This figure is not adjusted for demand changes resulting from the fee changes, and could be less.) Staff is also recommending a procedure for an annual automatic minimum adjustment to apply to assure that the same fee is charged in terms of the purchasing power of the dollar from one year to the next. This would be accomplished by annually adjust- ing by the lower of the percentage increase in the General Fund operating appropriations over the prior fiscal year or the per- centage change in the Consumer Price Index for our area. Because unusual requests occur for which no fee has previously been es- tablished, staff is also recommending that the City Manager be authorized to set a fee for such circumstances, subject to appeal to the City Council. This would eliminate provision of special services without any reimbursement of City costs in the case where no fee has been established. These recommendations, when approved, will_represent a major com- ponent of long term fiscal solvency for our City. Staff also believes the recommendations will accomplish the Council direc- tive to implement a system that is self updating and will not require frequent consulting services to be maintained. --z7 Kevin B. Northci•aft City Manager KBN/ ld Attachments 1) David M. Griffith Report on Costs, Fees and Revenue (sepa- rately bound) 2) User Fee Study Summary Sheet 3) Survey of Area Cities' Selected Fees 4) Draft of. Proposed Ordinance 5) Draft of Proposed Resolution Note: Item 17 on the Police Department's Fee Study Session Vehicle Inspection - has an incorrect "Current Cost" Planning 1 ENVIRON ASSESSMENT 2 CUP CONDO 2 UNITS 3 CUP CONDO 4 UNITS 4 CUP CONDO 8* UNITS 5 CUP COMMERCIAL . 6 FINAL MAP 7.,ZONE CMG / GPA 8 NONCONFORM REMODEL 9 PARKING PLAN 10 P.O.P. 11 TENT MAP SUBDIVISN 12 ZONING VARIANCE 13 FINAL/TENT MAP EXTEN 14 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ' 15 PERMITTED USE REQ 16 TEXT AMEND PRIVATE 17 VOLUNTARY LOT MERGER 18 PLAN COMM APPEALS 19 300' RAD NOTICING ' -20 COUNTER / TELEPHONE • 21 LONG RANGE PLANNING ' 22 TRANSIT PROGRAMS • 23 OTHER NON -FEE • 24 CODE ENFORCE DESCRIPTION State Required review Discretionary project Review for Qualitative Purposes, Code Compl., end Public Input Code Compliance Review Req for chng/Pub Input Exception/Leg Non-conf Exception/Stand Pkg Req See CUP Description Code Compl/Qual Review Exc to Stand/Hardships More time/req by St Law Adjust Property line Add.to permitted list Request Zone Ord Change Req merge/Mul lots to 1 Plan Comm interpret Ord Public hearing noticing Zoning Inquiries General Plan review Dial-a-Ride/Comm bus Miscellaneous Violation Insp/Admin City of Hermosa Beach User Fee Study Summary Sheet UNIT CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT LEGAL VOLUME FEE COST SUBSIDY AUTHORITY 40.0 $230.00 $294.40 $64.40 Res 84-4735 8.0 $865.00 $988.25 $123.25 " 9.0 $1,185.00 $1,482.00 $297.00 " 8.0 $2,145.00 $1,975.88 ($169.12) " 20.0 $320.00 $891.80 $571.80 " 25.0 $125.00 $224.28 $99.28 " 10.0 $450.00 $2,383.60 $1,933.60 " 10.0 $320.00 $670.20 $350.20 Res 89-5326 5.0 $320.00 $924.80 $604.80 Res 85-4884 4.0 $320.00 $1,150.75 5830.75 Res 90-5351 1.0 $225.00 $919.00 5694.00 Res 84-4735 10.0 $320.00 $924.70 $604.70 " 2.0 $0.00 $225.50 $225.50 New 5.0 $320.00 $515.60 $195.60 Rea 88-5144 2.0 $0.00 $435.50 5435.50 New 1.0 $0.00 $591.00 $591.00 " 3.0 $0.00 $161.00 $161.00 " 1.0 $0.00 $439.00 5439.00 " 80.0 $0.00 $340.91 $340.91 " 1.0 $0.00 $56,305.00 $56,305.00 1.0 $0.00 $93,470.00 $93,470.00 1.0 $0.00 $15,654.00 $15,654.00 1.0 $0.00 $50,877.00 $50,877.00 1.0 $0.00 $56,295.00 $56,295.00 TOTALS $7,145.00 $14,597.26 $7,452.26 • Items marked with an asterisk have been excluded from the fee for service totals. +ote 1 - Fees calculated on $600 base fee plus $150 per unit. dote 2 - City initiated zone changes were included in current cost calculation. therefore fee is recommended at $1200. FACTORS CONSIDERED Man hours required, percentage of overall cost per project to Note applicant, fairness/ community values and comparison with other cities. RECOMM FEE ANNUAL FEE INC/DECR (-) IMPACT $295 Note 1 $900 Note 1 $1,200 Note 1 $1,800 1 $600 $225 Note 2 $1,200 $670 $920 $1,145 $920 $925 $225 $515 $435 $590 $160 $440 $340 Applicant initiated changes are estimated to be 50%, $13,505 $65 $35 $15 ($345) $280 $100 $750 $350 $600 $825 $695 $605 $225 $195 $435 $590 $160 $440 $340 $2,600 $280 $135 ($2,760) $5,600 $2,500 $7,500 $3,500 $3,000 $3,300 $695 $6,050 $450 $975 $870 $590 $480 $440 $27,200 $6,360 $63,405 tu1(ding 1 COUNTER / TELEPHONE 2 ZONING ENFORCEMNT 3 BUILDING PERM/INSP 4 PLBG/MECH PERM/INSP 5 .ELECTRICAL PERM/INSP 6 PLAN CHECKING 7 SIGN REVIEW 8 TEMP -SIGN PERMIT 9 RBR RES INSP 10 OCC PERMIT COMM INSP 11 BOARD OF APPEALS 12 LEGAL DET HEARING 13 ZONING APPEALS TOTALS City of Hermosa Beach User Fee Study Summary Sheet UNIT CURRENT CURRENT DESCRIPTION VOLUME FEE COST CURRENT LEGAL SUBSIDY AUTHORITY Public Contact 1.0 $0.00 $16,708.00 $16,708.00 Zoning Code Enforcement 1.0 $0.00 599,596.00 S99,596.00 New Bldg Construction 1.0 5170,000.00 5171,718.00 S1,718.00 New Plmb/Mech Installatn 1.0 534,000.00 $34,216.00 5216.00 New Elec Installation 1.0 540,000.00 S41,609.00 81,609.00 Review plans/Code Conf 1.0 5104,000.00 S104,710.00 5710.00 Review new signs 44.0 $25.00 $78.27 S53.27 Review Temporary signs 50.0 $0.00 $29.46 $29.46 Insp Res Prop(at sale) 287.0 540.00 $40.38 $0.38 New Bus. Inspections 197.0 S25.00 $38.97 813.97 Appeal Bldg Code Matters 4.0 S75.00 5150.75 $75.75 PC Appeal Dwelling Stat 2.0 80.00 5998.00 $998.00 Appeal Bldg Ofcl Dec 2.0 80.00 $452.50 5452.50 $348,165 $470,345 S122,180 Items marked with an asterisk have been excluded from the fee for service totals. Exec Ord 9/84 H H Ord 84-762 Ord 77-574 New Res 84-473 Exec Ord 9/84 Ord N.S. 508 New New FACTORS CONSIDERED NO RATIONALE FOR GENERAL TAXPAYER TO SUBSIDIZE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY RECOMMENDED FEE ANNUAL FEE INC/DECR (-) IMPACT SO SO $170,000 534,000 $40,000 5104,000 $80 S30 $40 S40 5150 $1,000 5450 $349,790 $0 SO SO $0 SO- SO S55 S30 SO S15 $75 $1,000 $450 $0 SO SO $O SO SO $2,420 $1,500 SO 52,955 $300 $2,000 5900 $1,625 510,075 Fire Department 1 MUTUAL AID (FIRE) 2 SUPPR TRAINING 3 FIRE REPT COPIES 4 EARTHQUAKE PREP 5 STATION TOURS 6 SCHOOL FIRE SAFE 7.OPEN HOUSE 8 SAFETY LECTURE 9 EMER MED PROBLEM 10 CPR CLASS 8 HOUR 11 CPR CLASS 4 HOUR 12 P/M RESP TRANSPORT 13 P/M RESP NON -TRANS 14 P/M STAND-BY 15 •/P SCREENING 16 PHOTO INSP FIRE/SAFE 17 LOCK -OUT (CAR) 18 LOCK -OUT (HOUSE) 19 FLOODING WATER REM 20 SPRA?'BOOTH PERM 21 SPRAY BOOTH INSP 22 PLAN CHECK NEW CONST 23 ALARM SYS PLAN CHECK 24 ALARM SYS INSPECT 25 FIRE PROT SYS EXIST 26 FIRE PROT SYS NEW 27 OPEN FIRE PERMIT 28 SPRINKLER CERT TEST 29 COMM BLD / APT INSP 30 FUMIGATION PERM/INSP DESCRIPTION Helping other Cities Fire -fighting Trng Sale of Report copies Trng/Various groups School/group tours Sfty trng at schools Ann Fire Prev Week Sfty talks/Ver grps Emer Sfty grp talks CPR instruction Transp/In lieu of Amb No P/M transport Stand-by/Var Events Citizen B/P check Photos Taken at lnsp Open Car/Key stuck Open House/Key stuck Vacuum leaked water Auto paint Bus perm Insp/Prior to permit Fire Dept Plan Review /1 Insp New Facilities Insp Existing Fac. Insp New Facilities Fire Pits/Park & Home Pressure Test System Ann Insp/Re-Insp Iss Perm/Insp Tents City of Hermosa Beach User Fee Study Summary Sheet UNIT CURRENT CURRENT VOLUME FEE COST 8.0 $0.00 $75.25 12.0 $0.00 S308.50 28.0 S2.50 $8.64 4.0 $0.00 $258.75 14.0 $0.00 $393.93 2.0 $0.00 S166.50 1.0 $0.00 $3,319.00 8.0 $0.00 S167.88 8.0 $0.00 $167.88 2.0 $0.00 $943.00 6.0 $0.00 $578.67 502.0 565.00/105.00 $201.10 494.0 $0.00 $99.67 1.0 $0.00 $269,553.00 545.0 $0.00 $11.42 2.0 $0.00 $41.00 170.0 $0.00 $59.48 40.0 $0.00 $94.65 30.0 $0.00 $86.50 8.0 S0.00 $15.38 8.0 $0.00 ` $298.13 30.0 $0.00 $54.23 35.0 $0.00 $38.09 35.0 $0.00 S298.31 80.0 $0.00 $106.91 20.0 $0.00 $596.55 50.0 $0.00 $42.62 60.0 $0.00 $91.95 925.0 $0.00 $126.37 224.0 S28.20 $42.67 CURRENT LEGAL SUBSIDY AUTHORITY $75.25 $308.50 $6.14 Dept Policy $258.75 $393.93 $166.50 $3,319.00 $167.88 $167.88 $943.00 S578.67 $201.10 Dept Policy $99.67 New $269,553.00 S11.42 $41.00 $59.48 New $94.65 $86.50 $15.38 $298.13 $54.23 $38.09 $298.31 S106.91 New $596.55 $42.62 New $91.95 New $126.37. n 11 11 $14.47 Ord 84-762 FACTORS CONSIDERED Cities help us In-house trng 100% of Cost Pub info/awareness 11 Note 1 Note 2 Public Relations City Use No chg if Emerg No chg/City cause 100% of Cost Bldg Dept Collects 0 u Note 4 0 100% Cost to Issue 100% of Cost Note 3 100% of Cost RECOMM FEE ANNUAL FEE INC/DEC (-) IMPACT SO SO SO SO $9 S7 SO SO SO SO SO: SO SO SO $0 SO SO SO SO SO SO SO 5100/150 $35/45 $50/100 S50/100 SO SO SO SO SO SO $60 560 $95 $95 $87 $87 $15 S15 S300 S300 SO SO $0 SO SO SO $105 $105 SO "S0 $43 .543 592 $92 $175 $175 $43 $15 SO SO $182 SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO $26,606 $41,990 SO $0 SO $10,200 $3,800. $2,610 $120 $2,400 SO $0 S0 $2,100 SO $2,150 $5,520 $40,469 $3,315 31 HAZ-KAT STORAGE Haz-Mat Storage Fees 1.0 32 ARSON/FIRE INVEST Investigate Incident 1.0 33 AUTO REP PERMIT New Auto Rep Bus 20.0 34 HOOD SYS INSP - NEW Restaurant Fire Hoods 1.0 •35 CAPTAIN HRLY RATE 465.0 '36 ENGINEER HRLY RATE 465.0 ,.'37 FIREMAN HRLY RATE 920.0 '38 FF/PARA.HRLY RATE 930.0 39 OTHER NON -FEE 1.0 $0.00 $1,100.00 $1,100.00 New Note 5 $0.00 S903.00 5903.00 City Use Only SO SO SO $0.00 S56.20 $56.20 " 100%. of Cost $57 S57 $1,140 S0.00 $119.00 $119.00 " Bldg Dept Collects SO SO S0 $0.00 $65.26 565.26 " $0.00 S54.92 $54.92 " S0.00 $41.95 $41.95 $0.00 $45.68 $45.68 $0.00 $791,444.00 S791,444.00 TOTALS $30.70 $1,072,076.04 $1,072,045.34 S1,081 S1,050 $142,602 - Items marked with an asterisk have been excluded from the fee for service totals. •- Revenue for this fee area is based on an estimated recoverable volume. See REVENUE/COST COMPARISON sheet for more information. 'These hourly rates are calculated for use in 2nd party response calls and DUI accident response calls. They can be broken down into per -minute rates as shown below: Captain per -minute: Engineer per -minute: Firemen per -minute:. FF/Para per -minute: S1.09 $0.92 $0.70 $0.76 to 1 -$100 for residents, $150 for Non-residents - if paid within 60 days. Goes to 5150/5200 if paid after 60 days. Based on 50/50 Res/non-res rates and 30% collected within 60 days; 70% collected after 60 days te 2 -550 for all if paid within 60 days. Goes to $100 after 60 days. Based on 30% collected within 60 days; 70% collected after 60 days. to 3 - First inspection & 1 re -inspection per year free; $175 each thereafter. Figures based on 25% of total inspections billable. to 4 - First inspection & 1 re -inspection per year free; $105 each thereafter. Figures based on 25% of total inspections billable. .te 5 - This fee wilt cover the costs involved in the inspection of the premises, issuance of the permit, and the costs associated with the administration of the hazardous materials program. Four subcategories will be implemented as follows: Category I 0-500 gallons 0-5,000 pounds 0-2,000 cubic feet • $100 annual fee Category II 501-2750 gallons $300 annual fee 5,001-25,000 pounds 2,001-10,000 cubic feet Category III •Over 2,751 gallons $700 annual fee Over 25,001 pounds Over 10,001 cubic feet Category IV Governmental agencies Exempt Police Department * 1 FALSE ALRM RESPONSE 2 ALARM PERMITS 3 JAIL SVCS PROGRAM 4 TRUSTEE ADMIN PROG 5 AMPLIFIED SOUND PERM 6 CLEARANCE LETTERS 7,.ACC REPT T/C W/INJ 8 ACC REPT T/C NO INJ 9 FINGER PRINT SVC 10 POLICE PHOTOGRAPH 11 INCID REPT PROCESS 12 CRIME REPT MINOR 13 CRIME REPT MAJOR 14 BICYCLE REGISTRATN 15 SPEC EVENT SEC MINOR 16 SPEC EVENT SEC MAJOR 17 VEHICLE INSPECTION VEHICLE TOWING DISPATCH HRLY RATE PSO MOURLY RATE '**21 SGT HOURLY RATE '**22 OFFICER HRLY RATE ' 23 ALL OTHER NON FEE 18 **19 TOTALS Resp to False Alarm Permit/Alarm System "Pay for Stay" Program "Pay for Stay" Crt Ord Permit for Amp Sound. Passprt/Travel Letters Acc w/Inj Report Copy Acc w/o Inj Report Copy Take Prints/Citizen,Apps Copies /Police Photos Var,Calls for Service Copy of Offense Report N Bicycle Licenses Security for Fiesta, Filming, etc. Ckg vehicles for Corr Tow veh/Police/Pkg City of Hermosa Beach User Fee Study Summary Sheet UNIT .CURRENT CURRENT VOLUME FEE COST 456.0 140.0 144.0 1.0 26.0 20.0 138.0 450.0 100.0 20.0 500.0 350.0 150.0 77.0 18.0 9.0 500.0 656.0 100.0 500.0 250.0 1500.0 1.0 $100.00 510.00 $85.00 $120.00 S30.00 $26.50 $24.00 S24.00 $25.00 S25.00 $24.00 $24.00 $24.00 $3.00 S440.00 $448.00 $6.00 $35.00 $22.80 $20.40 $36.60 $31.80 0 $87.75 $25.04 S123.86 S200.00 S34.23 $4.80 $17.77 $11.86 S11.76 $6.75 $11.87 $17.76 $17.72 S5.99 $798.78 S822.00 S85.96 $34.31 $31.02 $34.90 $63.62 $49.03 $3,676,771 CURRENT LEGAL , FACTORS RECOMM FEE ANNUAL SUBSIDY AUTHORITY CONSIDERED FEE INC/DEC (-) IMPACT (512.25)Ord 89-984 After 3/yr $15.04 " 100% of Cost $38.86 Ord 84-762 100% of Cost 580.00 " $4.23 Ord 88-971 ($21.70)CC Act 8/85 (S6.23) ($12.14) ($13.24) (S18.25)Dept Policy ($12.13)Ord 84-762 100% of Cost ($6.24)CC Act 8/85 100% of Cost (S6.28) " n 11 N 11 N 11 S2.99 $358.78 $374.00 1/ n. 11 N N $79.96 CC Act 8/85 Note 1 ($0.69)CC Act 8/85 100% Recovery $8.22 $14.50 $27.02 $17.23 $3,676,771 $1,585.10 $3,679,267.78 S3,677,682.68 - Items marked with an asterisk have been excluded from the fee for service totals. * • Revenue for this fee area is based on an estimated recoverable volume. See REVENUE/COST COMPARISON sheet for more information. New " $100 SO SO S30 S20 $2,800 $125 S40 $5,760 ACTUAL COST SO $0 S35 'S5 $130 S5 ($22) ($430) S18 (S6) (S828) $12 (S12) ($5,400) S12 ($13) ($1,300) ST (S18) ($360) S12 (S12) ($6,000) $18 ($6) ($2,100) S18 ($6) ($900) S6 S3 $231 ACTUAL COST SO SO ACTUAL COST SO SO S6 SO SO $35 SO $0 5439 ($27) (58,397) * These hourly rates are currently charged on a per -minute basis. The comparison between the current per -minute charge and the full cost per -minute charge is as follows: Current Full Cost Dispatch per -minute: $0.38 $0.60 P$0 per -minute: $0.34 $0.63 Sergeant per -minute: $0.61 $0.95 Officer per -minute: $0.53 $0.78 Note 1 - Fee level is in line with those of neighboring cities. / UNIT Public Works , DESCRIPTION VOLUME 1 BANNER PERMIT 2 STR EXCAV CONSTR 3 STR EXCAV UTIL CO 4 SEWER PERM LATERAL 5.0EMO SEWER PERMIT 6 CASH DEP SIDEW PROC 7 LIEN AGR SIDEW PROC 8 LIBRARY GEN MAINT 9 ENCROACH FILING FEE 10 STRAND PERMIT 11 DUMPSTER DROP 12 SPEC CURB MKG-SURVEY 13 SPEC CURB MKG-INSTAL 14 BEACH VOLLEY CTS 15 COMM OUTS DINE ENCR 16 DIRECTOR HOURLY 17 SUPERINTNT HOURLY ' 18 CREW'LbR HOURLY ' 19 MAINT II HOURLY ' 20 MAINT I HOURLY ' 21 SWEEPER HOURLY 22 ALL OTHER NON -FEE Banner/Non-profit grps Priv Work/Rt of Way Utility/Rt of Way Hookup to City Sewers Sewer cap inspection Dep/In lieu of install To allow for Cash Dep Library grnds maint Private use/Rt of Way Vehicle on Strand When on Pub Rt of Way Inap.for Loading Zone Mark Loading Zone Install Beach Courts Coma Use/Rt of Way 11.0 100.0 288.0 51.0 43.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 10.0 3.0 23.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 .4.0 50.0 50.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 40.0 1.0 City of Hermosa Beach User Fee Study Summary Sheet CURRENT FEE $100.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $40.00 $25.00 $25.00 $4,788.00 $151.00 $25.00 $25.00 $350.00 $100.00 $0.00 $151.00 $35.70 $19.00 $19.00 $19.00. $19.00. $19.00 $0.00 CURRENT COST $183.36 $146.75 $117.07 $151.84 $152.00 $74.50 $74.50 $6,573.00 $287.40 $20.00 $40.83 $249.00 $172.00 $201.67 $277.75 $93.96 $64.26 $53.75 $40.95 $31.57 $37.63 $1,773,863 CURRENT LEGAL SUBSIDY AUTHORITY $83.36 Memo 6/84 $96.75 Ord 84-762 $67.07 Ord 84-762, $101.84 Dept Policy $112.00 H $49.50 " $49.50 Res 82-4499 $1,785.00 Ord 84-762 $136.40 Res 88-5202 ($5.00)Res 79-4303 $15.83 Res 79-4304 ($101.00)Ord 84-762 $72.00 $201.67 $126.75 CC $58.26 $45.26 $34.75 $21.95 $12.57 $18.63 $1,773,863 TOTALS $6,060.70 $1,782,906.79 $1,776,846.09 It marked with an asterisk have been excluded from the fee for service totals. M New Act 5/88 New 0 11 11 It .FACTORS CONSIDERED User should pay, no direct or indirect benefit to Public. See Number 1 See Number 1 See Number 1 Existing cont. See Number .1 See Number 1 See Number 1 See Number 1 See See See - Current hourly rates are used in billings for public property damage, development review, request for street vacations, billings to LACPW (storm drain maintenance), and project reimbursement for grants. 4 to 1a- Projects with estimated value over $5,000 will be based on time and material costs. Number 1 Number 1 Number.1 RECOMM FEE ANNUAL FEE INC/DECR (-) IMPACT $185 Note 1 $145 $115 $150 $150 S75 $75 $4,788 $285 $20 $40 $250 $170 $200 $280 $6,928 $85 S95. $65 $100 $110 S50 $50 SO $134 ($5) $15 ($100) $70 $200 $129 $935 $9,500 $18,720 $5,100 $4,730 $200 S200 So $1,340 ($15) $345 ($100) $70 $600 $516 $998 $42,141 USER FEE COMPARISON CHARTS PLANNING EIR Report HERMOSA BEACH 230.00 MANHATTAN BEACH TORRANCE 358.00 750.00 EL SEGUNDO 37.00 3,605.00 4,105.00 Variance Minor 320.00 689.00 204.00 1,000.00 Lot Line Adjustment 320.00 675.00 935.00 1,835.00 375.00 520.00 1,020.00 HAWTHORNE 110.00 + 300.00 for Neg.Dec. REDONDO BEACH 585.00 1,502.00 535.00 1,502.00 Exc to Ord. Non -con.; 320.00 225.00 125.00 450.00 Tent Parcel/ Tract Maps Final Maps Zone Change 386.00 413.00 198.00 689.00 1,000.00 675.00 935.00 1,835.00 1,502.00 880.00 1,000.00 935.00 1,320.00 3,060.00 2,198.00 880.00 Lot Split i 450.00 Cond. Use Per. ; 320.00 (Amendment) CUP Condo per ; ,320.00 Unit i+ 160.00 Gen. Plan Amend 450.00 Parking Plan ; 320.00 689.00 689.00 338.00 900.00 1,502.00 1,000.00 675.00 935.00 1,835.00 1,502.00 730.00 1,819 Base + 150.00 935.00 + 470.00 689.00 750.00 2,158.00 Development Agreements ;1,500.00 Deposit 1,235.00 1,170.00 Plan.Comm. Appeal 348.50 274.00 80.00 170.00 235.00 460.00 3/4 of original fee Zoning Ordinance 16.00 Planned Dev. Permit (Amend.) 320.00. 689.00 204.00 1,170.00 USER FEE COMPARISON CHARTS HERMOSA BUILDING FEES- T BEACH Building Permits ($50,000 project) 735.25 MANHATTAN BEACH 484.70 REDONDO TORRANCE ; BEACH 395.00 756.46 Plan Check Fee ($50,000 project) 477.91 484.70 405.00 393.36 Elec. Permits Redondo Beach goes by sq. ft., Torrance & M.B. by outlets. Our is by branch circuits - No viable comparison Plmbg. Permits 8.00 3.30 8.76 Mech. Permits (per furnace) 12.00 8.80 13.14 RBR 40.00 45.00 /3- USER FEE COMPARISON CHARTS FIRE Paramedic trans. HERMOSA BEACH 100.00 150.00 MANHATTAN BEACH TORRANCE 100.00 Res. 150.00 Non EL SEGUNDO. REDONDO BEACH Open fire permit 43.00 35.00 Sprinkler Cert. test 92.00 57.00 +.50/per head 115.00 +1.00/head S.F. 300.00<15000 625.00>15000 Comm.Bldg./Apt. Insp. 175.00 after 2 Fumigation permit 43.00 28.00 96.00 50.00 1st 50.00 2nd 200.00 3rd <15000 sq.ft. 35.00 35.00 Spray booth permit 315.00 57.00 113.00 70.00 Auto repair 57.00 Fire reports 9.00 28.00 10.00 r 70.00 5.00 USER FEE COMPARISON CHARTS POLICE Clearance letter T Accident report HERMOSA BEACH 5.00 MANHATTAN BEACH 12.00 EL SEGUNDO REDONDO BEACH 35.00 18.00 12.00 59.00 32.00 Fingerprint 12.00 12.00 10.00 +.10 card 10.00 Photographs 7.00 12.00 5.00 18.00 Alarm permit 30.00 256.00 Bus. 128.00 Res. 25.00 False alarm response 100.00 after 3rd 100.00 after 3rd Vehicle insp.* 6.00 5.00 4.00 *Hawthorne', Torrance do not charge USER FEE COMPARISON CHARTS HERMOSA PUBLIC WORKS -- BEACH Banner permit 185.00 MANHATTAN BEACH 74.70 REDONDO EL SEGUNDO i BEACH 80.00 St. Excay. 145.00 33.85 Strand Permit 20.00 33.85 140.00 + actual cost of insp 40.00 Dumpster drop i. 46.00 50.00 . 80.00. Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 90-6 LOCATION: CITY WIDE INITIATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION — /d Si //--/-S-5 November 1, 1990 Regular Meeting of November 13, 1990 PURPOSE: TO EXAMINE GIVING THE PLANNING COMMISSION GREATER DISCRETION IN GRANTING SIDE YARD EXCEPTIONS FOR CONTINUATION OF NONCONFORMING SIDE YARDS. Recommendation Planning Commission and Staff recommend amending Section 13-7(c)(3.) to give the Planning Commission authority to allow expansion of existing walls with nonconforming side yards of at least three feet when deemed a minor extension and consistent with the neighborhood. Background At their meeting of October 2, 1990, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the proposed amendment. For further background please refer to the Planning Commission staff report Analysis Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report for the analysis of the proposed amendment. CONCUR: Itichae`l Schubach Planning Director evin B. Nortrcraft en Robertson Associate Planner City Manager Attachments 1. Proposed Ordinance 2. P.C. Staff Report 10/2/90 3.. P.C. Resolution 90- 83 4. P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 5. P.C. Resolution initiating text amendment 6. P.C. Minutes 7/17/90 p/pcsrside 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25. 26 27 28 ORDINANCE 90 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT, SECTION 13-7(C)(3) REGARDING EXTENSIONS OF WALLS WITH NONCONFORMING SIDE YARDS TO GIVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MORE DISCRETION TO APPROVE REQUESTS FOR SUCH EXCEPTIONS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on November 13, 1990, and made the following Findings: A. Although the code allows for exceptions to extend walls with B. C. nonconforming side yards, it only allows: it 757 of the lots on the same block have the nonconforming side yards; This criteria is to restrictive and does in cases where same . or lesser not allow the Planning Commission the flexibility to allow logical minor additions to existing buildings based on the character of the existing structure Approval of this General Plan and and the surrounding neighborhood; amendment is not in conflict with is necessary to purpose of the zoning safety, and welfare; the carry out the general ordinance to serve the public health, • NOW, THEREFORE; the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain a amendment to the zoning ordinance text as follows, and adopts an environmental negative declaration: SECTION 1. Amend Section 13-7(c)(3) by adding the following underlined text: Where existing walls are a minimum of, or more than three (3) feet from the side property line, the wall may be expanded if at least seventy-five (75) percent of the block as defined by the zoning ordinance, has the same or smaller nonconforming side yards (excluding commercial and manufacturing uses); or, the wall may be expanded if the Planning Commission determines that the expansion within the otherwise code required setback is minor and necessary for the logical extension of 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 wall and that the nonconforming side yard is generally consistent with the majority of existing side yards in the "block" as defined by the zoning ordinance. Measurement of side yards shall be approximated by use of aerial photos and field inspections. Fees for such requests shall be set by the City Council. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. SECTION 3. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1990, by following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ' PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City .of. Hermosa Beach, California • ' ATTEST: APPROVEDAS TO FORM://�� p/persside CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY September 27, 1990 Honorable Chairman and Membersof the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission October 2, 1990 Regular Meeting of SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 90-6 LOCATION: CITY WIDE INITIATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PURPOSE: TO EXAMINE GIVING THE PLANNING COMMISSION GREATER DISCRETION IN GRANTING SIDE YARD EXCEPTIONS FOR CONTINUATION OF NONCONFORMING SIDE YARDS. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend amendment of Section 13-7(c)(3.) to give the Planning Commission authority to allow expansion of existing walls with nonconforming side yards of at least three feet when deemed a minor extension and consistent with the neighborhood. Background At the August 7, 1990 meeting, the Planning Commission initiated this study by adopting a resolution of intent (Resolution P.C. 90-76) This issue came up because, at the July 17, 1990 meeting the Planning Commission considered a request to grant an exception to continue an existing nonconforming side yard (3.21 feet rather than 4.5 feet) for a second story addition. Based on section 13-7(c)(3), the Planning Commission was not able to grant this request because less than 7570 of side yards on the same block have similar nonconforming side yards. Although the Planning Commission denied the request, it was expressed that perhaps the ordinance was too restrictive, especially since the expansion involved a wall length along the side yard of only 22 feet. Analysis Selected sections of 13-7(c) reads as follows: (2) Existing structures which are nonconforming as to yards, lot coverage, open space or height may be expanded or enlarged provided the expansion or enlargement complies with the regulations of the zone in which the structure is located. Existing nonconforming side yards may be maintained with an addition provided the side yard is not more than ten (10) percent smaller than the current side yard required. (3) Where existing walls are a minimum of, or more than C C three (3) feet from the side property line, the wall may be expanded if at least seventy-five (75) percent of the block as defined by the zoning ordinance, has the same or smaller nonconforming side yards (excluding commercial and manufacturing uses). Measurement of side yards shall be approximated by use of aerial photos and field inspections. Fees for such requests shall be set by the City. Council. This exception of (b) was included in the revision to Article 13 to allow approval of the expansion or extension of a wall with a nonconforming side yard, when such nonconformity is clearly a common situation on the same block. The 75% rule was chosen to establish a minimum criteria. The merits of the particular proposal, such as the scale of the expansion and other project characteristics, could also be considered by the Planning Commission to allow such an exception. In the case mentioned above it was calculated that only about 717 of the dwellings on the same block had similar or smaller nonconforming side yards. Therefore, pursuant to the ordinance the only choice was denial of the request, even though it only involved the extension of a 22 -foot wide portion of the house for a second story addition. Staff is proposing the addition of a statement to Section 1307(c)(3) that allows the Planning Commission to also consider requests for -extensions of walls with nonconforming side yards, if it is determined that the extension is minor, and that it is generally consistent with a majority of existing sideyards in the neighborhood. Michael Schubach /J6( Ten Robertson Associate Planner Planning Director Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution 2. P.C. Resolutions initiating text amendment 3. P.C. Minutes p/pcsrside Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council SCHEDULING OF DECEMBER, November 7, 1990 Regular Meeting of November 13, 1990 1990 COUNCIL MEETINGS Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve holding the regular meeting of the City Council on December 11, 1990, as the only scheduled Council Meeting for the month of December, 1990. Background: The December holiday season presents an annual need to review the dates for City Council meetings. The Council's regular meetings are the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month. The fourth Tuesday this year is December 25, a national holiday. Analysis: Since there are only four Tuesdays in the month, it seems appropriate to hold the first regular meeting of the month on December 11, 1990 and have no scheduled meeting until the first regular meeting in January, 1991, which will occur January 8th. Of course, should a need arise, the Mayor or three members of the City Council can call a special meeting. For your information, the Park, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission is combining its November. and December meetings to one, to be held December 5, 1990. The Planning Commission is holding its regular meeting December 4, 1990, but it is not planningto hold a second meeting in December. Respectfully submitted, evin B. North raft City Manager 11 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Member of the city Council r, FROM: Michael Schubach, Planning/D/ SUBJECT: Automatic Vacancy�' on Planning Commission DATE: November 8, 1990 Background The Planning Commission, at their November 6, 1990 meeting, were made aware of the automatic vacancy on the Commission. Their concern was that Chairman Ingell represented the business community particularly downtown and he would be a loss to the Commission. Attendance Chairman Ingell has been absent the following dates this year: January 3 • August 21 October 16 November 6 Municipal Code Section 2-74 This section indicates that after 4 absences in one year or 2 in one quarter causes an automatic vacancy unless the City Council grants a waiver. However, a commissioner continues- to serve. until a replacement is found, or the commissioner resigns. Discussion with Chairman Ingell Staff discussed this matter with Chairman Ingell, and he has indicated that he is willing to continue until there is a replacement. He does not believe a waiver would be appropriate since there is a chance that it could happen again because of his growing business which has resulted in more out-of-town trips. Noted: City Manager p/memoa