Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/88"I will honor Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year." -Charles Dickens AGENDA REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 13, 1988 - Council Chambers, City Hall Closed Session - 6:00 p.m. Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. MAYOR Jim Rosenberger MAYOR PRO TEM June Williams COUNCILMEMBERS Roger Creighton Chuck Sheldon Etta Simpson CITY CLERK Kathleen Midstokke CITY TREASURER Gary L•. Brutsch CITY MANAGER Kevin B. Northcraft CITY ATTORNEY James P. Lough. All Council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. Complete agenda materials are available for public inspection in the Police Department, Public Library and the Office of the City Clerk. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PRESENTATION OF SERVICE PLAQUE TO FRANK HOLBOROW, RETIRING BUSI- NESS LICENSE INSPECTOR CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any items on the Consent Calendar may do so at this time. Citizens may request to speak during Public Hearings and items appearing under Municipal Matters at the time the item is called. Citizen comments on items not on the agenda but within the Council's jurisdiction will be provided time at the end of the agenda. Please limit comments to three minutes. Citizens with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are requested to submit those comments to the City Manager. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority con- sent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of theseitems unless good cause is shown by a member prior to the roll call vote. (Items removed - 1 - will be considered under Agenda Item 3.) (a) Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on November 22, 1988. (b) Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) Recommendation to receive and file the monthly Invest- ment Report for November, 1988. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated December 5, 1988. (e) Recommendation to award contract for sanitary sewer rehabilitation capital improvement project 87-405, Tar- gert Area 3. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated December 5, 1988. Recommendation to enter into an agreement for contract administration and inspection services on sanitary sewer improvements, Target Area 3, CIP 87-405. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated November 30, 1988. (f) (g) A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR THE COMMUTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN (CTIP). For adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated December 5, 1988. (h) A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP #46950 FOR A 6 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM LOCATED AT 442 AND 504 HERMOSA AVENUE. For adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated December 5, 1988. (i) A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP #19588 FOR A 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM LOCATED AT 1061 LOMA DRIVE. For adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated December 5, 1988. (j) A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP #19757 FOR A 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM LOCATED AT 1057 LOMA DRIVE. For adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated December 5, 1988. (k) Recommendation to approve request for a 4 -way stop at Longfellow/Tennyson Place and no parking zone (red curb) on west side of Tennyson Place, with resolution for adoption as follows: A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 88-5185, BY ADDING THERETO A STOP INTERSECTION ON LONGFELLOW AVENUE ENTRANCE TO TENNYSON PLACE EASTBOUND AND WESTBOUND AS HEREIN SET FORTH. For adoption. Memo- randum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated December 1, 1988. 2 (1) A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.NS 2435, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING THERETO A NO PARKING ZONE ALONG VALLEY DRIVE AND 25TH STREET. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated November 30, 1988. (m) A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SPEED SURVEY ON MONTEREY BOULEVARD. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated December 5, 1988. (n) Recommendation to approve new class specification for Deputy City Engineer and revised class specification for Business License Inspector, and approve amending Public Works Position Allocation Plan. Memorandum from Person- nel Director Robert Blackwood dated December 2, 1988. (o) , Recommendation to ratify extension of contract with South Bay Regional Communications Center. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated De- cember 7, 1988. (P) (q) Recommendation to approve Request for Proposals to sell surplus City lots on 1st Street and 1st Place. Memoran- dum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated December 8, 1988. Recommendation to approve lease agreement between the* City of Hermosa Beach and Project Touch for office space in the Community Center. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated December 1, 1988. (r) A RESOLUTION FOR APPLICATION TO THE STATE FOR THE PER CAPITA GRANT PROGRAM AND APPROVAL OF PROJECT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF OUTDOOR BASKETBALL COMPLEX . For adop- tion. Memorandum fromm Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated December 1, 1988. (s) Recommendation to approve soliciting proposals for a Master Plan for Parks and Recreation and to appropriate $25,000 for the project. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated December 1, 1988. (t) A RESOLUTION RECITING THE FACT OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION CONSOLIDATED WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 1988, DECLARING THE RESULT AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. For adop- tion. Memorandum from City Clerk Kathleen Midstokke dated December 5, 1988. (u) Recommendation to receive and file a report concerning proposed emergency ambulance service agreements and franchise zones with Los Angeles County. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated De- cember 1, 1988. (v) (w) Recommendation to approve Extension Agreement and re- vised plans - Vasek Polak BMW Agreement. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated December 6, 1988. Recommendation to approve hydrology report and concep- tual grading plan for Tentative Tract 30986 (commonly known as the Power Street development). Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated November 29, 1988. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. (a) ORDINANCE NO. 88-968 - AN ORDINANCE CHANGING' THE ZONE OF AREA 4 FROM R-3 TO R-1 AND ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGA- TIVE DECLARATION. For adoption. . (b) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18-3 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLED "MINORS". For waiver of full reading and introduction. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated December 1, 1988, 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION.• 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. (a) Petition with 522 signatures requesting railroad right- of-way to remain as an off -leash area, and 6 letters from various residents requesting area to remain as it is currently. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. PROPOSED REZONE OF AREA 10 FROM R-2 TO R-1, AREA 11 FROM R-3 TO R-2, AND AREA 12 FROM R-3 TO C-3 OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WITH ORDINANCE. For waiver of full reading and introduction. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated December 5, 1988. HEARINGS 6. REPEAL OF TAX EXEMPTIONS: A. ORDINANCE NO. 88-966 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAP- TER 30, ARTICLE III, TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX, SEC- TION 30-12. DEFINITIONS. For adoption. B. ORDINANCE NO. 88-967 - AN ORDINANCE REPEALING HBMC CITY CODE SECTION 30-52, REFUND OF UTILITY TAXES IN EXCESS OF ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, AND AMENDING SEC- TION 30-55, INTEREST AND PENALTY. For adoption. Memorandum from Finance Administrator Viki Copeland dat- ed December 12, 1988. 7. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MERGING OF LOTS LOCATED AT 1214 TENTH STREET, 1233 - 21ST STREET, AND 425 ARDMORE AVENUE, WITH RESOLUTION. For adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated December 16, 1988. 8. SPECIAL STUDY OF A MAXIMUM OF TWO UNITS PER LOT IN THE R-2 ZONE. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated December 6, 1988. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 9. REVIEW OF CITY GOALS. Memorandum from City Manager Ke- vin B. Northcraft dated November 17, 1988. (Continued from 11/22/88 meeting.) 10. RECOMMENDATION TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 19-1/2 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLED "NOISE REGULATION" AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW CHAPTER 19-1/2, AND REPEAL- ING CERTAIN PARTS OF CHAPTER 20, TITLED "NUISANCES", WHICH ARE IN CONFLICT WITH NEW CHAPTER 19-1/2. For waiver of full reading and introduction. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated November 26, 1988. 11. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER (a) City Manager salary review per agreement. Memorandum . from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated December 7, 1988. 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Selection of Biltmore Advisory Task Force. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated December 8, 1988. 13. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Discussion requested by Councilmember Williams re. pos- sible moratorium in the Specific Plan Area. Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to discuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Coun- cil action tonight. (b) Discussion requested by Councilmember Williams re. Beach Drive street rededication in the Specific Plan Area. (c) Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to dis- cuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Council action tonight. Request by Councilmember Creighton for review of status of funds from Gotanda vs. City of Hermosa Beach lawsuit. Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to dis- cuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Council action tonight. 14. 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 TO DECEMBER 19, 1988 AT 6 P.M. CITY HALL OPERATING HOURS MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY OPEN 7:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. CLOSED FRIDAYS Where there is no vision the people perish.... HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WELCOME! By your presence in the City Council Chambers you are participating in the process of representative government. Your government welcomes your interest and hopes you will attend the City Council meetings often. It is the policy of the City Council that no discussion of new items will begin after 11:30 p.m., unless this rule is waived by the Council. The agendas are developed with the intent to have all matters covered within the time allowed. CITY VISION A less dense, more family oriented pleasant low. profile, financially sound community comprised of a separate and distinct business district and residential neighborhoods that are afforded full municipal services in which the maximum costs are borne by visitor/users; led by a City Council which accepts a stewardship role for community resources and displays a willingness to explore innovative alternatives, and moves toward public policy leadership in attitudes of full ethical awareness. This Council is dedicated to learning from the past, and preparing Hermosa Beach for tomorrow's challenges today. Adopted by City Council on October 23, 1986 NOTE: There is no smoking allowed in the Council Chambers r THE HERMOSA BEACH FORM OF GOVERNMENT Hermosa Beach has the Council -Manager form of government', with a City Manager ap- pointed by and responsible to the City Council for carrying out Council policy. The Mayor and Council decide what is to be done. The City Manager, operating through the entire City staff, does it. This separation of policy making and administration is considsered the most economical and efficient form of City government in the United States today. GLOSSARY The following explanations may help you to understand the terms found on most agen- das for meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council. Consent Items A compilation of all routine matters to be acted upon by one vote; approval re- quires a majority affirmative vote. Any Councilmember can remove an item from this listing thereby causing that matter to be considered under the category Consent Cal- endar items Removed For Separate Discussion. Public Hearings Public Hearings are held on certain matters as required by law. The Hearings afford the public the opportunity to appear and formally express their views regarding the matter being heard. Additionally, letters may be filed with the City Clerk, prior to the Hearing. Hearings Hearings are held on other matters of public importance for which there is no legal requirement to conduct an advertised Public Hearing. Ordinances An ordinance is a law that regulates government revenues and/or public conduct. All ordinances require two "readings". The first reading introduces the ordinance into the records. At least one week later Council may adopt, reject or hold over the ordinance to a subsequent meeting. Regular ordinances take effect 30 days after the second reading. Emergency ordinances are governed by different provisions and waive the time requirements. Written Communications The public, members of advisory boards/commissions or organizations may formally communicate to or make a request of Council by letter; said letters should be filed with the City Clerk by the Wednesday preceeding the Regular City Council meeting. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Manager The City Manager coordinates departmental reports and brings items to the attention of, or for action by the City Council. Verbal reports may be given by the City Manager regarding items not on the agenda, usually having arisen since the agenda was prepared on the preceding Wednesday. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Council Members of the City Council may place items on the agenda for consideration by the full Council. Other Matters - City Council These are matters that come to the attention of a Council member after publication of the Agenda. Oral Communications from the Public - Matters of an Urgency Nature Citizens wishing to address the City Council on an urgency matter not elsewhere con- sidered on the agenda may do so at this time. .Parking Authority The Parking Authority is a financially separate entity, but is operated as an inte- gral part of the City government. Vehicle Parking District No. 1 The City Council also serves as the Vehicle Parking District Commission. It's pur- pose is to oversee the operation of certain downtown parking lots and otherwise pro- mote public parking in the central business district. December 5, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council December 13, 1988 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE AREAS 10, 11 AND 12 LOCATION: REFER TO ATTACHED MAPS INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation The Planning Commission and staff recommend the following zone changes: Area 10: R-2 to R -2B Area 11: R-3 to R-2 Area 12: No change Background The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 15, 1988 to rezone the subject areas. Analysis Refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report for a detailed analysis. Attachments 1. Proposed Ordinance and maps of areas 10 & 11 2. Planning Commission staff report dated November 9, 1988 & maps of area 12 3. Planning Commission Resolution P.C. 88-101 4. Planning Commission minutes of November 15, 1988 5. Affidavit for public notice 6. Public correspondence CONCUR: kevin B. Northcraft City Manager ` T/ccsrznl0 1 Michael S hubach Planning Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 88 - AN ORDINANCE OF,THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THE AREAS 10 AND. 11 AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on December 13, 1988 and made the following Findings: A. State law requires consistency between the zoning and General Plan; B. Rezoning of area 11 from R-3 to R-2 will result in consistency between the zoning and General Plan; C. It will be necessary to change the General Plan for area 10 from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residentia.1;, D. Changing th•e zoning for area 10 from R-2 to R -2B will result in a potential density reduction of forty percent (407o); NOW, THEREFORE, the City.of Hermosa Beach, California,. does hereby ordain that the Zoning Map shall be amended as shown on the attached maps and legally described as follows: 1. Rezone area 10 from R-2 to R -2B, as shown on the attached map and legally described as follows: - Lots 22 - 25 inclusive, 28 - 31 inclusive and the northerly 9.71' of Lot 27 and southerly 10' of Lot 26, Taften Heights Tract. 2. Rezone area 11 from R-3 to R-2, as shown on the attached map and legally described as follows; Lots 18 - 25 inclusive, Tract No. 223. - Portion of Lots 6 & 7, Block 78, Second Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract. 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. 4. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days afterthe date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 1 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the. proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: A 'ROVED AS T/ corznl0 ITY ATTORNEY .3 c AEXISTING NUMBER OF UNITS ST • .:::• • . Of 0 O D7 m rri Of • 10TH EA 1 1 \ EXISTING NUMBER OF UNITS 76.34'£ o, $T • •' N I/O 12 POR: • 16 • POR i 3G 6r .3740 1 3736 8TH 1 I ee 1t 15 14 Y ✓' 3296 33 3 2 POR. ** APPROVED PROJECTS CURRENTLY BEING DEVELOPED - 5 PLACE 33 23 r C r November 9, 1988 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission November 15, 1988 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE AREAS 10, 11 AND 12 LOCATION: REFER TO ATTACHED MAPS INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation Staff recommends the following zone changes:: Area 10: R-2 to R -2B. Area 11: R-3 to R-2. Area 12: No change. Background According to the City Council's schedule of zone changes, the subject areas should be considered at this time. Analysis Area 10 This area consists of 10 lots fronting on Barney Court and Meyer Court. 6 of the 10 lots are over 5,000 sq. ft. in size. Four of the 10 lots have 2 dwelling units each, and one lot has three dwelling units; the remaining five lots have single family dwellings. Based on statistical data, staff believes this area to be "borderline", and it appears to be essentially a matter of factorial priority as to whether this area should be rezoned R-1 or R -2B. Staff believes that lot size alone should not be the determinant. Age of structures, and the number existing single family dwellings should have equal weight. Further, having some large R-1 lots in the City provides for a better mix and variety of housing in the community. Looking at all these factors, it is observed that 81% are 30 years or less in age, and 507 are already 2 family or more developments. Another factor is "spot zoning". Staff would not see this area as such, since it is not just one or two lots; however, it is a small area of R-2 in the midst of a generally R-1 zoned area. If this area was rezoned to R -2B, a 40% reduction in potential density would result, and overall potential density would be 14.7 units per acre whc-ch is just slightly higher than the General Plan Low Density designation. STATISTICAL DATA FOR AREA 10 Total Land Area: 47,290 sq. ft. Total No. of Lots: 10 Typical Lot Size: Varies (2,940 sq. ft. - 6,780 sq. ft.) Current No. of Dwelling Units: 16 Average No. of Units per Lot: 1.6 Existing Density: 14.7 Units per Acre Existing Zoning: General Plan Designation: LD - Low Density Potential No. of Units under Current R-2 Zoning Ordinance (1,750 sq. ft. per Unit): 22 Potential No. of Units under Previous R-2 Zoning Ordinance (1,200 sq, ft. per Unit, 2 unit max.): 20 Potential No. of Units under Proposed R-1 Zone Change (1 Unit per Lot by Ordinance): 10 No. of Lots with Nonconforming Units under Current R-2 Ordinance: 0 No. of Lots with Nonconforming Units under Current R-1 Ordinance: No. of Units Constructed in the Last 10 Years: 5 3 No. of Units Constructed 10 to 20 Years Ago: 2 No. of Units Constructed 20 to 30 Years Ago: 8 No. of Units over 30 Years: 3 No. of Lots with One Unit: 5 No. of Lots with Two Units: 4 No. of Lots with Three Units: 1 7 Historical Factor: C C. a. 1922 Land Use Map: R-1 b. 1930 Land Use Map: R-3 c. 1943 Land Use Map: R-2 d. 1956 Zoning Map: R-2 e. 1978 Zoning Map: R-2 Lot Size Breakdown: a. No. of Lots below 3,500 sq. ft.:. 2 b. No. of Lots over 3,500 sq. ft.: 4 c. No. of Lots over 5,250'sq. ft.: 4 d. No. of Lots over 7,000 sq. ft.: 0 Area 11 This area is one black of R-3 zoned properties surrounded by R-2 zoning to the north and south. Commercial zoning exists on the east and open Space on the west. No R-3 zoning other than this block exist in the near vicinity. There are several lots that would become nonconforming if the zoning were to be changed to R-2. However, these lots are currently nonconforming as R-3, because of the 1986 density reduction ordinance. Further, nonconforming 4s one factor, if considered a priority, would eliminate most attempts to zone change any property in the City. 67% of the existing development would conform to the current R-2 zoning ordinance. Staff believes that the area should be rezoned R-2 for the following reasons: 1. Consistency with General Plan. 2. In compliance advisory measure EE. 3. Location of the area in relation to the surrounding R-2 zoning. STATISTICAL DATA FOR AREA 11 Total Land Area: 97,547 sq. ft. Total No. of Lots: 18 Typical Lot Size: 4,865 sq. ft. Current No. of Dwelling Units: 45 Average No. of Units per Lot: 2.2 8 Existing Density: 20 Units per Acre Existing Zoning: R-3 General Plan Designation: MD - Medium Density. Potential No. of Units under Current R-3 Zoning Ordinance (1,320 sq. ft. per Unit): 66 Potential No. of Units under Previous R-3 Zoning Ordinance (1,089 sq. ft. per Unit): Potential No. of Units under Proposed R-2 Zone Change (1,750 sq. ft. per Unit): 78 48 No. of Lots with Nonconforming Units under Current R-3 Ordinance: 3 No. of Lots with Nonconforming Units under Current R-2 Ordinance: 4 No. of Units Constructed in the Last 10 Years: 10 plus 8 currently • under development No. of Units Constructed 10 to 20 Years Ago: 0 No. of Units Constructed 20 to 30 Years Ago: 6 No. of Units over 30 Years: 21 No. of Lots with One Unit: 5 No. of Lots with Two Units: 5 No. of Lots with Three Units: 3 No. of Lots with more than Three Units: 5 Historical Factor: a. 1922 Land Use Map: Westerly Portion Industrial, Easterly Portion R-3 b. 1930 Land Use Map: R-3 c. 1943 Land Use Map: R-2 d. 1956 Zoning Map: R-3 e. 1978 Zoning Map: R-3 9 Lot Size Breakdown: a. No. of Lots below 3,500 sq. ft.: 0 b. No. of Lots over 3,500 sq. ft.: 8 c. No. of Lots over 5,250 sq. ft.: 8 d. No. of Lots over 7,000 sq. ft.: 2 Area 12 This area consists of three lots totalling 8,119 sq.. ft. with 10 existing apartment dwellings. Apparently, this area was zoned R-3 'as a buffer between the R-1 zoning to, the west and C-3 zoning to the east. The notion that somehow multiple dwellings act as buffers is not recoAgnized by staff; people cannot buffer people. Further multiple family dwellings can actually be more of an impact.to single family neighborhoods than commercial development because of the orientation of the structure, use of local street for overflow guest parking, and the bulk of the structure in relationship to a single family structure. Commercial structures properly oriented, with adequate parking for employees and customers, and with landscape setbacks could have little or no impact to adjacent single family neighborhoods. However, because of the existing development is relative new, less than 30 years old, and since the ownership is separate from the adjacent C.-3 zoned property, staff believes it is actually too late to rezone this property General Commercial. Further, if it were to be rezoned C-3, the property could be developed separately as three lots with frontage on a local street; this kind of situation results in a bodge podge of undesirable commercial developgment which will impact the adjacent neighborhood. N0 )ens y reductio w,/11/ rsysu/t f/`o ' relorying �9 su jec,� Atopen frm R'-3,/to -3 . / STATISTICAL DATA FOR AREA 12 Total Land Area: Total No. of Lots: Typical Lot Current No. Average No. Size: of Dwelling Units: of Units per Lot: Existing Density: Existing Zoning: - 1.0- 8,119 sq. ft. 1 (Three Merged) 8,119 sq. ft. 10 10 52 Units per Acre R-3 General Plan Designation: Potential No. of Units under Current R-3 Zoning Ordinance (1,320 sq. ft. per Unit): Potential No. of Units under Previous R-3 Zoning Ordinance (1,089 sq. ft. per unit): GC - Commercial 6 7 Potential No. of Units under Proposed C-3 Zone Change: 0 No. of Lots with Nonconforming Units under Current R-3 Ordinance: 1 No. of Lots with Nonconforming Units under Current C-3 Ordinance: 1 Age of Units: Historical Factor: a. 1922 Land Use Map: b. 1930 Land Use Map: c. 1943 Land Use Map: d. 1956 Zoning Map: e. 1978 Zoning Map: T/pcsrzon4 27 Years R-3 R-3 R-1 R-3 General Michael Schubach Planning Director C ( AREA 1 2 /#\ EXISTING NUMBER OF UNITS 1 2 3 4. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 88-101 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THE AREAS 10 AND 11 AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 15, 1988 and made the following Findings: A. State law requires consistency between the zoning and General Plan; B. Rezoning of area.. 11 from R-3 to R-2 will result in consistency between the zoning and General Plan; C. It will be necessary to change the General Plan for•.area 10 from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential; D. Changing the zoning for area 10 from R-2 to R -2B will result •• in a potential density reduction of forty percent (4070); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend that the Zoning Map shall be amended as shown on the attached maps and legally described as follows: 1. Rezone area 10 from R-2 to R -2B, as shown on the attached map and legally described as follows: Lots 22 - 25 inclusive, 28 - 31 inclusive and the northerly 9.71' of Lot 27 and southerly 10' of Lot 26, Taften Heights Tract. 2. Rezone area 11 from R-3 to R-2, as shown on the attached map and legally described as follows; Lots 18 - 25 inclusive, Tract No. 223. Portion of Lots 6 & 7, Block 78, Second Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract. VOTE: AYES: Comms. Ingell,Rue,Chmn.Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comms.Edwards,Ketz -/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 -- Continued Resolution P.C. 88-101 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 88-101 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 November 15, 1988 ),I -AA --t -- _ . - — Ja s Peirce, Chairman Michael S'cliubch,� Secretary Date T/persznl0 C C REZONE OF AREA 10 FROM R-2 TO R-1; AREA 11 FROM R-3 TOR R-2; AND AREA 12 FROM R-3 TO C-3 OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TO ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 9, 1988. According to the City Council's schedule of zone changes, the subject areas should be considered for rezoning at this time. Area 10 Area 10 consists of ten lots fronting on Barney Court and Meyer Court. Six of the ten lots are over 5000 square feet in size. Four of the ten lots have two dwelling units each, and one lot has three dwelling units. The five remaining lots have single-family dwellings. Based on statistical data, staff believes this area to be borderline, and it appears to be essentially a matter of factorial priority as to whether this area should be rezoned R-1 or R -2B determinant. Age of structures and the number of existing single-family dwellings should have equal weight. Further, having some large R-1 lots in the City provides for a better mix and variety of housing in the community. Looking at these factors, it is observed that 81 percent are 30 years or less in age, and 50 percent are already two-family or more developments. — 15 - P.C. Minutes 11/15/88 c Another factor to be considered is spot zoning. Staff would not see this area as such, since it is not just one or two lots; however, it is a small area of R-2 in the midst of a generally R-1 zoned area. If this area were rezoned to R -2B, a 40 percent reduction inpotential density would result, and overall potential density would be 14.7 units per acre, which is just slightly higher than the general plan designation of low density. Public Hearing opened at 9:20 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. No one appeared to speak on the issue of Area 10. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded. by Chmn. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation to rezone Area 10 from R-2 to R -2B. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ketz Area 11 Area 11 is one block'of R-3 zoned properties surrounded by R-2 zoning to the north and south. Commercial zoning exists on the east, and open space is on the west. No 1?.. -3 zoning other than this block exists in the near vicinity. There are several lots that would become nonconforming if the zoning were changed to R-2; however, these lots are currently nonconforming as R-3 because of the 1986 density reduction ordinance. Further, nonconformity, if considered to be a priority, would eliminate most attempts to zone change any property in the City. Sixty-seven percent of the existing developments would conform to the current R-2 zoning ordinance. Staff believes that Area 11 should be rezoned to R-2 for several reasons: (1) consistency with the general plan; (2) compliance with advisory measure EE; and (3) location of the area in relation to the surrounding R-2 zoning. Area 11 has a total land size of 97,547 square feet, and a total of 18 lots. The typical lot size is 4,865 square feet. There are 45 dwelling units, with an average number of 2.2 units per lot. The existing density is 20 units per acre. The existing zoning is R-3, with a general plan designation of medium density. The potential number of units under the current R-3 zoning ordinance is 66; potential under the previous R-3 zoning ordinance is 78; potential under the proposed R-2 zone change would be 48 units. There are three lots with nonconforming units under the current R-3 ordinance, and four lots with nonconforming units under the current R-2 ordinance. Ten units in Area 11 have been constructed within the last ten years, and eight are currently under construction. No units were constructed 10 to 20 years ago; six were built 20 to 30 years ago; and 21 are over 30 years old. -16- P.C. Minutes 11/15/88 Five lots have one unit; five lots have two units; three lots have three units; and five lots have more than three units. The land use maps of 1922, 1930, 1956, and 1978 were all R-3; however, 1943 was R-2. In Area 11 there are no lots under 3500 square feet; eight are over 3500 s uare feet; 8 are over 5250 square feet; and two lots are over 7000 square feet. Coming forward to speak on Area 11 were: Sibyl Hess, 647 9th Street, asked for clarification on the required amount of square footage per unit. She opposed a rezone to R-2. John Hales, 624 8th Place, favored a rezone to R-2,' stating that the area is already too crowded with excessive traffic and parking problems. James Lionel, 619 9th Place, favored a rezone to R-2. Ellis Chaney, owner of property on Ardmore, favored retaining the R-3 zoning. Mike Collins, 636 9th Street, favored retaining the R-3 zoning. Sako Miho, 731 9th Street, favored retaining the R-3 zoning. Jim Lyle favored a rezone to R-2, but he actually preferred R-1. Comm. Rue noted that the Planning Commission has no choice but to rezone Area 11 to R-2 in order to bring' it into conformity with the general plan. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation to rezone Area 11 from R-3 to R-2 in order to achieve consistency with the general plan. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ketz Area 12 Area 12 consists of three lots totaling 8,119 square feet, with ten existing apartment dwellings. Apparently, this area was zoned R-3 as a buffer between the R-1 zoning to the west and the C-3 zoning to the east. The notion that multiple dwellings somehow act as buffers is not recognized by staff since people cannot buffer people. Further multiple family dwellings can actually create more of an impact to single-family neighborhoods than commercial development because of the orientation of the structure, use of local streets for overflow guest parking, and the bulk of the structure in relationship to a single- family structure. Commercial structures properly oriented, with adequate parking for employees and customers, and with landscape setbacks could have little or no impact to adjacent single-family neighborhoods. -}1- P.C. Minutes 11/15/88 C C However, because the existing development is relatively new, less than 30 years old, and since the ownership is separate from the adjacent C-3 zoned property, staff believes it is actually too late to rezone this property to general commercial. Further, if it were rezoned to C-3, the property could be developed separately as three lots with frontage on a local street; this type of development results in a hodgepodge of undesirable commercial development which would then impact the adjacent neighborhood. No density reduction would result from rezoning Area 12 from R-3 to C-3. Coming forward to speak on Area 12 were: Hank Rado asked for clarification on the zoning map. Public Hearing closed at 9:52 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce noted that Area 12 has a general plan designation of general commercial and a zoning of R-3. He asked what would be necessary to leave the area as R-3. Mr. Schubach stated that staff has recommended Area 12 remain R-3. If the Commission agrees, Staff can return with a general plan amendment for this area. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, 'seconded by Comm. Ingell, to leave Area 12 as R-3 and have staff return with a general plan amendment for the area. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: None . . ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ketz — 1g— P.C. Minutes 11/15/88 ,'1 M t.1 Recommendation December 6, 1988 City Council Meeting December 13, 1988 Mayor and Members of the City Council CANVASS OF BALLOTS SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 8, 1988 It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached 'resolution entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF .THE,,CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, .CALIFORNIA, RECITING.THE„FACT OFTHESPECIAL MUNICIPALELECTIIN CONSOLIDATED WITH THEGENERALELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER :,.,19::,_DECLARING.THE RESULT AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW.” Background The results of the canvass are shown as "Exhibit A" of the attached resolution. Measure W - Confirming Taxes was passed, and should be deemed adopted. Respectfully submitted, Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk Concur: i?evin B. Northcraft, City Manager 1t 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. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECITING THE FACT OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION CONSOLIDATED WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 1988, DECLARING THE RESULT AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW. WHEREAS, a Special Municipal Election consolidated with the General Election was held and conducted in the City of Hermosa Beach, California, on Tuesday, November 8, 1988, as required by law; and WHEREAS, notice of the election was duly,.and regularly given in time, form and manner as provided by law; that voting pre- cincts were property established; that election officers were appointed and that in all respects the election was held and conducted and the votes were cast, received and canvassed and the returns made and declared in time, form and manner as required by the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of Cali- fornia for the holding of elections in cities; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 88-5172 adopted on July 30, 1988, the Registrar -Recorder, County of Los Angeles, canvassed the returns of the election and has certified the results to this City Council, the results are received, attached and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A". NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That there were twenty two (22) voting precincts established for the purpose of holding said election consisting of the regular election precincts in said City as established for holding of State and County elections. 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. That at the Special Municipal Election, the following measures were submitted to the electors of said City: W- BUSINESS LICENSE FEES, TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX AND PARK & RECREATION FACILITIES TAX Shall the business license fees, Transient Occupancy Tax and Park '& Recreation Facilities Taxes be confirmed? X- REZONING BILTMORE SITE R-1 AND SELLING TO HIGHEST BIDDER Shall the Biltmore Site be rezoned single family Residential, subject to Coastal Commission approval, and sold to the highest bidder? Y- REZONING BILTMORE SITE C-2 AND SELLING TO HIGHEST BIDDER Shall the Biltmore Site be rezoned C-2.Commercial (hotel, retail, etc.) and sold to the highest bidder? Z- SELLING BILTMORE SITE WITH SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR HOTEL TO HIGHEST BIDDER Shall the Biltmore hotel plan be amended and the City -owned site and parking lot sold to the highest bidder? SECTION 3. That the whole number of ballots cast in the City except absent voter ballots was 9,530. That the whole. number of absent voter ballots cast in the City was 980, making a total of 10,510 ballots cast. SECTION 4. That the number of votes given at each precinct and the number of votes given in the City for and against such measure are as listed in "Exhibit A" attached. SECTION 5. The City Council does declare and determine that as a result of said election, a majority of the qualified voters voting on such measures did determine as follows: W -BUSINESS LICENSE FEES, TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX AND PARK & RECREATION FACILITES TAX That said measure was carried, and shall be deemed adopted. X- REZONING BILTMORE SITE R-1 AND SELLING TO HIGHEST BIDDER That said measure was not carried, and shall not be deemed adopted. 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 Y- REZONING BILTMORE SITE C-2 AND SELLING TO HIGHEST BIDDER That said -measure was not carried, and shall not be deemed . adopted. Z- SELLING BILTMORE SITE WITH SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR HOTEL TO HIGHEST BIDDER That said measure was not carried, and shall not•be deemed adopted. SECTION 7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and shall enter the same in'the book of original Resolutions of said City. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON the 13th day of December, 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach ATTEST: PROVED AS TFORM: City Clerk Attorney 3 "Exhibit A" 1 of 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. ) I, CHARLES WEISSBURD, Registrar -Recorder of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct Canvass of the Votes Cast For and Against Propositions W, X, Y and Z at the Hermosa Beach City Special Municipal Election consolidated with the General Election held on November 8, 1988. • I further certify that the total Ballots Cast at the Hermosa Beach City Special Municipal Election are as follows: PRECINCT ABSENTEE TOTAL BALLOTS CAST BALLOTS CAST BALLOTS CAST 9,530 980, 10,510 I further certify that the total votes cast For and Against Propositions W, X, Y and Z are as follows: PRECINCT ABSENTEE TOTAL PROPOSITION W VOTE VOTE VOTE YES 4,789 499 5,288 NO 2,993 274 3,267 PROPOSITION X YES 3,696 293 3,989 NO 4,821 519 5,340 PROPOSITION Y YES 1,084 142 1,226 NO 7,295 654 7,949 (Continued on next page) Page 2 Of 4 PRECINCT ABSENTEE TOTAL PROPOSITION Z VOTE VOTE VOTE YES 2,998 366 3,364 NO 5,592 456 6,048' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal this 29th day of November, 1988. CHARLES WEISSBURD Registrar -Recorder County of Los Angeles •.. . " a D g 03 O m -i T.r 0 < m ri CI v I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m AA.ZmmgDmqm2I.Tm1.Zm7A.Tm7A13 AAAA n 3 3 Z 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 m2 3 Z OOOOb;OOOOOOOOOOOOO,,,,,,,,,,�t�ow,, v,,,,,wii .n.( D D D D D D D D D a D D D D D D D D D D D D < W W W W W W W M W W W W W W W W W W W W W W mmm 0 >>>)>>7.>>>>>P>>>>>3>>>>> rnmmm m 229 2229 2222222222292 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1pp1J��1cppc-�.1p-c47ttppt1J1�1(J�,.I(Qp(J�41ppJ(QptJ�cp-�.1p-4J�tpc-4�,1(J�1tpptJ1�ppJpp�Jl1J-.1p(,�11ppt-�4p,1 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0§ 0 0 0 0 8 8 8 ..... N O(ONm In W(000 J01p1A WN—O AW_. >>>>>>>>>>>>01>>>>>>>>> o m H n • P COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ... _ . . ".. "... :� .... .. 8 w O ()1 NW AwwAfJIAANwNAw,,mowAAmw �1JJN wowwww.p. W Ul UIOIamm,w Qp [o N J (O S7� y Will P�_DL_Q...10 -. A (o N 0 N BALLOTS CAST GENERAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 8, 1988 PAGE 98.1 . ... .. N to A . m (w0 .m( A w A J (m0 N— -+.+(pp M N N- -. N N-• -• III N N N-. W _N (1A,11MOM )1NCO W A�(MJN N(w)10 WN(Nf A(.A)Q N -- ' m N m A N N (JI o O (U m o O o J J W w N N mNN-t�QmwJmn--0(om(o(n--.c/ HERMOSA BCH SPEC PROPOSITION W YES HERMOSA BCH SPEC PROPOSITION W NO MUNI MUNI ELEC ELEC • w (O N 1 w w m mi N .... ... .... N -•-• N .... --ANN•+ — NN-, W AONN(Ty J -4w W WA-•NwwvAmw -• w snsa -- -- �, D2 A (0 oit u1"ll_C) m cn cn — J HERMOSA BCH SPEC PROPOSITION X VES MUNI ELEC w A W N 03 n ((3 N• .Q _N . •1 -. N-, oN NA NJ N N -+ -• N N -. -. N N (-p N- w N (NtL� N.�m aN omo_� m. (NJ (13J) m (.3C) v (m.) A m HERMOSA BCH SPEC PROPOSITION X NO MUNI ELEC • • to MA n 2 is w a (n A a J o o W A N A A m w oo a -• (n m N m (n (n11) -. -m WLm .b,..fX2-' — HERMOSA BCH SPEC PROPOSITION Y Y E S MUNI ELEC .. ...SPEC _[.L J m N (n A 0 . .{t__ N N W N N w A W W N N W w N N •A A N w (J w pJODJJA-.4(OAA AU1JW J (D QL133_0__ J m (.3 U1 --•. _ m_II m m co m -_ + N A R O P O HERMOSA PROPOSITION Y NO • MUNI ELEC .. (� .. m (�pp m pp J_ �mpp N AtA13 31241 1 _SW N (l N m m is m.m N W N -. N W N N-.+ W N-, -. W W -. N w W N W NA -•(O0 omm(-1 - 4 DU1 A—JNJ _ HERMOSA BCH SPEC PROPOSITION Z Y E S HERMOSA BCH SPEC PROPOSITION Z NO MUNI MUNI ELEC ELEC .. o A N Ojnaf 0 o Page 4 of 4 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES GENERAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 8, 1988 PAGE 98.2 OFFICIAL BALLOTS CAST HERMOSA BCH SPEC MUNI ELEC PROPOSITION W YES HERMOSA BCH SPEC MUNI ELEC PROPOSITION W NO HERMOSA BCH SPEC MUNI ELEC PROPOSITION X YES HERMOSA BCH SPEC MUNI ELEC PROPOSITION X NO HERMOSA BCH SPEC MUNI ELEC PROPOSITION Y YES HERMOSA BCH SPEC MUNI ELEC PROPOSITION Y NO HERMOSA BCH SPEC MUNI ELEC PROPOSITION Z YES HERMOSA BCH SPEC MUNI ELEC PROPOSITION Z NO COUNTYWIDE 953 478 3696 108 2998 299 4821 729 5592 COUJTYWIDE 9 49 29 14 366 ABSENTEE VOTE 27 519 65 45 27TH US CONGRESSIONAL 95 '47 36 10 • ' 29 299 4821 729 • 55 27TH US ENTEE V SENATE�OTE 27 519 65 5 29TH STATE 953 478 369 1084 299 2993 4821 729 559 29TH STATE SENATE 9 ' 498 2 142 3 ABSENTEE VOTE 274 51 54 456 51ST STATE ASSEMBLY 953 4785 369 1084 2998 2993 4821 729 9 55921 • 51ST STATE ASSEMBLY 98 49 29 14 36 ABSENTEE VOTE 274 519 65 45 4TH' SUPERVISORIAL 95 47 36 10 29 299 482i 729 559 4TH BOARD OF EQUALIZAT 953 478 369 1084 299 • • 2993 4821 729 559 HERMOSA BEACH 953 478 369 1084 299 299 4821 729, 559 HERMOSA BEACH 9 4 2 :142 3 _ABSENTEE VOTE 27• 519 65 456 December 8, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of December 13, 1988 BILTMORE ADVISORY TASK FORCE Recommendation: That the City Council appoint 11 members of the Biltmore Advisory Task Force and its chair by motion of the City Council and approve the following recommendations for the task force: 1. Title - Biltmore Site Citizens Advisory Task Force - Biltmore Task Force for short. 2. Charge - To recommend an appropriate use of the City's surplus Biltmore site, including vacated right of way, that could become a community consensus. The intent is to have a single, desired option that is supported by all the task force optimally, or at least two-thirds otherwise. A "minority report" is discouraged but allowable. The-erite-i-ka---- -an-streh--a-dec-i-s-ion is to be -reviewed -with tie-E-ity-Councd-17-at--- awe►' eeting_in-ea-r3y--FebrIIa-y_, The Task Force is to meet as often as necessary and to hold public meetings but not public hearings. /` /� 3. Deadline - Final recommendation to be presented in writing no later than March 22 for March 28, 1989 Council agenda. 4. Relations with Council/Planning Commission - 1st meeting in January and February with Council; Planning Commission members to be invited to all meetings. 6. Agenda - 1st meeting - proposed for January 9, 1989 at 7 in the Council Chambers - Call to order - Roll Call - Introductions Task Force charge by Mayor/GeuntIT History Development of Action Plan Advisory Commission matters - application of laws, e.g., Ralph M. Brown open meeting law, conflict of interest financial disclosure Next meeting time, date and location. Background: p.m. At your November 22, 1988 meeting, Council authorized the appointment of an 11 member committee to report back to the City Council on what they perceived to be a community consensus on the Biltmore site property. - 1 - 12a Analysis: The recommendations included above are based on the Council's motion, comments of the Council during discussion, input from the League of California Cities (see attached), and staff input. In order for the task force to accomplish its considerable objective within the time frames established, task force members will need a clear understanding of their mission, information and technical support, and high priority attention from both the City Council and staff. The recommendations noted above are designed to accomplish these aims. Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager KBN/ld Attachments December 7, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of December 13, 1988 CITY MANAGER SALARY REVIEW PER AGREEMENT Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council provide direction to staff. Background: Mr. Kevin B. Northcraft was appointed as City Manager on February 22, 1988. The term of his contract is for one year and, there- fore, will expire February 21, 1988. The employment agreement includes a provision for salary review at the end of the tenth month. Analysis: Since Mr. Northcraft's appointment, the City has completed negotiations with the Police Officers' Association, the Teamster Union, and the Management Association. The negotiated salary adjustments have resulted in the Director of Public Safety's compensation being higher than that of the City Manager. Among the options that the City Council may consider are: 1. Adjust the current compensation of the City Manager for the remainder of the current contract. 2. Request that a new agreement be negotiated. 3. Receive and file this report. Respectfully submitt-ed, (ti-' .1 c% 1 --mac Y Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director ha November 17, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of November 22, 1988 REVIEW OF CITY GOALS RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council review the status report on the City Goals approved July 12, 1988, and amend the Goals as appropriate. BACKGROUND: When the Council approved the City Goals last July, you also asked that they be reviewed at the November 22, 1988 meeting. In order to aid in this review, staff has prepared the attached status report. ANALYSIS: Since the Goals are intended to set direction and priorities for the next one to three years, a more comprehensive review would be advisable on an annual basis. At this six month interval, it is appropriate for the Council to review the Goals for the purpose of: 1) Changing the priorities; each Goal has been assigned a letter designation in the status report to aid in referring to Goals that may change priority number, 2) revising the statements below each Goal heading to reflect new ideas/direction, and 3) add any Goals now a concern but not reflected in current Goals. (- Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager KBN/ld Attachment HERMOSA BEACH CITY GOALS APPROVED JULY, 1988 1ST STATUS REPORT - NOVEMBER, 1988 I D # Priority # Title Principal Depts. A 1 IMPROVE CITY FINANCIAL PICTURE ALL Status: Doing City-wide review and updating cost allocation plan and fee structures. Have increased residential parking fee, now charging for boot release, gone to direct dial system, incorporated into budget a 2.5% anticipated savings, pursuing ratification of warrants, review of open purchase order procedures, telephone accounting systems and sales tax audit, elimination of tax exemptions, energy audit initiated, pay phone revenue increased. B 2 DEVELOP BILTMORE SITE CM,ACM Status: Three resolution options on 11-8-88 ballot; report to Council on 11/22 agenda. C 3 GROWTH MANAGEMENT/DENSITY REDUCTION PLN,BLD Status: 706 lot mergers completed. Down zoning resulted in approximately 3000 less potential units. Moratorium in multi -use corridor partially to stop development at higher densities. D 4 -tie IMPROVE ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS CM,PW,PS,GS Status: Analyzing alternative methods of service delivery especially in Public Works, General Services and Public Safety. State Office of Traffic Safety to audit in December, 1988. Management audit for Public Works proposed for February, 1989 consideration. Records management efforts being initiated by General Services and Clerk's office. E 4 -tie ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS PS,PLN,BLD Status: CUP enforcement as an infraction underway in Planning and Public Safety. Police management reorganizled to improve police enforcement responsiveness; enforcement of leash law, prohibition of signs, and requirement for trash enclosures authorized by Council on 10/25/88. Skateboard/Strand no riding rules emphasized summer, 1988, notices sent on handbills to advertisers. Sign enforcement as an infraction underway in Building Department. F 4 -tie COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF GENERAL PLAN PLN Status: Scheduled for 1981; Multi -use corridor portion already begun. Circulation element consultant work nearing completion. Advanced Planner being recruited. G 7 STANDAR: ZED PROCEDURES FOR CITY DEPTS.(INSTRUCTIONAL SHEETS) BLD,PW Status: Standaiized outdoor dining encroachment licenses. Building has obtained samples from other jurisdictions. H 8 -tie ADD OPEN SPACE CM,ACM Status: Handshake agreement to purchase Greenbelt announced October 6, 1988. Meetings conducted with School District, Macpherson Oil, and EIR consultant to further oil drilling - revenues to go to open space. Recreation and Parks Commission to consider developing a master plan. I 8 -tie COMPLETE INCONSISTENCIES AND LOT MERGERS IN 1988 PLN Status: 706 lot mergers completed, 4 in process. J 8 -tie IMPROVE AND ENHANCE RELATIONSHIP WITH SCHOOL DISTRICT CM,PLN,PW Status: Held one joint meeting of governing bodies and one joint meeting of sub -committees. City Manager and Superintendent to attend seminar on City -School cooperative efforts. K 11 PROMOTE POSITIVE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS ALL Status: Assisted in sale of Seaview to hotel developer, numerous meetings with hotel, office complex, and retail interests. Meetings with downtown revitalization interests on-going. Several meetings with current merchants to help maintain in -City MUC study partially to support PCH commercial activity. T ^ Rte'' rC 5ite L 12 TRAFFIC CONCERNS PW,PLN Status: Circulation element in final stages by consultant, numerous traffic studies reported to Council in response to citizen concerns and initiated by staff. M 13 -tie IMPROVE PUBLIC POLICY PROCESS CM,GS Status: Increased utilization of cable notices and news releases. Trying to respond to press requests and suggest articles, abundant public noticing continued. N 13 -tie PARK AND RECREATION PROGRAM CR Status: Recreation programs being scheduled for spring. O 13 -tie REDUCE COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL CONFLICTS PLN Status: Multi -use Corridor study to look at as well as general plan review. Numerous complaints processed. - 2 P 16 -tie IMPROVE CITY IMAGE/BEAUTIFICATION PLN,PW,CR,PS Status: Trash enclosure requirements and illegal sign enforcement approved 10-25-88. City Hall and City entryways funded this year for upgrades. Park and Recreation Commission conducted first inspection of related facilities. Fire Appreciation Day re-initiated and h e 189om—,--- - -1 Q 16 -tie INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PW Status: Sewer design, bidding and construction is on-going. Several traffic studies implemented. S55,000 grant obtained for storm drains. R 16 -tie UTILIZATION OF VOLUNTEERS PER Status: All employees' recognition dinner this year to include commissioners and other volunteers. Via the Foundation alone, 75 to 100 volunteers are utilized in a year. Trustees and scouts used in Public Works. S 19 -tie PARKING CONCERNS GS Status: Motorcycle parking approved on 14th Street lot. Survey of potential lots adjacent to PCH initiated. T 19 -tie PUBLIC SAFETY PS Status: Active fire inspection program continuing. Forfeiture funds appropriated in budget for drug enforcement. U 19 -tie MORE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT/EVENTS CR Status: The Community Resources Department is just now back to full staff and will be addressing. ✓ 22 CONSIDER ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PLN Status: Architectural review study underway; completion due 12/88. W 23 STREAMLINING COUNCIL MEETINGS CM Status: Agendas shortened by 1-3 pages, new time limits - 3 - established, more on consent calendar, attempting to reduce repeat items. X 24 IMPROVE PUBLIC COMMUNICATION PROCESS CR Status: Due to initiative limiting newsletters, no progress to report. New marquee under discussion may be a useful tool to increase public information. - 4 CITY OF HERXOSA BEACH GOALS ESTABLISHED 1988 APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR MEETING OF JULY 12, 1988 (Note: Goals are to be next reviewed by the City Council at their meeting of November 22, 1988.) Priority No. (1 = highest) 1 IMPROVE CITY FINANCIAL PICTURE Goal: Balance City budget for FY '89-'90. 2 DEVELOP BILTMORE SITE Goal: By January 1, 1989, the citizens will direct the future development of the biltmore site. 3 GROWTH MANAGEMENT/DENSITY REDUCTION Goal: Continue methods designed to reduce density. 4 -tie IMPROVE ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS Goal: Complete evaluation of organizational effectiveness by January 1, 1989. - Implement policy whereby policies of the League of California Cities and other cities are utilized first. - City to develop and advise City Council regarding status of records management efficiency and needs. 4 -tie ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS Goal: Review enforcement and assignment of proper enforcement personnel for the laws of the City of Hermosa Beach. 4 -tie COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF GENERAL PLAN Goal: Schedule comprehensive review of various elements of the General Plan to begin January 1, 1989 and be completed by January 1, 1990. - (1) Land use element and (2) circulation element 7 STANDARDIZED PROCEDURES FOR CITY DEPARTMENTS (INSTRUCTIONAL SHEETS). Goal: Develop instructional form on how to get a building permit by January 1, 1989. 8 -tie ADD OPEN SPACE Goal: Acquire Railroad right-of-way by Jan. 1, 1989. 8 -tie COMPLETE INCONSISTENCIES AND LOT MERGERS IN 1988 1 8 -tie IMPROVE AND ENHANCE RELATIONSHIP WITH SCHOOL DISTRICT Goal: Through ongoing dialogue with the School District, creatively decide how the City can combine the need for preserving and acquiring open space with the School District's need for instructional money. 11 PROMOTE POSITIVE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS Goal: Promote quality commercial development. - Develop awards to encourage upgrades. - Enforce fire codes, abate nuisances. - Improve infrastructure in commercial areas. - Ask Chamber of Commerce to review and study in lieu parking fees. - Revise and enhance landscaping in commercial and residential areas by upgrading ordinances. 12 TRAFFIC CONCERNS Goal: Make decision regarding Pacific Coast Highway traffic patterns by January 1, 1989. 13 -tie IMPROVE PUBLIC POLICY PROCESS Goal: Continue to promote public access via town hall meeting, cable, our abundant public noticing, improved press relations (releases and relations). 13 -tie PARK AND RECREATION PROCRAM Goal: Community Resources to audit recreational programming of other cities and League of California Cities toward increasing activities available to Hermosa Beach residents (youths, adults and senior citizens). - Comparison of current programs available in Hermosa Beach to what is available to be completed by January 1, 1989. 13 -tie REDUCE COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL CONFLICTS Goal: Via General Plan review, look at buffer, mixed use, commercial potential. 16 -tie IMPROVE CITY IMAGE/BEAUTIFICATION Goal: Implement and enforce landscape upgrade, nuisance abatement ordinances. - Develop routine for inspection of condition of City owned property toward maintenance of landscape, safety, buildings, etc. - Institute public safety awareness and appreciation thru open house (Police, Fire). 16 -tie INFRASTRUCTURE INPROVEMENTS Goal: Clear report of conditions of all infrastructure systems to be completed by January 1, 1989. 2 16 -tie ULTILIZATION OF VOLUNTEERS Goal: Conduct appreciation and recognition ceremony for City Commissioners, volunteers. Solicit volunteer help and expertise on selected subjects from resources within the community. 19 -tie PARKING CONCERNS Goal: Increase public parking spaces by 130 spaces (Compact spaces/structure). 19 -tie PUBLIC SAFETY Goal: Promote fire prevention to include business inspection and licensing. Consider cleaner burning fuels for fleet/recommend ways to lower pollution. Expedite use of forfeiture funds for drug enforcement. 19 -tie MORE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT/EVENTS Goal: Request Foundation and Community Resources Commission to supply methods to increase community events. 22 CONSIDER ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW Goal: Complete A.S.A.P. 23 STREAMLINING COUNCIL MEETINGS Goal: Implement more expediting procedures for Council meetings. 24 IMPROVE PUBLIC COMMUNICATION PROCESS Goal: City departments to prepare report to City Council providing information on cost, format. etc. toward implementing community newsletter 3 December 6, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council December 13, 1988 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 88-4 -- A MAXIMUM OF TWO UNITS PER LOT IN THE R-2 ZONE INITIATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL Recommendation The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the R-2 zone not have a maximum unit number per lot, and that •a study.of precise development review for all projects over two units be• prepared by staff. Background The City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent No. 88-5167 on July 12, 1988 directing staff to study placing• a maximum of 2 units per lot in the R-2 zone. Analysis In addition to the analysis in the attached staff report, the following analysis should also be considered. Large Lots There are two large lots in the south end of the City which are designated Medium Density by the General Plan; these lots are zoned M-1 which by staffs' estimation is completely inappropriate for the area considering the abutting densely populated neighborhood, and narrow local streets. If these lots were rezoned to be consistent with the General Plan, Medium Density designation and the maximum of two units, the result would either be lots with an allowed density lower than any other lot in the City', or these lots would be subdivided into smaller lots resulting in row housing with guest parking in the driveway as it typically occurs throughout the City. Of course, the property owner will want to maximize his profit; therefore, the lots will be subdivided into minimum size lots; the resulting density will be slightly less (12 vs 15), but the building layout and amenities will be much less. uantitative vs Qualitative Development Over the past two years, the City has reduced density considerably via lot mergers, text amendments and down zoning. However, staff has discovered that residents are still disgruntled about the kind of development being constructed. The 1 8 reason is that even though, e.g., a lot can now have only two units instead of 4 units, the developers are simply building two huge units instead of 4 smaller units, and the nearby residents cannot see any distinction, i.e., they now see a 2 or 3 story, practically lot line to lot line development, where once a 900 square feet beach cottage existed. Therefore, staff believes that more density reduction may not be the answer, but instead precise development review for all projects which would include building layout, architectural design and height, should be implemented. Also, the minimum standards for lot coverage, open'space and setbacks should be improved. It should be noted that currently condominiums are given analytical review by the staff and the Planning Commission and conditions are imposed via the Conditional Use Permit process; however, apartments are not which is a significant loophole in our zoning ordinance, and should be corrected. Attachments 1. Planning Commission staff report of October 20, 1988. 2. Planning Commission minutes of November '1, 1988. CONCUR 7 Respectfully submitted, P / Mich e S uba h Kevin B. Northcraft Planning Director City Manager T/ccsr2unt CITY MANAGER COMMENT: The above point about "bulk" is certainly valid, but density seems to be an issue as well. The City can seek to improve the level of both, as they are not mutually exclusive. Also, the Council has already requested a study of architectural review requirements from Planning. 2 October 20, 1988 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission November 1, 1988 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 88-4 -- A MAXIMUM OF TWO UNITS PER LOT IN THE R-2 ZONE INITIATED BY PLANNING COMMISSION Recommendation Staff recommends that the R-2 zone not have a maximum unit number per lot. Background The City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent No. 88-5167 on July 12, 1988 directing staff to study placing a maximum of 2 units per lot in the R-2 zone. Analysis Option By having an R-2 and R -2B zone, the City has the option to place a maximum of two units by zoning the property to R -2B, or allowing more than two by zoning the property R-2. There are several reasons why this feature is desirable as noted below. Equity There are many lots in the City particularly at the north end which are consistently General Planned and zoned for R-2, but they are so small, as a result of our density reduction ordinance, they can only have one unit. Therefore even though they are R-2 zoned, they would have no chance to have more than one unit if there was a cap of 2 units per lot. However, under the current ordinance, they can assemble lots, e.g., three 2,400 sq. ft. lots, which would allow for an additional unit. Conversely, there are a couple exceptionally large lots in the City (20,000 square feet plus) which are zoned R-2 and could have only 2 units under the maximum of 2 unit standard. ,Of course, these large lots may be subdivided into 4,000 sq. ft. lots if they have the minimum frontage on a street, but this approach would result in a lesser quality design which is the next factor to consider.. Design Larger lots generally provide greater opportunity to improve design qualities of a development; better open space, - 3- C C landscaping, and parking layouts are available and also such as swimming pool, spas and recreation rooms can be Several small lots assembled allowing for an additional many times result in a better quality development. Alternatives 1. Certain size lots in the City could be rezoned R -2B, thus placing a cap of 2 units per lot; the lots that are large enought to have 2 units without assembling lots could• be rezoned to R -2B; exceptionally large lots, i.e., those that could be divided into several smaller (4,000 sq..ft.) lots, could remain R-2. amenities provided. unit will 2. Another density reduction amendment to the R-2 zone is also possible, and could be studied as part of the revised land use element which will be prepared inn the near future'. l //17/' Michael Sch ach PlanningDirector T/pcsr2unt 4 SPECIAL STUDY — MAXIMUM OF TWO UNITS PER LOT IN THE R-2 ZONE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 20, 1988. The City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent No. 88-5167 on July 12, 1988, directing staff to study placing a maximum of two units per lot in the R-2 zone. P.C. Minutes 11/1/88 C By having an R-2 and an R -2B zone, the City has the option to place a maximum of two units by zoning the property to R -2B or allowing more than two units by zoning to R-2. There are several reasons why this feature are desirable. There are many lots in the City, particularly at the north end, which are consistently general planned and zoned for R-2; but they are so small, as a result of the density reduction ordinance, they can have only ane unit. Therefore, even though they are zoned R-2, they would have no chance to have more than one unit if there were a cap of two units per lot. However, under the current ordinance, they can assemble lots, that is, three 2400 square foot lots, which would allow for an additional unit. Conversely, there are a several exceptionally large lots in the City (20,000 square feet plus) which are zoned R-2 and could have only two units under the maximum two -unit standard. Of course, these large lots may be subdivided into 4000 square foot lots if they have the minimum frontage on a street; but this approach would result in a lesser quality design, which is another factor to consider. Larger lots generally provide greater opportunity to improve design qualities of a development; better open space, landscaping, and parking layouts are available as are amenities such as swimming pools, spas; and recreation rooms can be provided. Several small lots assemble°i allowing for an additional unit will many times result in a better uality development. There are two alternatives: (1) certain sized lots in the City could be rezoned R -2B, thus placing a cap of two units per lot. The lots that are large enough to have two units without assembling lots could be rezoned to R -2B. Exceptionally large lots, that is, lots which could be divided into several smaller (4000 square foot) lots, could remain R-2; (2) another density reduction amendment to the R-2 zone is also possible and could be studied as part of the revised land use element which will be prepared in the near future. Comm. Ketz asked about the issue of lot assembly and why lots could not be assembled if the maximum is set at two units. Mr. Schubach explained that when the lots are assembled, there could be two units; 'therefore, no matter what the lot size, there could only be two units. He continued by explaining the lot sizes necessary to accommodate two units. Mr. Schubach stated that many lots are under 3500 square feet; however, they are zoned R-2 so there can be only one unit. If two 3500 square foot lots are assembled,. two units would be allowed, merely because the lots would then be large enough. However, nothing would be accomplished by assembling the lots, because there would only be one unit per lot allowed. Under the current code, three lots could be assembled, and four units would be allowed. However, if a maximum were adopted, only two units would be allowed. Comm. Ketz asked whether there was ever a time when there was a maximum of two units allowed in the R-2 zone. Mr. Schubach stated that at one time there was a maximum; however, it also allowed two units on a 2400 square foot lot, which equates to 37 units per acre, which is over the maximum of 25 units per acre. Mr. Schubach continued by discussing the square footages allowed. 6 P.C. Minutes 11/1/88 Chmn. Peirce stated that the issue is to determine whether it is desirable to allow multiple -family dwellings in areas which are predominantly two-family dwellings. Even though the density would be the same, the issue comes down to the bulk and mass of the larger units. Chmn. Rue felt that if a lot or combination of lots is large enough to accommodate different types of projects, those projects would not necessarily be any more bulky. The project may combine to give more open space and better amenities in certain instances. He did not feel this would happen that often; when it does happen, he did not feel, it would be a problem. He stated that there are standards in place; if the standards are not valid, that issue should be addressed. He did not 'feel that• the combining of lots and building to R-2 standards with the density allowed is an undesirable practice. He noted that R -2B standards are also in place. • Comm. Ingell agreed, stating that he does not feel a maximum unit number per lot is necessary. He stated that larger complexes could be more desirable developments in certain instances. Comm. Ketz stated that if the lots are very large, multi -unit dwellings would be acceptable; however, she noted that many very large projects are being built to the very minimum standards. Chmn. Peirce stated that he is torn on this issue, explaining that many people are concerned that condominium developments destroy the character of the neighborhoods; however, more amenities could be possible. He questioned the feasibility of imposing a conditional use permit process on each of these projects, so that they could be addressed on a project -by -project basis. Comm. Rue stated that condominiums currently require a conditional use permit. Comm. Ingell noted, however, that apartments are of real concern at this time, since they do not need any review. Mr. Schubach stated that the apartment issue will be studied by staff very soon. Jim Housley, 934 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that his impression of the City Council's reason for requesting this study was to prevent very large developments in two - unit neighborhoods. He felt that their concern also relates to parking and associated problems with apartments. Mr. Schubach stated that the main concern involves bulk, not just the number of units. He stated that the bulk problem will not be corrected merely by reducing the number of units. Mr. Housley suggested, then, that there should be a maximum square footage allowed in order to address the bulk problem. Mr. Schubach stated that staff is currently studying height, setbacks, and the review process for condominiums as well as apartments. Mr. Schubach discussed the conditional use permit issue, and stated that he would prefer to see a precise development plan review to address all new developments, especially since environmental assessments are not required on many of these developments. P.C. Minutes 11 /1 /88 C MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation that the R-2 zone not have a maximum number of units per lot. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Inge11 as maker, and agreed to by Comm. Rue as second, to direct staff to return with a study on the inclusion of a precise development plan review for all multiple -unit developments of two units or more. Comm. Ketz stated that she would vote against the motion, explaining that she did not feel a precise development plan review gives the Planning Commission the authority to decrease the density. If it is a three -unit developmnt in an area which is only duplexes or single family, someone cannot be told they can build only a duplex. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Peirce NOES: Comm. Ketz ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Edwards Chmn. Peirce stated that the study should also include a distinction between two units and less and three units and more in order to determine where the break -off point is. P.C. Minutes 11 /1/88 November 29, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council December 13, 1988 POWER STREET GRADING PLAN Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: * 1. Approve the hydrology report. * 2. Approve the conceptual grading and drainage plan (last revision 5/31/88) for tentative tract 30986 (commonly known as the Power Street Development), with the exception of •relocating the easterly wall on lot 8 approximately five (5)..feet west of 'the property line. * Direct staff to review grading practice in the City and return to Council with a recommendation for an ordinance. 4. Approve or do not approve the resident/developer agreements as follows: Agreement No. 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 Brief Description Finish grade lot 8 Sump pump lot 8 6' wall height Driveway aprons Relocate sanitary sewer Trees House windows lot 8 Right of way modification House windows lot 1 Action Do Not Approve. Do Not Approve Do Not Approve Approve Approve Approve Do Not Approve Approve .: Do Not Approve Background: On October 11, 1988 staff presented an agenda item regarding the hydrology and grading for an eight lot subdivision, commonly known as the Power Street Development. Staff recommended that City Council: 1. Approve the hydrology report and conceptual grading plan for tentative tract 30986 (commonly known as the Power Street Development) as submitted by Kavanaugh Development Company. 2. Direct staff to review grading practice in the City and return to Council with a recommendation for an ordinance. City Council directed that this matter come back after developer and residents have discussed and agreed on their concerns and differences. Copy and report in the City Clerk's office. _ A copy of the October 11, 1988 agenda item is available for review in the Office of the City Clerk. Analysis: The analysis is divided as follows: a. Public Noticing b. Status of the Tentative Map: c. Chronology d. What Was Agreed to (with comments by staff) e. The December 6, 1988 Followup Meeting and On-going Resident Concerns f. Summary. g. Conclusion a. Public Noticing The.Public Works Department delivered copes of this -agenda item to the residents adjacent to (west of) the tentative tract. b. Status of the Tentative Map The land is being subdivided pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Municipal Code. A tentative map refers to a map showing the design and improvement of a proposed subdivision and the existing conditions in and around it and need not be based upon an accurate or detailed final surveyof the property. The City requirements are known as conditions of approval. The Subdivision Map Act states that an approved tentative map shall expire 24 months after its approval or after an additional period of time not to exceed 12 months. The subdivider has until April 15, 1989 to receive City Council approval of a final map. If the subdivider is unable to obtain a final map, the expiration of the approved tentative map shall terminate all proceedings and no final map shall be filed with the City Council without first processing a new tentative map (i.e. starting all over). c. Chronology April 15, 1986: Planning Commission approves tentative map. March 24, 1987: The City Council adopted Resolution No. 87-5026 approving the conceptual grading plan for the tentative map with certain conditions. One of these conditions states "development shall be substantially in conformance with the submitted„plans"; this includes the conceptual grading plan. November 4, 1987: The subdivider's engineer proposes to raise the street elevation (i.e., grading) because it is discovered that the area cannot properly drain. Staff considers the proposal to be a substantial change of the conceptual grading plan and schedules the matter for the Council agenda. January 26, 1988: The City Council received testimony from residents fronting on Valley Park Avenue that the proposed grading changes (and accompanying block wall construction) will cause drainage problems on -their property. The City Council took action delegating the Public Works Director authority to meet with the engineers for the developer and County to approve corrections assuming that the grading plan meets all necessary engineering requirements. The plan is to be referred back to City Council for final approval after review by the City Attorney. March 3, 1988: Meeting with developer, County engineers, and staff for the purpose of discussing possible solutions. April 4, 1988: Planning Commission approves a 12 -month extension of the tentative map. May 12, 1988: June 20, 1988: engineer. Subdividers' engineer pr'epare8•topographic survey. Hydrology calculations prepared by subdividers' September 12, 1988: After reviewing the data, Harris and Associates prepares letter stating no adverse affect to drainage. October 5, 1988: City Attorney prepares letter discussing grading. October 11, 1988: After receiving further public testimony City Council directed that this matter come back to Council after developer and residents have met, discussed and agreed on their concerns and differences. d. What was Agreed to (with comments by staff) £ Thele have been several discussion meetings and telephone corversations with residents and developers. Both sides have attempted to reach an agreement on the issue. The owners of the proposed subdivision agreed to the items listed below. Following each tentative agreement is a comment from staff and a recommendation. 1. Agreement: Establish the finish grade of Lot 8 to be the same as for Lot 26 and Lot 27 on the easterly side of the subject property: Staff Comments: Specific plans have not been developed; however, it appears such an action would create an undesirable condition on Lot 8. Lot 8 would be lower than the rest of the subdivision and would be lower than the curb level at the bulb end of the cul-de-sac. If flooding occurs due to storms beyond the design capacity of the flood control facilities,, structures on Lot 8 would be at risk. Recommendation: Do not approve. 2. Agreement: Provide a "sump pump" at the rear of Lot 8. Staff Comments: If a sump pump is proposed to alleviate flooding concerns as indicated above, the water would have to be delivered to an alternate system. It appears that an alternate system location is not available. 3 Recommendation: Do not approve. 3. Agreement: Construct a six .(6) foot high masonry concrete block wall along the easterly property line of the subdivision. Finish grade shall be measured from the inside side of the subdivision. Staff Comments: Section 1215 of the Zoning Ordinance indicates that a'wall retaining fill contributes to the allowable 6 foot high property line wall.. The 6 foot measurement should take place from the existing grade condition. An.open railing is allowed to provide pedestrian protection where necessary. Recommendation: Do not approve. 4. Agreement: Driveway apron curb cuts shall be provided by the subdivider at locations agreed to by property- owners of adjacent parcels to the east. Staff Comments: Normally curb cut permits are only issued when they lead to a legal off street parking location. However permiting at this time has no impact. Recommendation: Approve and direct that curb cuts be drawn on the street plans and be installed by the developer. 5. Agreement: Relocate the proposed sanitary sewer to run between Lots 7 & 8 and north along the center line of Power Street. Staff Comments: No impact. Recommendation: Approve and direct that realignment be shown on the sanitary sewer plan and installed by the developer. 6. Agreement: Trees shall be located along the planting strip at the east property line of the subdivision. Specimens shall be selected and located so as to provided a dense thickened landscaped border between the subdivision and the adjacent residences to the east. Staff Comments: Some impact. City will incur future cost for maintenance of the landscaping. However, a previous City Council action approved landscaping but was silent on maintenance. Hence; the City will incur future maintenance. Recommendation: Approve and show all landscaping on the landscaping plan. 7. Agreement: The proposed house designed for Lot 8 will be modified to provide that no windows shall look into the rear yards of Lots 26 and 27 to the east. 4 Staff Comments: Provided the revised plan complies with building code requirements, this revision would not be a concern. Recommendation: This matter needs to be formalized in a written agreement between the property owners and should not involve the City. 8. Agreement: Modify the right-of-way at the frontage of Lot 8 to allow for vehicular access to the rear of Lot 26 adjacent thereto. Staff Comments: No Impact. Recommendation: Approve and show on the final map and the street improvement plan. 9. Agreement: Modify the exterior elevation'of the proposed house on Lot 1 so as to have no windows that look downward into the rear yard of the houses to the north thereof. Staff Comments: Provided the revised plan complies with building code requirements, this revision .would not be a concern. Recommendation: This matter needs to be formalized in a written agreement between the property owners and should not involve the City. e. The December 6, 1988 Followup Meeting & On-going Resident Concerns At the followup meeting the staff comments to the agreements was presented. The residents voiced a continuing concern about: 1. The perimeter wall height being tootall. 2. City Council approved grading substantially in conformance with the submitted plans. The residents said that if there is any grading change, City Council should not approve the change. 3. Swale Concern: The grading and drainage plan (date 6/12/87 -last revision 5/31/88 sheet 2 of 3) shows a one foot westerly offset of the easterly retaining wall adjacent lot 8 as illustrated below. PROPERTY LINE It" Recommendation: This should not be allowed as it will result in the following: a) a 12 inch wide swale that is not of a sufficient width for a man to enter for maintain. b) Potential liability; i.e., small child becoming stuck. c) Potential drainage problems to properties downstream because of water concentration. In lieu of this, it is recommended that the easterly wall of lot 8 be setback approximately five (5) feet and the area -be landscaped. This will provide an area large enough for the owner of lot 8 to maintain and will provide a landscape buffer between properties. f. Summary Drainage •The residents adjacent to the proposed subdivision have publicly expressed concern about drainage. - The grading complies with UBC. The conclusion of an independent review (Harris• and Associates), is that the proposed improvement will not adversely affect drainage of the neighboring properties. Grading - Council Resolution No. 87-5026 says the project should be substantially in conformance with the submitted plan. The submitted plans showed the elevation up to four (4) feet lower. - Because of engineering problems (i.e., drainage) the developer's engineer cannot build substantially in conformance and is requesting approval to raise grade up to four (4) feet. Rules governing grading within the City are unclear. The City Attorney has reviewed the Subdivision Map Act and notes that "an ordinance should be adopted requiring grading and erosion control as a condition of approval of the - subdivision map." The Residents and the Project Most residents have agreed to most of the developer's concessions. - The City Council has approved the tentative tract and time to complete the project is running out for the developer. g. Conclusion The developer's engineer has attempted to design the project; however, the requirement of substantially in conformance make the design impossible without Council approval to raise the grading height up to four (4) feet. 6 c/- All items agreed to by resident and developer with the exception of item 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9 should be approved by City Council. The above agreements do not alter staff's previous recommendation with the exception of the swale. Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. Refer the matter to the Planning Commission. Authority for . this decision is found in the Government Code -Subdivision Map Act. The Planning Commission is the designated body charged with the duty of making investigations and reports on design (Section 66415, Government Code). Design means, among other things, drainage and grading (Section 66418, Government Code). 2. Deny the grading based on .Municipal Code Section .29.5-9(e). 3. Do not approve any change in the grading thereby stopping this project. 4. Include the agreement with the tentative tract requirement; thereby, restarting the entire process. NOTE: Should City Council desire to incorporate any agreements .into the tentative tract map conditions it requires the developer to restart the entire process. Respectfully submitted, Concur: 460 Antony Antich Director of Pub is Works Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager William Grove Director of Building & Safety Michael Schubach Director of Planning cc: James P. Lough, City Attorney Attachment: Municipal Code Section 29.5-9(e) December 8, 1988 Letter from Betty and Gordon Evans AA:mv Power/pwadmin 7 29.5-9 SUBDIVISION OF LAND $ 29.5-9 (c) e proposed subdivision will in no way be detrim to to the surrounding lot pattern or tend to r: .uce prop ty values in the surrounding area. The size prevailing located. f the proposed lots ,is not sm-. er than the The granting creation of configuration standards of ordinance for t size in the area in ich .theyate of t lots t which devel th - an subdivi '.n would result in the t . uld be ' of a size and w•, Id be in keeping ,with the men . specified by the zoning d use zo e in which it is located. (f) The creati. of the propose • lots would be in conformi • with the intent and .urpose of the comp ensive general plan for the " of Hermosa Be. h.• The tentative subdivision map complies th the requirements for approval set forth in the Subdi .sion Map Act of the State of California. (Ord. No. N.S. 5, § 1, 4-16-74) Sec. 29.5-9. Grounds for denial of approval of sub - .division map. The, planning commission or the city council shall deny approval of a tentative or final subdivision map if it makes any of the following findings: (a) That the proposed map is not consistent with the applicable general and specific plans. (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent. with applicable general and specific plans. (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely t� cause substantial environ - Supp. No. 12-79 342.41 g 29.5-10 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE 3 29.5-11 mental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvement is likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of . the subdivision or the. type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the. proposed subdivision. In • this connection, the city council may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a couri of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the city council or planning commission to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. (Ord. No. N.S. 485, § 1, 4-16-74) Sec. 29.5-10. Reserved. Sec. 29.5-11. Subdivision agreements and bonds; im- provement security. To assure the completion of required improvements after recordation of a final map, the city engineer shall require the submission of bonds sufficient to accomplish subject improvements. Should the subdivider fail to complete the required improvements within a reasonable time or in accordance with a written subdivision agreement signed by the subdivider and the city cleric. the city engineer shall cause said bonds to be forfeited and the improvements completed. (Ord. No. V.S. 485, § 1, 4-16-74) t Supp. No. 12-79 342.42 DEC o 1988 City Mgr. uttice December 8. 1988 Honorable Mayor and City Council; We would like to express our concern about proposals for the drainage problems of the Power..street project. Valley Part ave. is one of the lowest spots in the city of Hermosa and historically has a problem of flooding. We have been flooded because of heavy rains. The storm drain has improved this situation, however in recent years the water has been up to our • curb. If the rain had not ceased we could have again had a flooding problem. We have also had problems with the.city sewage corning up in our side yard. We have at considerable expense placed a valve shut off in our line to hopefully prevent this. Any change in the elevation of the land will affect all of the Valley area. This proposed change is 7.lost certainly a change from the original plans that were proposed. The developers also stated that they would be able to save many of the trees.We have been informed this is not the case. The trees are necessary to the wild life of the Valley and the valley style of living. To crowd eight houses in this area is bad planning for our city. Gordon and Betty Evans 1769 Valley Park ave.,Hermosa Beach, ca 90254 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager FROM: Anthony Antich, Director of Public Works (J' SUBJECT: Response to Warner P. Lombardi's December 8, 1988 Letter DATE: December 12, 1988 1. a) The developer has attempted to comply with this condition; however, without raising the grade the area will not drain and the subdivision is unbuildable. b) The swale (i.e., ditch) is recommended to be five (5) feet wide and will be the maintenance responsibility of the owner of lot 8 (lot 8 is located within the proposed subdivision). The City is not responsible for the maintenance of the swale, just as it is not responsible for the maintenance of other private property. Common sense says the City cannot accept all future liability for any damage as the facts of the future are unknown. If a property owner believes they are wronged in the future, their recourse in the future, as it is today, is with the court system. c) Regarding wall height: Any apparent conflict in statutes will be resolved before the issuance of a building permit by the Building and Safety Department. 2. The Public Works Department has determined that all the trees will be removed during the grading operation. It is doubtful that any trees can be saved. 3. The letter referred to was not issued by the current Public Works Director. I have no knowledge as to why the statement about sewer capacity was written. The City has downzoned many lots and this has improved the sewer system capacity. I find no evidence to support the statement that the line cannot handle one more connection. 4. The storm drainage system is a County facility and County engineers has approved the additional flow from the proposed subdivision. The existing system is designed for a ten (10) year storm and Current Los Angeles County practice is for a forty (40) year storm for the area (end of Valley Park Drive) not to flood, it can only be accomplished by rebuilding the entire system. This is "ball parked" at several million dollars. SUPPLEMENTAL 1 11,41 INFOR n T!ON 5. a) The wall heights are determined by City code and any change in wall height will require a variance or a change in code. b) Regarding the re -designed houses: The developer has agreed to enter into agreements with the adjacent property owners. 6. The proper place to show any right-of-way changes is on the final map. The right-of-way changes will be shown on the final map. 2 12/08/1988 Page 1 of 3 To All Members of the City Of Hermosa Beach City Council: Issues Concerning the Development West of Valley Park Avenue. The original approval by the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission and City Council was CONTINGENT UPON the developers AGREEMENT to and PERFORMANCE OF many issues, some of the most important to the local residents include: 1) The final grade of the development be the same as the existing grade of the easterly adjoining lots on Valley Park Avenue. 2) The developer leaving the majority of existing trees. 3) Adequate sewer guaranteed for the new development, not limited to the sewer line within the development. 4) Adequate drainage of water OUT OF THE VALLEY, not just out of the development. 5) Minimize the loss of privacy to the rear of the existing residences on Valley Park Avenue and Power Street. 6) Curb cuts for the existing residences on Valley Park Avenue from the newly developed POWER Street. I, a local resident for many years, and owner of lot 26, feel that the developer has not complied with the CONTINGENCIES of the SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, and the City Council should NOT ISSUE FINAL APPROVAL of the subdivision. 1) The final grade behind lot 26 is approximately 30 inches higher than the existing grade of lot 26. The grading of lot 26 slopes to the rear, towards the new development. The grading of the lots north of lot 26 drain to the rear, which is now blocked by the block wall, • and to the south towards lot 26. Lot 27, to the south of lot 26 is 18 inches higher than lot 26. As you can visualize, all runoff from the north of lot 26 will gather in lot 26. The proposed solution to this was the addition of a SWALE to the rear of lots 26 and 27, draining into lot 28. Swale is a refined word for DITCH. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines it as "a low-lying stretch of land (as a small meadow, swamp, or marshy heavily vegetated depression)." The swale is to be located on the Easterly side of the block wall fence, partly on public right of way and partly on the developer's land. As the swale must be lower than lot 26, there will be a ditch at least two foot deep and one foot wide between the rear of lot 27 and the six foot block wall of the developer's property. As this is on the developers property, it is his responsibility to keep the ditch clean. Who is going to enforce this? The CITY of Hermosa Beach, as they approved it? 12/08/1988 Page 2 of 3 What happens when the owners of lot 28 get sick of -water, leaves, dirt, dead/decaying animals anc other debris entering into. the center of their yard? They: black the exit o -f the ditch onto their property. Now the water backs.upinto lot 26. Who is responsible for.. the flooding of lot 26,- the CITY or the developer? If the CITY recollects, in 1978/1979, the previous owner of lot 27 sued the. developer. of lot 26 and the CITY, because of water damage caused because. of.. t1e new construction. As the developer of lot 26 had moved to Florida, the suit was also filed against the current owner of lot 26. The previous owner of lot. 27 WON THE LAWSUIT. As the city appears_ to be approving the current grading/drainage plan, the owner of, lot 26 assumes that the city will accept all liability for any damage in the near term and any future time. This should be formally documented if= the plan is approved. A related problem is the effective height of the block wall. It is measured from the height of the existing grade, which will make it 6 foot to the current residences of Valley Park Avenue, but much less approaching from thenew development. There is a more significant problem with lot 27, which has a pool in the rear, requiring, by statute, a higher wall than the. one allowed under the subdivision statute. The STATUTES APPEAR TO BE IN.CONFLICT. Again, does the city accept liability for any injuries that arise from the low wall for lot 27? 2) From the plot map and plans presented, it appears that MOST AND POSSIBLY ALL OF"THE EXISTING LARGE TREES ARE BEING REMOVED. 3) The developer is replacing the sewer line beneath the new development. About 4 years ago, the owner of lot 28 had plans/permits approved by the City of Hermosa Beach to build a 4400 sq. ft. house. One of the CHANGES REQUIRED BY THE CITY was changing the sewer connection from the sewer line_ that runs through the new development to the sewer line on Valley Park. The CITY STATED in WRITING that the sewer line could not handle one more house, as the line currently backs up occasionally. This letter has been submitted to both the Planning Commission and the City Council as part of the concerns for the new development. The City now states that' the existing sewer line can handle FIVE ADDITIONAL HOMES. To my knowledge, the sewer lines to the south of the development have not been upgraded. 4 As residents have testified in the past,. there have been occasions where sewerage has backup. into the residences. Again is -the CITY ACCEPTING' RESPONSIBILITY for any FUTURE PROBLEMS. WHY CAN THE SEWER LINE NOW.. HANDLE FIVE ADDITIONAL HOMES, WHEN THE CITY PREVIOUSLY. STATED IN WRITING THAT IT COULD NOT HANDLE ONE???? Related to ITEM 1 is overall drainage. There have been occasions when the. stormdrain...at the south end of Valley Park Avenue has overflowed over the curb, this -has also been testified to at previous Planning Commission and City Council meetings. CITY.OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager FROM:- Anthony Antich, Director of Public Works SUBJECT:-. Response to Jim Marquez Letter dated 12/8/88 DATE: - December 13, 1988 1. The sanitary sewer will be relocated from the easterly side of the proposed right-of-way to the westerly side. This change has no impact on the project. 2. The 5' wide swale will be located on lot 8. This is not the best solution; however, given the tentative map approval, it is workable. 3. The wall heights are determined by City Code and any change will require a variance or a change in code. 4. This will be shown onthe final map. Attached: Original December 8, 1988 Letter from Jim Marquez Agreements with Property Owners 20th and Power Streets SUPPLEMENTAL 1 VI INFORMATION JIM A. MARQUEZ Mr. Tony Antich Director of Public Works City of Hermosa Beach. 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Antich: December 8, 1988 re: Agreements with Property Owners 20th and Power Streets Pursuant to the meeting held on December 5th, this is a transmittal of draft agreements with the property owners east of Lot No. 8 and to the north of Lot No. 1 of Tract 30986. The owners have agreed to the following: • 1. The subdivision owners revised the sewer plans to accommodate the location of trees along the easterly property line as required by Planning Commission. `- r^F ‘ Ecc"�' 2. A dirt strip of land having a uniformed width of threo feet along the west side of the east property line of proposed Lot No. 8. __ 3. The construction of a wall or fence along the four (4) feet west of the east property line of Lot 8. The building code limits the heights of such -walks to four (4) inches. The neighbors to the east request a six (6) foot high 7S wall be allowed to maintain privacy as intended by code. It would be set on top of the retaining wall along the east property line of Lot 8. 4. The easement for driveway purposes are Lot 8 to Lot 26 to the east will be provided in the Final Map No. -- 30986. -_ 33 4 < {'el,; /VENUE, SUITE 00, MANHATTAN BEACH.CA. 90266 (213) 546.7415 Mr. Tony Antich December 8, 1988 Page 2 Should you have any questions or desire further infor- mation or clarification on these items, please do,not hesitate to contact.this office. Representatives will be at the meeting on December 13th. JAM:m1.0302 cc: Ivano Stamegna, et al. Westco Engineering • Very truly_ yours, 0. A. M ez • 0. AGREEMENT This Agreement is made as of December 6 by and between MR. GUILLERMO GARCIA and MRS. VICKI GARCIA (hereinafter referred to as "Homeowners") and MARK J. KAVANAUGH, FABIANO CICCONE, JOHN ROCCA and IVANO.STAMEGNA (hereinafter referred to -as "Hermosa Villas"). RECITALS A. Homeowners are the owner of certain real property described as: Lot No.- 26, Tract No. 15546 as per map recorded in Book 334, Page 34 of Maps in the office of the Recorder of Los Angeles County. B. Hermosa Villas are owners of certain real property described _as: Tract No. 30986 in the City of Hermosa Beach being a subdivision of Lots 36 through 39, inclusive, Tract No. 155416, as shown on Parcel Map recorded in Book 334, page 34, of Maps in the office of the Recorder of Los Angeles County, and those portions of 20th Street and Power Street as vacated by order of Hermosa Beach City Council by resolution no. 86-4966 adopted July 22, 1986 and recorded October 27, 1987 as Instrument No. 87- 1716823. C. The parties desire to control the design of the house proposed to be located on Parcel No. 8 of Tract No. 30986. NOW, THEREFORE Homeowners and Hermosa Villas hereby agree as follows: 1. In consideration of mutual benefit of privacy for their heirs and assigns of properties described in paragraphs A and B of Recitals, the proposed dwelling on Lot 8 of Tract No. 30986 shall have no windows allowing views down and to the northerly direction. 2. That windows required for light, air and ventilation along the easterly side of said proposed dwelling on Lot No. 8 shall be high and have view obscuring glass. -3. Each party acknowledges cooperation and expeditious response in all matters heretofore.�— IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, the parties hereto have accepted, made and executed this agreement. AGREED AND ACCEPTED: HOMEOWNERS By: Mr. Guillermo Garcia By: Mrs. Vicki Garcia HERMOSA VILLAS Date: Date: By: Date: Ivano Stamenga 0300. JAM -2- AGREEMENT This Agreement is made as of December 6 by and between MR. and MRS. WARNER LOMBARDI (hereinafter referred to as "Homeowners") and MARK J. KAVANAUGH, FABIANO CICCONE, JOHN ROCCA and IVANO STAMEGNA (hereinafter referred to as "Hermosa Villas"). RECITALS A. 'Homeowners are the owner of certain real property described as: Lot No. 26, Tract No. 15546 as per map recorded in Book 334, Page 34 of Maps in the office of the Recorder of Los Angeles County. B. Hermosa Villas are owners of certain real property described as: Tract No. 30986 in the City of Hermosa Beach being a subdivision of Lots 36 through 39, inclusive, Tract No. 155416, as shown on Parcel Map recorded in Book 334, page 34, of Maps in the office of the Recorder of Los Angeles County, and those. portions of 20th Street and Power Street as vacated by order of Hermosa Beach City Council by resolution no. 86-4966 adopted July 22, 1986 and recorded October 27, 1987 as Instrument No. 87- 1716823. C. The parties desire to control the design of the house proposed to be located on Parcel No. 8 of Tract No. 30986. NOW, THEREFORE Homeowners and Hermosa Villas hereby agree as follows: 1. In consideration of mutual benefit of privacy for their heirs and assigns of properties described in paragraphs A and B of Recitals, the proposed dwelling on Lot 8 of Tract No. 30986 shall have no windows allowing views down and to the northerly direction: 2. That windows required for light, air and ventilation along the easterly side of said proposed dwelling on Lot No. 8 shall be high and have view obscuring glass. 3. Each party acknowledges cooperation and expediti-bus response in all matters heretofore. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have accepted, made and executed this agreement. AGREED AND ACCEPTED: HOMEOWNERS By: Mr. Warner Lombardi By: Mrs. Warner Lombardi HERMOSA VILLAS Date: Date: By: Date: Ivano Stamenga 0305. JAM -2- AGREEMENT This Agreement is made as of December 6 by and between MR. MICHAEL MOLEN and MRS. GAIL MOLEN (hereinafter referred to as "Homeowners") and MARK J. KAVANAUGH, FABIANO CICCONE, JOHN ROCCA and IVANO STAMEGNA (hereinafter referred to as "Hermosa Villas"). RECITALS A. Homeowners is the owner of certain real property described as: Lot No. 1, Tract No. 1868 as per map recorded in Book 26, Page 21 of Maps in the office of the Recorder of Los Angeles County. B. Hermosa Villas are owners of certain real property described as: Tract No. 30986 in the City of Hermosa Beach being a subdivision of Lots 36 through 39, inclusive, Tract No. 155416, as shown on Parcel Map recorded in Book 334, page 34, of Maps in the office of the Recorder of Los Angeles County, and those portions of 20th Street and Power Street as vacated by order of Hermosa Beach City Council by resolution no. 86-4966 adopted July 22, 1986 and recorded October 27, 1987 as Instrument No. 87- 1716823. C. The parties desire to control the design of the house proposed to be located on Parcel No. 1 of Tract -No. 30986. NOW, THEREFORE Homeowners and Hermosa Villas hereby agree as follows: 1. In consideration of mutual benefit of privacy by their heirs and assigns of properties described in paragraphs A and B of Recitals herein the proposed dwelling on Lot 1 of Tract - No. 30986 shall have no windows allowing views down and to the north. 2. That windows required for light, air and ventilation along the northerly side of said proposed dwelling on Lot No. 8 shall be high and have view obscuring glass. 3. Each party acknowledges cooperation and expeditiaus response in all matters heretofore. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto -have accepted, made and executed this agreement. AGREED AND ACCEPTED: HOMEOWNERS By: Mr. Michael Molen By: Mrs. Gail Molen HERMOSA VILLAS Date: Date: By: Date: Ivano Stamenga 0303. JAM -2- AGREEMENT This Agreement is made as of December 6 by and between MR• and MRS.. (hereinafter referred to as "Homeowners") and MARK J. KAVANAUGH, FABIANO CICCONE, JOHN ROCCA and IVANO STAMEGNA (hereinafter referred to as "Hermosa Villas"). RECITALS A. Homeowners is the owner of certain real property described as: Lot No. 2, Tract No. 1868 as per map recorded in Book 26, Page 21 of Maps in the office of the Recorder of Los Angeles County. B. Hermosa Villas are owners of certain real property described as: Tract No. 30986 in the City of Hermosa Beach being a subdivision of Lots 36 through 39, inclusive, Tract No. 155416, as shown -on Parcel Map recorded in Book 334, page 34, of Maps in the office of the Recorder of Los Angeles County, and those portions of 20th Street and Power Street as vacated by order of Hermosa Beach City Council by resolution no. 86-4966 adopted July 22, 1986 and recorded October 27, 1987 as Instrument No. 87- 1716823. C. The parties desire to control the design of the house proposed to be located on Parcel No. 1 of Tract No. 30986. NOW, THEREFORE Homeowners and Hermosa Villas hereby agree as follows: 1. In consideration of mutual benefit of privacy by their heirs and assigns of properties described in paragraphs A and B of Recitals herein the proposed dwelling on Lot 1 of Tract No. 30986 shall have no windows allowing views down and to the north. 2. That windows required for light, air and ventilation along the northerly side of said proposed dwelling on Lot No. 8 shallbe high and have view obscuring grass. 3. Each party acknowledges cooperation and expeditious response in all matters heretoforell- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have accepted, made and executed this agreement. AGREED AND ACCEPTED: HOMEOWNERS By: By: HERMOSA VILLAS Date: Date: By: Date: Ivano Stamenga 0304.JAM -2- 12/08/1988 Page 1 of 3 To All Members of the City Of Hermosa Beach City Council: Issues Concerning the Development West of Valley Park Avenue. The original approval by the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission and City Council was CONTINGENT UPON the developers AGREEMENT to and PERFORMANCE OF many issues, some of the most important to the local residents include: 1) The final grade of the development be the same as the existing grade of the easterly adjoining lots on Valley Park Avenue. 2) The developer leaving the majority of existing trees. 3) Adequate sewer guaranteed for the new development, not limited to the sewer line within the development. 4) Adequate drainage of water OUT OF THE VALLEY, not just out of the development. 5) Minimize the loss of privacy to the rear of the existing residences on Valley Park Avenue and Power Street. 6) Curb cuts for the existing residences on Valley Park Avenue from the newly developed POWER Street. I, a local resident for many years, and owner of lot 26, feel that the developer has not complied with the CONTINGENCIES of the SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, and the City Council should NOT ISSUE FINAL APPROVAL of the subdivision. 1) The final grade behind lot 26 is approximately 30 inches higher than the existing grade of lot 26. The grading of lot 26 slopes to the rear, towards the new development. The grading of the lots north of lot 26 drain to the rear, which is now blocked by the block wall, and to the south towards lot 26. Lot 27, to the south of lot 26 is 18 inches higher than lot 26. As you can visualize, all runoff from the north of lot 26 will gather in lot 26. The proposed solution to this was the addition of a SWALE to the rear of lots 26 and 27, draining into lot 28. Swale is a refined word for DITCH. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines it as "a low-lying stretch of land (as a small meadow, swamp, or marshy heavily vegetated depression)." The swale is to be located on the Easterly side of the block wall fence, partly on public right of way and partly on the developer's land. As the swale must be lower than lot 26, there will be a ditch at least two foot deep and one foot wide between the rear of lot 27 and the six foot block wall of the developer's property. As this is on the developers property, it is his responsibility to keep the ditch clean. Who is going to enforce this? The CITY of Hermosa Beach, as they approved it? SUPPLEMENTAL 1 w INFORMATION 12/08/1988 Page 2 of 3 What happens when the owners of lot 28 get sick of water, leaves, dirt, dead/decaying animals and other debris entering into the center of their yard? They block the exit of the ditch onto their property. Now the water backs up into lot 26. Who is responsible for the flooding of lot 26, the CITY or the developer? If the CITY recollects, in 1978/1979, the previous owner of lot 27 sued the developer of lot 26 and the CITY, because of water damage caused because of the new construction. As the developer of lot 26 had moved to Florida, the suit was also filed against the current owner of lot 26. The previous owner of lot 27 WON THE LAWSUIT. As the city appears to be approving the current grading/drainage plan, the owner of lot 26 assumes that the city will accept all liability for any damage in the near term and any future time. This should be formally documented if the plan is approved. A related problem is the effective height of the block wall. It is measured from the height of the existing grade, which will make it 6 foot to the current residences of Valley Park Avenue, but much less approaching from the new development. There is a more significant problem with lot 27, which has a pool in the rear, requiring, by statute, a higher wall than the one allowed under the subdivision statute. The STATUTES APPEAR TO BE IN CONFLICT. Again, does the city accept liability for any injuries that arise from the low wall for lot 27? 2) From the plot map and plans presented, it appears that MOST AND POSSIBLY ALL OF THE EXISTING LARGE TREES ARE BEING REMOVED. 3) The developer is replacing the sewer line beneath the new development. About 4 years ago, the owner of lot 28 had plans/permits approved by the City of Hermosa Beach to build a 4400 sq. ft. house. One of the CHANGES REQUIRED BY THE CITY was changing the sewer connection from the sewer line that runs through the new development to the sewer line on Valley Park. The CITY STATED in WRITING that the sewer line could not handle one more house, as the line currently backs up occasionally. This letter has been submitted to both the Planning Commission and the City Council as part of the concerns for the new development. The City now states that the existing sewer line can handle FIVE ADDITIONAL HOMES. To my knowledge, the sewer lines to the south of the development have not been upgraded. As residents have testified in the past, there have been occasions where sewerage has backup into the residences. Again is the CITY ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY for any FUTURE PROBLEMS. WHY CAN THE SEWER LINE NOW HANDLE FIVE ADDITIONAL HOMES, WHEN THE CITY PREVIOUSLY STATED IN WRITING THAT IT COULD NOT HANDLE ONE???? 4) Related to ITEM 1 is overall drainage stormdrain at the south end of Valley curb, this has also been testified to City Council meetings. . There have been occasions when the Park Avenue has overflowed over the at previous Planning Commission and 12/08/1988 Page 3 of 3 The reason there is a problem with grading is that the new development had to be raised to get the water OUT OF THE DEVELOPMENT. Where does the water go? Into a storm drain system that already overflows. The city and developer are assuring the the new development will not flood by raising the grading of the development, but they are PUTTING LONG TIME EXISTING RESIDENTS OF HERMOSA BEACH AT RISK. 5) The developer is putting up a block wall that will be 6 feet high on the Valley Park side, but less than 4 feet on the developers side, allowing easy viewing and access into the rear yards of Valley Park Avenue residences. The developer also agreed to redesign the houses facing the rear of lots 26 and 27, and the existing house at the intersection of power and 20th streets. The redesign has not been presented to date. 6) The developer has agreed to curb cuts, and also to redesign the cul de sac to allow for access to the rear of lot 26, without endangering the tree in the Northwest corner of lot 26. These modifications do not currently appear on the plot map, but were supposed to be added by the City Council meeting on 13 December 1988. This summarizes my, and other local residents' concerns. Please consider each issue before final approval is given to the new subdivision. Thank you for you pptience anal /I/7. Warner P. Lombardi 1849 Valley Park Ave. Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254 .r November 26, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of December 13, 1988 RECOMMENDATION TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 194 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLED "NOISE REGULATION" IN ITS ENTIRETY AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW CHAPTER 194; AND REPEALING CERTAIN PARTS OF CHAPTER 20, TITLED "NUISANCES", WHICH ARE IN CONFLICT WITH NEW CHAPTER 194, IN THEIR ENTIRETY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Introduce the attached Ordinance for adoption. 2. Appropriate an amount, not to exceed $7,000, from Prospective Expenditures for the purchase of noise monitoring equipment necessary for enforcement of the Ordinance. BACKGROUND: In October of 1986, City Council instructed the Police Department to study upgrading the existing Noise Ordinance and to return with recommendations by January, 1987. Dr. Frank Gomez, the Environmental Management Training Coordinator for Los Angeles County was contacted in regards to this direction. Dr. Gomez reviewed the existing Ordinance, which was developed in 1971, and revised in 1974 and 1984. He also reviewed all previous Council documentation of the problem, spe- cific complaints, and other materials. Based on his review, Dr. Gomez made several findings and recommendations: 1. the existing Noise Ordinance was a "first generation" environmental mana- gement attempt and would require a major rewrite and revision after a supportive study; 2. A new Ordinance should be designed "around the problem" and should address all noise problems in the City, including traffic, construction, etc; 3. "State-of-the-art" monitoring equipment, which would be able to print out readings for Court and C.U.P. violation documentation, should be purchased for enforcement of the Ordinance; and 4. Training and certification of enforcement officers should be provided. 1 10 In December 1986, the City entered into an agreement with Dr. Gomez and the County of Los Angeles, Department of Health Services to conduct a community noise study. The County was to conduct a City-wide noise study in order to determine what the actual noise levels of the City were, where the major problems are, make recommendations regarding revision of the existing Noise Ordinance, recommend specific, approved equipment for the enforcement, and train Officers in the use of the equipment and enforcement of the Ordinance. ANALYSIS: The study was conducted during the months of August -September 1987, and 1988 The data was then collected and Dr. Gomez submitted a preliminary report in March 1988. This report indicated that one of the major community noise problems in Hermosa Beach was traffic noise. The report also provided suggested community noise level standards for the City. Dr. Gomez provided the final report, outlining recommended revisions to the existing Noise Ordinance and specifying appropriate monitoring equipment, in the latter part of August 1988. Following meetings between Building and Safety, the City Attorney, the Planning Department, the City Manager, and the Police Department, the existing Noise Ordinance was revised and is submitted for adoption. Steve S. Wisniews i Director of Public -Safety CONCUR: Kevin B. Norfthcr ft, City Manager Mike Scht ach, Dirrector of Planning William Grove, Director of Building and Safety NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: Viki Copeland, Finance Administrator 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 ORDINANCE NO. 88 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING CHAPTER 19 1/2, OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, TITLED "NOISE REGULATION," IN ITS ENTIRETY AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW CHAPTER 19 1/2, AND REPEALING CERTAIN PARTS OF CHAPTER 20, TITLED "NUISANCES," WHICH ARE IN CONFLICT WITH NEW CHAPTER 19 1/2. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Paragraphs A, B, C, D, E, F, and H of Section 20- 2 of Chapter 20, titled "Nuisances," are hereby repealed in their entirety. SECTION 2. Chapter 19 1/2 of the Municipal Code of the City of Hermosa Beach, is hereby repealed in its entirety and replaced with the following: SECTION 19 1/2-2. DEFINITIONS. As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise clearly indicates, the words and phrases used are defined as follows: "A" - weighted (dBA). "A" weighted" shall mean the total sound level of all noise as measured with a sound level meter using the "A" weighting network. Ambient noise. "Ambient Noise" shall mean the all- encompassing noise associated with a given environment, usually being a composite of sounds from many sources near and far, to exclude the alleged intruding noise source. Commercial purpose. "Commercial purpose" shall mean and in - 25 clude the use, operation, or maintenance of any sound amplifying 26 equipment for the purpose of advertising any business, or any 27 goods, or any services, or for the purpose of demonstrating any 28 such sound equipment. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Decibel. "Decibel" shall mean a unit for measuring the am- plitude of a sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals. Emergency work. "Emergency work" shall mean work made neces- sary to restore property to a safe condition following a public calamity or work required to protect persons or property from an imminent exposure to danger. Equivalent sound level (LEQ). "Equivalent Sound Level" shall mean the constant sound level that, in a given situation and time period, conveys the same sound energy as the actual time -varying A -weighted sound. (For the purposes of this regulation, a time period of 15 minutes Impulsive sound. shall be used, unless otherwise specified.) "Impulsive Sound" shall mean a sound of short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrupt on- set and rapid decay. Examples include explosions, drop forge impacts, and the discharge of firearms. Intrusive noise. "Intrusive noise" shall mean that noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence, 22 and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing am - 23 bient noise level. 24 Motor vehicles. "Motor vehicles" shall include, but not be 25limited to, mini -bikes, go-carts, automobiles, and trucks. Motor 26 vehicle shall include any and all self-propelled vehicles as de - 27 fined in the California Motor Vehicle Code, including all on- 28highway type motor vehicles subject to registration under this -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Code, and all off-highway type motor vehicles subject to iden- tification under said Code. Noise disturbance. "Noise disturbance" shall mean any sound which, as judged by the Chief of Police or his designated rep- resentative, violates the limits set forth in Sections 19 1/2-3 and 19 1/2-4 of this regulation. Compliance with this chapter shall constitute elimination of a noise disturbance. Noise level (Lx). "Noise Level" shall mean that noise level expressed in decibels which exceeded the specified (Lax) value as a percentage of total time measured. For instance, a L25 noise level means that noise level which was exceeded 25 percent of the time measured. Noncommercial purpose. "Noncommercial purpose" shall mean 14the use, operation, or maintenance of any sound equipment for 15 other than a commercial purpose. "Noncommercial purpose" shall 16 mean and include philanthropic, political, and charitable purposes. 18 Person. "Person" shall mean a person, firm, association, 19 copartnership, joint venture, corporation, or any entity, public or private in nature. 21 Pure tone. "Pure tone" shall mean any sound which can be 22 judged as audible as a single pitch or a set of single pitches by 23 the Chief of Police or his designated representative. 24 Sound amplifying equipment. "Sound amplifying equipment" 25 shall mean any machine or device for the amplification of the 26 human voice, music, or any other sound. "Sound amplifying equip- ment" shall not include standard automobile radios when used and 17 20 27 28 heard only by the occupants of the vehicle in which the auto- mobile radio is installed. "Sound amplifying equipment" as used -3- 1 in this chapter shall not include warning devices on authorized 2 emergency vehicles, or horns or other warning devices on any 3 vehicles used only for traffic safety purposes. 4 Sound level meter. "Sound level meter" shall mean an instru- 5 ment including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and 6 frequency weighting networks for the measurement of noise and 7 sound levels in a specified manner which meets ANSI specifica- 8 tions S1.4-1961, as amended Type II or better. 9 Sound pressure level. "Sound pressure level" in decibels, of 10 a sound shall mean twenty times the logarithm to the base ten of 11 the ratio of the pressure of this sound to the reference pres- 12 sure, which reference pressure shall be explicitly stated. The 13 sound pressure is expressed in decibels. 14 Sound truck. "Sound truck" shall mean any motor vehicle, or 15 any other vehicle regardless of motive power, whether in motion 16 or stationary, having mounted thereon, or attached thereto, any 17 sound amplifying equipment. 18 SECTION 19 1/2-3 EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS 19 1. Maximum permissible sound levels by receiving land use. 20 a. The noise standards for the various categories of 21 land use presented in Table I shall, unless other - 22 wise specifically indicated, apply to all such 23 property within a designated zone. The Leg method 24 of noise measurement shall be used, unless, in the 25 opinion of the Enforcing Officer it is difficult, 26 impracticable or infeasible to differentiate the 27 ambient noise from the noise being measured. 28 b. No person shall operate or cause to be operated, -4- 1 any source of sound at any location within the in- 2 corporated city or allow the creation of any noise 3 on property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise 4 controlled by such person, which causes the noise 5 level when measured on any other property, either 6 incorporated or unincorporated, to exceed: 7 1. The noise standard for that land use as specified 8 in Table 1, Column A, for a cumulative period of 15 minutes in 9 any half hour (L50); or 10 2. The noise standard plus 5 dB for a cumulative 11 period of more than 7.5 minutes in any half hour (L25); or 12 3. The noise standard plus 10 dB for a cumulative 13 period of more than 2.5 minutes in any half hour (L8.3); or 14 4. The noise standard plus 15 dB for a cumulative 15 period of more than 30 seconds in any half hour (L1.67); or 16 5. The noise standard plus 20 dB or the maximum mea - 17 sured ambient level, for any period of time; or 18 6. The equivalent A -weighted sound level (leg) as 19 set forth in Table I, Column B, for a period of 15 minutes or 20 until the calculatd Leq as read on the sound level meter has not 21 changed for a period of five minutes. 22 c. If the measured ambient level differs from that 23 permissible within any of the first four noise 24 limit categories above, or exceeds the Leq standard 25 in b(6) above, the allowable noise exposure stan- 26 dard shall be adjusted in each category as ap- 27 propriate to encompass or reflect said ambient 28 noise level. d. If the measurement location is on a boundary -5- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 between two different noise zone classifcations, the noise level limit applicable to the lower noise zone plus 5 dB, shall apply. e. If possible, the ambient noise shall be measured at the same location along the property line utilized in 1 (b), with the alleged offending noise source inoperative. If for any reason the alleged offend- ing noise source cannot be shut down, the ambient noise must be estimated by performing a measurement in the same general area of the source but at a sufficient distance such that the noise from the source is at least 10 dB below the ambient in order that only the ambient level be measured. If the difference between the ambient and the noise source is 5 to 10 dB, then the level of the ambient itself can be reasonably determined by subtracting a one 17 decibel correction to account for the contribution 18 of the source. 19 2. Correction for character of sound: In the event the alleged 20 offensive noise, as judged by the Enforcing Officer contains 21 a steady audible tone such as a whine, screech, or hum; or is 22 a repetitive noise such as hammering or riveting, or contains 23music or speech conveying informational content, or is an 24 animal or bird noise, the standard limits set forth in Table 25 1 shall be reduced by 5 dB. 26 27 28 -6- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE 1 EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS (Levels not to be exceeded for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any 1/2 hour.) Allowable Noise Level (dBA) Noise Zone Classification Type of Land Use Time A B Lx Leg One and Two Family Residential 10 pm - 8 am 45 50 8 am - 10 pm 50 55 Multiple Dwelling Residential; Public Space; Predominantly 10 pm - 8 am 50 55 Residential With other Land use 8 am - 10 pm 55 60 Types Also Present Predominantly Commercial With Other Land Use 10 pm - 8 am 55 60 Types also Present 8 am - 10pm 60 65 Commercial 10 pm - 8 am 60 65 8 am - 10 pm 65 70 SECTION 19 1/2-4. Interior Noise Standards 1. Maximum permissible dwelling interior sound levels: a. The interior noise standards for the various land use districts as presented in Table 2 shall apply, unless otherwise specifically indicated zone with windows in their normal seasonal configuration. -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 Noise Type of Zone Land Use TABLE 2 Time Allowable Interior Interval Noise Level (dBA) LX All Multifamily 10 pm - 8 am 35 Residential 8 am - 10 am 45 All School 8 am - 10 am 45 (while school is in session) Hospital Designated Quiet Zones Any time 40 and Sensitive Zones b. No person shall operate or cause to be operated within the City any source of sound or allow the creation of any noise which causes the noise level when measured inside a building described in Table 2 to exceed: (1) The noise standard as specified in Table 2 for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any half hour; or (2) The noise standard plus 5 dB for a cumulative peri- od of more than one minute in any half hour; or (3) The noise standard plus 10 dB or the maximum mea- sured ambient, for any period of time. C. If the measured ambient level differs from that permis- sible within any of the noise limit categories above, the allowable noise exposure standard shall be adjusted in 5 dB increments in each category as appropriate to reflect said ambient noise level. 2. Correction for character of sound: In the event the alleged -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 offensive noise, as judged by the Noise Control Officer, con- tains steady, audible tone such as whine, screech, or hum, or is a repetitive noise such as hammering or riveting, or con- tains music or speech conveying informational content, the standard limits set forth in Table 2 shall be reduced by 5 dB. Section 19 1/2-5 EXEMPTIONS None of the provisions of Section 19 1/2-3 and 19 1/2-4 herein shall be applied to: (a) Public works which are authorized by the City; (b) Building construction for which a valid building permit has been issued, only between the hours of 8 am and 7 pm. ARTICLE II. PROHIBITED ACTS SECTION 19 1/2-6. PLACES OF PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT (a) Warning required. It shall be unlawful to operate, play or permit the operation or playing of any radio, television, pho- nograph, drum, musical instrument, sound amplifier, or similar device which produces, reproduces, or amplifies sound in any place of public entertainment at a sound level greater than 95 dBA as read by the slow response on a sound level meter at any point that is normally occupied by a customer, unless a con- spicuous and legible sign is located outside such place, near each public entrance which states: "WARNING, SOUND LEVELS WITHIN MAY CAUSE PERMANENT HEARING IMPAIRMENT." 26 (b) Containment required. It shall be unlawful to allow any 27 sound, caused by the operating, playing or permitting the opera - 28 tion or playing of any radio, television, phonograph, drum, musi- cal instrument, sound amplifier, or similar device, to emanate -9- 1 from the establishment, which causes the noise level, when mea - 2 sured on any other property, either incorporated or unincorpor- 3 ated, to exceed the noise standards specified in Section 19 1/2-3 4 and 19 1/2-4. 5 (c) These requirements shall be supplemental to any other 6 city requirements regarding noise level, including those found in 7 Conditional Use Permits. In the event of a conflict between the 8 noise standards in this ordinance and any other city require- 9 ments, the stricter standard shall apply. 10 SECTION 19 1/2-7. ANIMALS AND FOWL 11 No person shall keep or maintain, or permit the keeping of, 12 upon any premises owned, occupied, or controlled by such person, 13 any animal or fowl otherwise permitted to be kept which, by any 14 sound, cry, or behavior, violates the limits set forth in Sec - 15 tions 19 1/2-3 and 19 1/2-4. 16 SECTION 19 1/2-8. LEAF BLOWERS. 17 It shall be unlawful to use within the Hermosa Beach city 18 limits or cause to be used electrical or gasoline powered back - 19 pack/leafblowers, such as commonly used by gardeners, landscapers 20 and other persons. 21 SECTION 19 1/2-9. LOADING AND UNLOADING 22 Loading, unloading, opening, closing, or other handling of 23 boxes, crates, containers, building materials, or similar objects 24 between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. in such a manner as 25 to cause a noise disturbance across a residential real property 26 line which violates the provisions of Sections 19 1/2-3 and 19 1/ 27 2-4. 28 ARTICLE III. CONSTRUCTION SECTION 19 1/2-10. CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND PROJECTS. -10- 1 It shall be unlawful for any person within a residential 2 zone, or within a radius of five hundred (500) feet therefrom, to 3 operate equipment or perform any outside construction or repair 4 work on buildings, structures, or projects or to operate any pile 5 driver, steam shovel, pneumatic hammer derrick, steam or electric 6 hoist, or other construction type device between the hours of 7 7:00 p.m. of one day and 8:00 a.m. of the next day in such a man - 8 ner that violates the limits set forth in Section 19 1/2-3 and 19 9 1/2-4, unless beforehand a permit therefor has been duly obtained 10 from the director of building and safety. No permit shall be 11 required to perform emergency work as defined in Article I of 12 this chapter. 13 ARTICLE IV. VEHICLES 14 SECTION 19 1/2-11. AMPLIFIED SOUNDS - MOTOR VEHICLES 15 It shall be unlawful for the operator of any motor vehicle to 16 operate, or permit operation of, any device for the amplification 17 of the human voice, music, or other sound which makes sound 18 clearly audible to other than the occupants of such motor vehi- 19 cle. This section shall not apply to the use of horns, warning 20 devices, and other exceptions in accordance with Section 27000- 21 27007 of the California Vehicle Code. 22 SECTION 19 1/2-12. VEHICLE REPAIRS 23 It shall be unlawful for any person within any residential 24 area of the city to repair, rebuild or test any motor vehicle 25 between the hours of 10:00 p.m. of one day and 8:00 a.m. of the 26 next day in such a manner that violates the provisions of Sec - 27 tions 19 1/2-3 and 19 1/2-4. 28 SECTION 19 1/2-13. MOTOR VEHICLES OPERATING ON PUBLIC RIGHT- OF-WAY. -11- 1 Motor vehicle noise limits on a public right-of-way are regu- 2 lated by the California Vehicle Code, Sections 23130 and 23130.5. 3 Equipment violations which create noise problems are regulated by 4 Sections 27150 and 27151 of the same code. 5 ARTICLE V. AMPLIFIED SOUND 6 SECTION 19 1/2-14. PURPOSE. 7 The city council enacts the provisions of this article for 8 the sole purpose of securing and promoting the public health, 9 comfort, safety, and welfare for its citizenry. While recogniz- 10 ing that the use of sound amplifying equipment is protected by 11 the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and assembly, the 12 council nevertheless feels obligation to regulate reasonably the 13 use of sound amplifying equipment in order to protect the cor- 14 relative constitutional rights of the citizens of this community 15 to privacy and freedom from public nuisance of loud and unneces- 16 sary noise. 17 SECTION 19 1/2-15. APPLICATION REQUIRED. 18 It shall be unlawful for any person, other than personnel of 19 law enforcement and government agencies, to install, use or oper- 20 ate within the city a loudspeaker or sound amplifying equipment 21 in a fixed or movable position or mounted upon any sound truck 22 for the purpose of giving instructions, directions, talks, ad - 23 dresses, lectures, or transmitted music to any persons or as - 24 semblages or persons in or upon any street, alley, sidewalk, 25 park, place, or public property without first filing an applica- 26 tion and obtaining a permit therefor as set forth in this 27 article. 28 SECTION 19 1/2-16. FILING APPLICATION. -12- 1 Every user of sound amplifying equipment shall file an ap- 2 plication with the chief of police at least ten (10) days prior 3 to each date or each consecutive number of days on which the 4 sound amplifying equipment is intended to be used. 5 SECTION 19 1/2-17. CONTENTS OF APPLICATION. 6 The application shall contain the following information: 7 (a) The name, address and telephone number of both the owner 8 and responsible party for the property where the sound 9 amplifying equipment shall be used; 10 (b) The address where the sound amplifying equipment will be 11 used; 12 (c) The date(s) and day(s) on which the sound amplifying 13 equipment will be used; 14 (d)) The times when the sound amplifying equipment will be 15 used; 16 (e)) The type of activity and the estimated number of persons 17 who will attend; 18 (f) A general description of the sound amplifying equipment 19 which is to be used; 20 (g) Whether the sound amplifying equipment will be used for 21 commercial or noncommercial purposes; and 22 (h) Other information deemed necessary by the chief of 23 police or his designee to determine the levels, location 24 and duration of the use of sound amplifying equipment. 25 SECTION 19 1/2-18. APPROVAL OF PERMIT. 26 The chief of police shall approve the application unless he 27 finds that: 28 (a) The conditions of motor vehicle movement are such that, -13- 1 in the opinion of the chief of police, use of the equip - 2 ment would constitute a detriment to traffic safety; or 3 (b) The conditions of pedestrian movement are such that, in 4 the opinion of the chief of police, use of the equipment 5 would constitute a detriment to traffic safety; or 6 (c) The issuance of the permit would be otherwise detrimen- 7 tal to the public health, safety or welfare; or 8 (d) The issuance of the permit will substantially interfere g with the peace and quiet of the neighborhood or the com- 10 munity; or 11 (e) The applicant would violate the provisions of this Code 12 or of any other law. 13 SECTION 19 1/2-19. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. 14 The chief of police may impose such conditions on the opera - 15 tion to be conducted under the permit as he may deem necessary or 16 proper to ensure that the city's noise regulations are followed 17 and that the operation of the sound equipment will not invade the 18 privacy of others. There shall be no conditions placed on any 19 permittee as to the type of message or the content of the commun- 20 cation under this chapter. 21 SECTION 19 1/2-20. APPEALS. 22 Any person aggrieved•by disapproval of an application may 23 appeal to the city council within ten (10) calendar days from the 24 date of notification of decision. 25 SECTION 19 1/2-21. PERMIT FEE. 26 Prior to the issuance of the permit, a permit fee in the 27 amount of thirty dollars ($30.00) per day, or any portion there - 28 of, shall be paid to the city. No fee shall be paid by any non- profit organization. -14- 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 19 1/2-22. REGULATIONS. The commercial and noncommercial use of sound amplifying equipment shall be subject to the following regulations: (a) The only sounds permitted shall be either music or human speech, or both. (b) The operation of sound amplifying equipment shall occur only between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. each day. (c) Sound amplifying equipment shall not be operated within two hundred (200) feet of churches, schools, hospitals, or city or county buildings. (d) In any event, the volume of sound shall be so controlled that it will not be unreasonably loud, raucous, jarring, disturbing, or violate the limits set forth in Sections 19 1/2-3 and 19 1/2-4. ARTICLE VI. REMEDIES SECTION 19 1/2-23. VIOLATIONS; INFRACTIONS, PENALTIES. Any person violating any provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of an infraction of the law as set forth in Section 36900 of the Government Code of the State of California and may be prosecuted in the name of the people of the State of Califor- nia, or redressed by civil action. Every violation of this sec- tion determined to be an infraction is punishable pursuant to the provisions of Section 36900 of the Government Code, as incorpo- rated in Section 1-7 of this Code, and in accordance with the current fine/bail schedule in effect and approved by the presid- ing judge of the municipal court. SECTION 19 1/2-24. SAME - ADDITIONAL REMEDY. -15- 1 1 As an additional remedy, the operation or maintenance of any 2 device, instrument, vehicle or machinery in violation of any pro - 3 visions of this chapter, which operation or maintenance violates 4 the limits set forth in Sections 19 1/2-3 and 19 1/2-4 or which 5 endangers the comfort, repose, health or peace of residents in 6 the area shall be deemed, and is declared to be, a public 7 nuisance and may be subject to abatement summarily by a restrain - 8 ing order or injunction issued by a court of competent 9 jurisdiction. 10 SECTION 19 1/2-25. ENFORCEMENT; ',ENFORCING OFFICER,' DEFINED. 11 For the purpose of this chapter, the term "enforcing officer" 12 shall mean any police officer of the city and any other employee 13 of the city whose duty it is to enforce the provisions of this 14 Code who is authorized by the city manager to use the citation 15 procedure established by this chapter in the performance of his 16 enforcement duties. 17 SECTION 19 1/2-26. SEVERABILITY. 18 If any provision, clause, sentence, or paragraph of this 19 chapter, or the application thereof to any person or circumstanc- 20 es shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the 21 other provisions or application of the provisions of this chapter 22 which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or ap- 23 plications and, to this end, the provisions of this chapter are 24 hereby declared to be severable. 25 SECTION 19 1/2-27. REPEAL. 26 Any provisions of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, or appen- 27 dices thereto, or any other ordinance of the city inconsistent 28 herewith, to the extent of such inconsistencies, and no further, are hereby repealed; providing, however, that such repeal shall -16- 1 not in any way affect any prosecution or action which may be 2 pending in any court for the violation of any provisions or or - 3 dinances repealed thereby. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of November, 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: PROVED CITY CLERK A ATTO1kNE -17- Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council December 6, 1988 City Council Meeting of December 13, 1988 PRESENTATION OF SERVICE PLAQUE TO FRANK HOLOBOROW RETIRING BUSINESS LICENSE INSPECTOR Frank Holborow is retiring from City service effective January 5, 1989. Mr. Holborow began his career in City service in January of 1969 as a parking enforcement officer. In 1978 he became Business License/Environmental Control Inspector, and served as Business License Inspector from 1982 to the present. Mr. Holborow is known throughout the community as an effective, no-nonsense inspector who is firm while fair and friendly. He is also known by community and employees alike as a man with a rare sense of humor. He has made his mark and will be missed. His plaque is presented in absentia since he is unable to attend this Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Noted: obert A. Blackwood Personnel Director levin B. Northcfaft City Manager MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, November 22, 1988. at the hour of 7:35 P.M. CLOSED SESSION regarding real property negotiations re: surplus lots and A.T. & S.F. at the hour of 7:01 P.M. Present: Creighton, Sheldon, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Rosenberger Absent: None PLEDEGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor Pro Tem Williams ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Sheldon, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Rosenberger Absent: None PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE TO HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT'BY STATE BOARD OF CORRECTIONS AREA CONSULTANT BRUCE SANDIE - Presented by Public Safety Director Wisniewski CITIZEN COMMENTS Gerald Compton - 200 Pier Avenue # 9- re: 1(i) Vacation of 21st Street - requested to speak on item. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (i) with the exception of the following items which were pulled for discussion but are listed in order for clarity: (d) Simpson, (f) Williams, (h) Sheldon, and (i) Sheldon. Motion Creighton, second Williams. So ordered. (a) Recommendation to approve minutes of regular meeting of the City Council held on November 9, 1988. (b) Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos. 28089, 28202 through 28350 inclusive, noting voided warrants 28210 through 28212 inclusive and 28266. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) Recommendation to receive and file October, 1988 finan- cial reports: 1) Revenue and Expenditure Reports 2) City Treasurer's Report Action: To receive and file. Motion Simpson, second Creighton. So ordered. 1 Minutes 11-22-38 la (e) Recommendation to approve agreement with Moffat & Nichol, Engineers for repair design services for municipal pier storm damage, CIP 88-614. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated November 1, 1988. Action: Authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement with Moffat & Nichol, Engineers for design services to pre- pare plans and supecifications for the repair of storm damage to the municipal pier, at a cost not to exceed $16,800, and appropriate $16,800 from the General Fund Designation for Capital Improvements to CIP 88-614, $12,600 of which is eligible for reimbursement by FEMA. (f) A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE TRAIL GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE, COASTAL, AND PARK LAND CONSERVATION ACT OF 1988. Memorandum from Assistant City Manager Alana Mastrian-Handman dated November 15, 1988. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5196, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE TRAIL GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE, COASTAL, AND PARK LAND CONSERVATION ACT OF 1988 FOR THE FOLLOWING PROJECT." Motion Creighton, second Simpson. So ordered. (g) A RESOLUTION APPROVING' FINAL MAP #19098 FOR A 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM LOCATED AT 3518 THE STRAND. For adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated November 14, 1988. Supplemental memorandum from Andrew Perea, Associate Planner dated November 22, 1988. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5197, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH;' CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL AMP # 19098 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 3518 THE STRAND, HERMOSA BEACH." (h) A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERTANDING WITH THE HERMOSA.BEACH MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION. For adoption: Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated November 15, 1988. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5198, entitled " A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTAND- ING WITH THE HERMOSA BEACH MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION." Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. • (i) A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ORDER THE CLOSING UP, VACATING AND ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF TWENTY-FIRST STREET. For adoption. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated November 15, 1988. 2 Minutes 11-22-88 Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5199, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE CLOSING UP, VACATING AND ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF TWENTY-FIRST STREET AS HEREIN PARTICULARLY DEFINED, IN SAID CITY.", noting the addition of the word "consider" at the'end of line 10, page 1. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. (a) ORDINANCE NO. 88-964 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE OF AREA 2D FROM R-2 TO R -1A AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. For adoption. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 88-964. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. (b) AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 7-9.10 (LITIGATION EXTENSION OF GRANDFATHERED PERMITS) WHICH ALLOWS GRANDFATHERING OF ORDINANCES TO CONTINUE DURING THE PENDENCY OF LITIGA- TION. For waiver of full reading and introduction. .;Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dated `November 15, 1988. Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 88- 965, entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION 7-9.10 (LITIGATION OF GRANDFATHERED PERMITS) WHICH ALLOWS GRANDFATHERING OF ORDINANCES TO CONTINUE DURING THE PENDANCY OF LITIGATION." Motion Simpson, second Sheldon. AYES - Creighton, Sheldon, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Rosenberger NOES - None Final Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 88-965, and to hold off adoption until a need arises. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. Items d, f, h, and i were discussed at this time, but are listed in order'for clarity. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC - None HEARINGS 5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MERGING OF LOTS LOCATED AT 2039 HILLCREST DRIVE, 1922 HILLCREST DRIVE, AND 619 - 8TH PLACE WITH RESOLUTION. For adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated November 15, 1988. (Continued from November 9, 1988 meeting.) - 3 - Minutes 11-22-88 Supplemental information - Dino Vlachos - 1922 Hillcrest Drive dated November 22, 1988. The staff report was presented by Planning Director Schubach. Coming forward to address the council were: ' James Lyle- spouce of Deborah Regan - 619 -8th Place - submitted letter Gerald Compton - 200 Pier Avenue Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5200, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ON APPEAL THE MERGER OF LOTS COMMONLY KNOWN AS 2039 HILLCREST DRIVE, 1922 HILL - .CREST DRIVE AND 619 8TH PLACE." Motion Williams, second Simpson. So ordered. 6. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MERGING OF LOTS AT 1244 SECOND STREET, 1001 FOURTH STREET, 912 - 18TH STREET, 1140 FIRST STREET, AND 1125 FIRST STREET WITH RESOLU- TION. For adoption. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated November 15, 1988. Supplemental information - memorandum from Andrew Perea, Associate Planner dated November 21, 1988. The staff report was presented by Planning Director Schubach. He stated that a letter was received request- ing a withdraw for appeals of 1140 and 1125 First Street. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Peggy O'Brien - 912 -18th Street Bill Magee - 1001 -4th Street Sid Croft - representing Warrens at 1244 -2nd Street Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5201, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ON APPEAL THE MERGER OF LOTS COMMONLY KNOWN AS 912 18TH STREET, 1001 4TH STREET, 1244 2ND STREET, 1125 1ST STREET, AND 1140 1ST STREET."' Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. AYES - Creighton, Sheldon, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Rosenberger NOES.- None 7. REPEAL OF TAX EXEMPTIONS: A. RECOMMENDATION TO ELIMINATE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND LONG TERM OCCUPANTS, WITH ORDINANCE. For waiver of full reading and introduction. A staff report was presented by City Manager Northcraft. 4 Minutes 11-22-88 Addressing the Council on both these items were: Phil Freeland - Freeland Development Consultants- 220- 1st Street Manhattan Beach — representing Boccattos Market and Vasek Polak - Darrell Greenwald - Sea Sprite Motel Paul Shoop - Shoop & Hunter 23440 Pacific Coast Hwy, Malibu - representing Alpha Beta William Fowler - Chamber of Commerce - requested con- tinuance for more information The Hearing was closed. Proposed Action: To continue with this item. (Except for government exceptions on Transient Occupancy Tax) Motion Creighton, second Williams. No vote was taken on the above motion. Action: To waiver full reading of Ordinance No. 88- 966 entitled, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 30, ARTICLE III, TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX, SECTION 30-12. DEFINITIONS.' ' Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. AYES - Creighton, Sheldon, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Rosenberger .:NOES - None ..Final Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 88-966. Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. So Ordered. B. RECOMMENDATION TO ELIMINATE UTILITY USERS TAX REFUND PROVISIONS FOR LARGE UTILITY USERS, WITH ORDINANCE. For waiver of full readintl and intro- duction. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated November 17, 1988. .Action: To waiver full reading of Ordinance No. 88-967 entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING HERMOSA BECH CITY CODE SECTION 30- 52, REFUND OF UTILITY TAXES IN EXCESS OF ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, AND AMENDING SECTION'30-55, INTEREST AND PENALTY.' Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. AYES.- Creighton, Sheldon, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Rosenberger NOES - None Further Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 88-967. Motion Simpson, second Creighton. So ordered. Final Action: To continue this hearing until December 13, 1988 City Council Meeting. Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered. The agenda was suspended and item number 9 was discussed at this time, but is listed.in order for clarity. - 5 - Minutes 11-22-88 e PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. A RESOLUTION AMENDING FEES FOR ISSUANCE AND REVIEW OF ENCROACHMENT PERMITS. For adoption. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated October 17, 1988. A staff report was presented by Public Works Director Anitch. The Public Hearing was opened, no one coming forward to address the Council, the Hearing was closed. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5202, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. B85-4886 ES- TABLISHING FEES FOR THE ISSUANCE AND REVIEW OF ENCROACH- MENT PERMITS." Motion Simpson, second Williams. So ordered, noting the objection of Sheldon. 9. REZONE OF AREA 4 FROM R-3 TO R-1, AREA 5 FROM R-1 TO C-3 AND AREA 6 FROM R-3 TO R-1 OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND ADOPT AN EN- VIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WITH ORDINANCE. For waiver of full reading and introduction. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated November 15, 1988. Supplemental•information - Memorandum from Alex Hernandez, Assistant Planner dated November 22, 1988, letter from Virginia Rustanius -728 Longfellow dated November 18, 1988. AREA 4 Councilmember Simpson declared a presumed Conflict of •Interest since she lives within 300 feet of the area. A staff report was presented by Planning Director Schubach .. . Addressing the Council on this item were: Jim Parkman - 657 Porter Lane Stan. Shaw - 661 Porter Lane The hearing was closed. Action: To waiver full reading of Ordinance No. 88-968 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA,AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR AREA AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION." Motion Creighton, second Williams. AYES - Creighton, Sheldon, Williams, Mayor Rosenberger NOES - None ABSTAIN - Simpson - 6 - Minutes 11-22-88 AREA 5 AREA 6 Final Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 88-968. Motion Creighton, second Williams AYES - Creighton, Sheldon, Williams, Mayor Rosenberger NOES - None ABSTAIN - Simpson A staff report was presented by Planning Director Schubach. Addressing the Council on this item were: Mel Tacotta - 738 Longfellow John Huchins - 723 Longfellow Dorothy Olvise - 727 Longfellow - representing Ruth Paul 729 Longfellow Arlene Howell - 2966 LaCarlita Place Rick Blek - 732 Longfellow - submitted petition with 56 residents signature requesting R-1 The hearing was closed. Action: Allow current R-1 zoning to remain at this =time, and should be considered in General Plan revision study since it is abutting commercial highway uses making it similar to be Multi -Use Corridor. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. AYES - Creighton, Sheldon, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Rosenberger NOES - None A staff report was presented by Planning Director Schubach. . Addressing the council on this item was: Mary Wallace - 2411 Prospect The hearing was closed. Action: .Allow current R-3 zoning to remain and amend General Plan to be consistent. Motion Simpson, second Rosenberger. So ordered. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 10. CERTIFICATION OF ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY WITH RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated November 9, 1988. A staff report was presented by Public Works Director Antich. - 7 - Minutes 11-22-88 Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5204, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE ENGINEERING AND TRAF- FIC SURVEY.", with the deletion of Monterey Blvd. from Herondo to Manhattan Avenue for further study. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. 11. REVIEW OF CITY GOALS. Memorandum from City Manager Ke- vin B. Northcraft dated November 17, 1988. This item was continued to the next meeting. 12. STATUS REPORT ON EXISTING AND PAST OPERATIONS IN THE CITY AND COMPARISONS OF TENNIS OPERATIONS IN SURROUNDING CITIES. Memorandum from Community Resources Directaor Alana Mastrian-Handman dated November 15,1988. A staff report was presented by Community Resources Di- rector Mastrian-Handman. Action: To raise the instructors fees to $4.50 per hour, to come back at appropriate public hearing. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered, noting the objection of Rosenberger. 13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER None .• 14. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a). Discussion of disposition of surplus City -owned Biltmore site. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated November 17, 1988. A staff report was presented by City Manager Northcraft, and City Attorney Lough. Addressing the Council on this• item were: Howard Longacre - 1221- 7th Place Parker Herriott Action: To rescind our request to the Coastal Commis- sion•for extension of permit as it applies to City property. Motion Sheldon, Williams. So ordered. Further Action: To adopt Resolution No. 88-5203 enti- tled "A RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO STUDY REPEALING THE BILTMORE SITE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA LOCATED BETWEEN 15TH STREET AND 13TH STREET, AND THE STRAND AND HERMOSA AVENUE; COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE "BILTMORE SITE". 8 Minutes 11-22-88 "WHEREAS, the City Council discussed the matter on Nov.9 .and Nov. 22, 1988; and WHEREAS, the City Council is desirous of repealing the Specific Plan approved in 1984 for the "Biltmore Site"; and WHEREAS, the repeal of the 1984 Specific Plan Area will allow the underlying zoning to remain in effect for the subject parcels. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the'City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby di- rect staff and Planning Commission to study repealing the 1984 Specific Plan Area for the Biltmore Site and affected properties and to recommend appropriate zoning including the study of C-2 zoning for the privately owned lands. Passed, approved, and adopted this 22nd day of November, 1988." Motion Creighton, second Simpson. So ordered. Proposed Further Action: To have a Town Hall Forum regarding Biltmore Site utilization. Motion Williams, second Rosenberger. Noting the objec- tions of Rosenberger, Sheldon, Simpson, and Creighton; motion fails. Final Action: To set up a Blue Ribbon Committee, each councilmember nominating 2 residents, Mayor to nominate 3 for a report as to what they perceive to be community consensus regarding utilization of the Biltmore Site. To have advertised, noticed 'meetings, not public hear- ings. City Manager to be liason. To try to have report _in 90 days, start appx. January 1, report appx. April 1, preliminary report Feb. 1, hopefully with a 2/3 majority. Motion Creighton, second Sheldon. So ordered, noting the objection of Williams due to the fact that she feels Council should take action now with normal zoning pro- cedures to resolve,Biltmore Site issue. 15. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL • Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) Request by Councilmember Sheldon for review of bootleg enforcement procedures. Action: Staff to prepare a special report regarding the number of cases, status, number of cases the District Attorney is looking into, etc. Motion Sheldon, second Creighton. So ordered. 16. CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS None - 9 - Minutes 11-22-88 ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of tke City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California adjourned on Wednesday, November 23, 1988 at the hour of 12:55 A.M. to a Regular Meeting to be held. on Tues- day, December 13, 1988 at the hour of 7:30 P.M. Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk 10 - Minutes 11-22-88 L 41) 4 kio • I#+/=•• . • • • • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACR• ' x FINANCE-5FA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0001 TIME 15:23:13 FOR 12/13/88 DATE 12/08/88 , PAY 'VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # 6 6 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP / • 10 3 9 H BEACH TRAVEL 00252 001-400-1206-4317 • 00034 $219.00 TR222 00222 28359 0 AIRFARE/M-STURtS IKddd II/2Y/tlti MATT-PROCESSING-7CDNFERENCE EXPENSE $0.02/07/68• 2 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $219.00 :: 12 I6 H CODE ENFORCEMENT. LTD. 02581 110-400-3302-4316 00141 $213.00 06968 28354 20 6 SEM–REG/H7–STATE __ ••-KING ENF /[RAINING $0.00 12/07/88 21 22 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************•n*********************************x•**•u******+t***** $213.00 :� U 25 . 26 ,, H SHERRY*GARCIA 01012 001-400-2101-4313 00178 $400.00 07443 2836071 2? 22 JAIL TRAINING COURSE 1 I /2Y/Eiti F'ULICE /[RAVEL EXPENSE. STC 40700—T270778a 29 • 23 30 29 *** VENDOR TOTAL************_******************************************************** $400.00 �, 25 33 . N 26 35 H GATES MC DONALD 02596 705-400-1217-4182 00075 $11,170.65 •' • 07038 28356 36 11/2Y/ua WORKERS–CDM)-' /WORKERS COMP CURRENT YR $0.00 12/07788----v 26 REIMB—QCT—WORK—COMP 29 36 0 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $11.170.65 w 1 .I 32 H 334 PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS.' 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00255 $74.309.79 28351. 4 RETIREMENT1OCT-88 11/z1/tta HETIREMBNi /RETIREMENT $0.00 12/07/88 'S 35 66 „ 36 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00256 4749015.76CR 28351 .e 37 RETIREMENT/OCT 88 11/21/88 Kt11H ' 4'. •o 12/07/88 " 50 36 •51 39 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 105-400-2601-4180 00084 $745.3628351 52 $0.00 12/07]8B ----N 90 RETIREMENT-lOCT—SB 11/21/88 STRLLI LI6HTING—/Rti1HtMENI 61 55 42H PUB �FMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 110-400-3301-4180 00084 4141:81 28331 56 vtH YKG DIS 63 RETI EMENT5OCT-88 11/2T78b 112/07/88 5/ . 5t 46 09 „ H P B EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 110-400-3302-4180 00084 $49583.69 28351 60 66• R TI-REMENTl0CT-88 11/d1/tib YARKIN6 ENF /RETIREMENT $0.00 12/07/88 61 62 61 ss H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 145-400-3401-4180 00057 4158.25 28351 6. 1 8 DIAL A RIDE /RETIREMENT $0.00 12/07/8850 65 49 RETIREMENT/OGT 88 66 67 51 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 145-400-3402-4180 00057 453.20 28351 66 52RETIREMENT/OCT-88 11/d1/tib ESEA /RETTREMENr $0.00 12/07/88 69 70 53 . /1 64 72 55 73 16 56 /5 51 Amt 16 Ude 'I (4 440 31 72 73 74 15 26 27 2.1 79 30 31 n 33 34 35 35 31 38 19 .0 .1 .1 43 Q .7 48 .9 30 S1 32 33 5. 55 56 51 • . • • • CITv ur HERMOSA DEA - 1 FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0002 ' TIME 15:23:13FOR 12/13/88 ' DATE 12/08/88 , • PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER . TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # 6 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP , 10 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 - 145-400-3403-4180 00008 *15.94 28351 i, $0T0o-12/07/68 13 --RETIREMENT/OCT-88 IT7z1/11d BUS f.'ASS-SUBSDY-7REIiNEMENT 14 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 155-400-2102-4180 00057 *190.71 28351 �6 R£TIREMENT7OC o: -- ROSSING-GUAR• , ..00 12/07/88 16 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. '. 00026 160-400-3102-4180 00084 $856.15 28351 r0 RETIREMENT1OCT-88 11/21/88 SEWER7ST-DRAIN /Ht1114EMENT $870--X2/07/88 22 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 705-400-1209-4180 00008 $93.52 28351 ,. RETIREMENT/OCT-88 11/21/88 LIABILITY-INS—/RETIREMENT $6760 12/07/88 l' ]6 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYS. 00026 705-400-1217-4180 00008 $145.00 28351 28 RETIREMENT/OCT 88 11/21/MI WORKERS -COMP --/RETIREMENT *0.00 12707/88 29 30 *** VENDOR TOTAL*******•*********************************************•**************** $7.277.66 33 31 H SHERATON PLEASONTON INN 02597 001-400-1206-4317 00033 *124.00 TR222 00222 28358 36 HOTEL-ADVWM—STURGE I7dY/dU UATA-PROCESSING-TCDNFERENCE-EXPENSE $0700 12/07-88 31 U *** VENDOR TOTAL********************************•************************************ $124.00 40 H SO BAY REG PUB COMM AUTHORITY 00112 001-400-2101-4251 00237 $23.440.00 .- 1857 00040 28361 .. CONT-EXT/DEC-8U 165/ 11/I//8a POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT *0.00 12/07/88 10 H SO BAY REG PUB COMM AUTHORITY • 00112 001-400-2201-4251 00042 $5.860.00 1857 00040 28361 .9 LONT-EXT1DEC 88 18b7. 11/1//uti TIRE /t.ONIRACT SERVICE/GOVT *0.00 12707/88— " 50 • !1 • *** VENDOR TOTAL***************************************************************�!**** $29,300.0014 33 H SO CAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVTS 00343 001-400-4101-4316 00133, $25.00_ 06064 28352 36 $0700---121.07788 REG/M.—SCHUBAC 1/21/88 PLANNING /1RAINING 31 56 59 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $25.00 60 fil • 61 63 H 'SOUTHLAND PAPER COMPANY 02598 110-400-3302-4305 00483 5170.13 06999 28363 61 12/06/88 t'ARKTN ■ ■ - ..... •7788 65 METER-BAGSICOMM AREA 66 '*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 5170.13 •66 69 10 H STUART CONSTRUCTION CO. 02276 001-400-8606-4201 00046 . $3.690.60 -87=606 -SERVICE -PRIVATE 07274 28353 l PROG PriT 6/PD-RtnuuEL , 1I/1/ee CIF /CONTRACT $0700----f2/07/88 . i5 L. 4 A I V 4 L Y Lb 111 S • S 0 e W W nr LI Is LI W V W LI LI fir Ilv 1110 I. , n '/i • CITY OF HERMOSA—BEACH } FINANCE—SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 000312 TIME 13:23:13 . • FOR 12/13/88 DATE 12/08/88 , • PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER. TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO 4$ .CHK # 6 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP e 5 10 H STUART CONSTRUCTION CO. 02276 001-400-8606-4201 00047 $9,799.61 07275 28353 17 —12/07/88 . —PROD—PMT-77PD—REMODEL 1172178s GIP 87-606 /LONTRACT—SERVICE PRIVATE $0700-12/07/88 15 0 H 15 } *** VENDOR TOTAL*************#**************************u**u************************ $13,490.21 .. ,e U 14 H MARGUERITE*STURGES 00620 001-400-1206-4317 00032 $120.00 TR222 00222 28357 00 PER DIEM ADVANCE TR222 11/29788 DATA-PROCESSING /LUNFERENCE EXPENSE $0700-12/07/88 12/07/88 }' 11 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $120.00 r4 I1 75 16 1a }1 } *** PAY CODE TOTAL****************************************************************** $62,509.65 16 11 15 23 So 2. R FRIENDS OF *1736 HOUSE 00645 001-300-0000-3405 00672 $100.00 67473 06584 28367 32 $0.00 12/08788 33 DAMAGE DEPOSIT—RE1-vNu b/4/3 1d/U/CUT1TM CIR RENTALS 15 1. :, *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $100.00 ,. 36 le / v Se 15 59 70 R A-1 COAST RENTALS 00029 001-400-8614-4201 00005 $42.60 00111 28368 .. }, MISC CHGS1NOV-88 i1f307titi CIF 115-614VICE/PRIVAT $0.00 12/07/8832 33*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $42.,60 - r. 44 .5 • .6 35 R ADVANCE ELEVATOR 00003 001-400-4204-4201 00288 $80.00 • 20864 00003 28369 .e 37ELEV—MAINTYDEC-8- •=- • := otDG MATNI !C UNTRAC( SERVILE/PRIVAT $0.00 12/0778/9 8 50 L 51 55 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $80.00 • 51 40 53 • 54 55 1 55 ,2 R AIRPORT IRON WORKS 02589 001-300-0000-3115 01855 $100.•00 594300 01755 28370 56 $0.00 12708/8811 „ BUS—tICENSE—REFUND 94.100 11/23788 TBUSTNESS—LTCt1ISt 5e 4' • 49 15 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $100.00 • 47 .6• 61 47 67 41R COMMANDER ANTHONY*ALTFELD 00774 001-400-2101-4316 00299 $66.38 07437 28371 61 $0T00 T2j08788 ,, 49REIMB—SCHOOL—FEES 1123/88 PULILt /TRAINING e6 50 $7 5. *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $66:38 6a 52 69 70 53 . 71 R . AMERICAN STYLE FOODS 00857 001-400-2101-4306 00583 $92.00 00113 28372 1 55 MISC—CHGS/NOV-88 1-1730/88 F'OCTCE IPR ISONER—MAINTENANCE $13700-1-2/07788— 3 54 •15 57 . ••76 W W nr LI Is LI W V W LI LI fir Ilv 1110 4 • • V, FINANCE-SFA340SII¥ UF-HERMObA BEACH PAGE 0004 DEMAND LIST ' TIME 15:23:13 FOR 12/13/88, DATE 12/09/88 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # • ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC' PROJ # ' ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC 'DATE EXP I , 10 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $92.00 I1 10 R ARATEX/RED STAR INDUSTRIAL 00152 001-400-2201-4309 00589 $24.75 00017 28373 6 „ MISC-CHCS/NO :: • • :: •E /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 12/07/88 14 e 15ARATEX/RED R STAR INDUSTRIAL 00152 001-400-3104-4309 00110 $8.75 00017 28373 n ,0 71 MISC-CHCS/NOV-88 • 11/3u/aa TRAFFIC -SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MA1ERIALS $0700-12/07/88 11 R ARATEX/RED STAR INDUSTRIAL 00152 001-400-4204-4309 01148 $80.38 00017 28373 77 19 '1 1 MISC-CHCS/NOV 88 1 l /3 G 0!88 IiLDM N$14700 12707788 1 0 16 R ARATEX/RED STAR INDUSTRIAL • 00152 001-400-4205-4309 00323 $21.00 00017 28373 ,, 21MISC-CHCS/NOV 88 11/JUlaa tGUIP-SERVILL /MAINTENANCE -MATERIALS $0700---T2/07/88 19 13 50 1, R ARATEX/RED STAR INDUSTRIAL 00152 110-400-3302-4309 00495 $910 00017 28373 . ' 32 25MISC GHGS1 11.10/88 PARKIN('tNF /MAiNTtNANCE MATERIALS $0.007-12707/88 33 1 346 1; *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $143.98 ,6 1 e 0, 2) 38 10 R ASAP FIRE PROTECTION 00250 001-400-4204-4321 00402 $400.00 1731 07234 28374 59 40 FIRE-EXTINGUISHER StRV. 1731 11/14!88 UEDG-MAINZ !BUILDING SAFEIYIS.CURIT $475.00 12/08788—M, ,1 19 *** VENDOR TOTAL***********************f******************************************** $400.00 .. 34 ,5 75 . ,6 ,9 „ R ASPA 00953 001-400-1201-4315 00045 $75.00 00134449 0743 283750 47 ,e DUES/KEW N B. NORTHCRAFT 34449 . 1d/06/aa CiiY-MANAGER /MtMB-ERSHIP W0700 12/08/88-----" 0 e 50 05 *** VENDOR TOTAL**************************************4***************************** $75.00 - 62 40 55 ,I • s, 42R ASSOC. FOR RETARDED CITIZENS 01268 001-210-0000-2110 02559 $500.•00 67462 07130 28376 -DEPOSIT -REFUND 5555 „ 44 DAMAGE 67462 12/01/88 • /UEPDSITS7AORK. GUARANTEE $0.00 12/138/88 5' fe 45 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** ' $500.00 69 45• 4/ 61 61 ,e R AUDIO GRAPHICS • 02599 001-400-4601-5402 00004 $1,429.12 315993 06570 28377 -ADDRESS SYS 63 49 PUB 15993 1I/;i0/88 CUMM-RESOURCES/EGUIF=MORE IRAN $500 $0.00 1270878965 f 0 66 SI *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,429.12 67 u 55 69 5 1 70 54 R •AUTOMOTIVE PAINT CENTER 01891 001-400-3104-4309 00112 $242.42 00114 28378 771 2 MISC-CHGS7NOV-88 11/JU/BEI INAFFIC SAFE55 ANCE MATERIALS $0.00 12/07/88 SG 57 • • • . - ,6 V L 6. 4 4 4 4 V ,• 66. et 0 o „! ,. 70 27MISC—CHGS7NOV ,,, 2 29 0u 3 1143 3 79 e6 1/ 30 39 60 67 43 44 46 46 6r 6e 99 M 52/ 53 54• 6s 56 • • k • •• • y1 i FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 15:23:13 CITY OF HERMOSA—UEACft DEMAND LIST FOR 12/13/88 PAGE 0005 DATE 12/08/88 , PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PO # AMOUNT UNENC CHK # DATE EXP • *** VENDOR TOTAL******•**********•***********•*************************•n*************** $242. 42 9 . R AV—OX/PROFIRE• 00603 001-400-2201-4309 00591 $107.9.1 00116 $0.00 28379 12/07/88 6 .e " ie :0 . -MISC-CHGS7NOV 1 11/3U/tit3 FIRE /MAINTEN *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************t******************* ***********+6****************** $107.91 R AVIATION LOCK & KEY • 00407 001-400-2101-4305 00853 $46.09 00115 $D.00---12/07/88 00115 28380 21 12 13 24 MISC LHGS7NOV-88 R AVIATION LOCK & KEY s 1T/:tU/Eisi POLICE /Ui F ICL OPER—SUPPLIES • 00407 001-400-4204-4309 01146 $21.78 28380 " 16 fl to 88 • R AVIATION LOCK & KEY. • 117307B8 Ii LDC MAINZ /MA-INTENANCE—MAILRIALS 00407 001-400-4601-4305 00580 $21.30 • :- DMM—RESDURCLS /UFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 00407 110-400-3302-4305 00484 $4.25 $0.00 00115 $0.00 00115 12/07/88 28380 29 30 32 MISC CHGS7••• :- R AVIATION LOCK & KEY 12/07/88 28380 35 06 37 v 39 MISC—CHGSJNOV-88 11/3U/tlti PARKING—ENF /DFFILE UPER—SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $93.42 $07 00 12/07/88 . . R BANC ONE LEASING 99 02154 001-400-4205-6900 00020 $417.96 00054 $07D0-7--12/08/88 28381 U .1 6e LEASE—PMT1DEC 89 12/01 — 768 EQUIP SERVICE7LEASE PAYMENTS—" *** VENDOR TOTAL**************************************************•it***************** $417.96 66 .s R BANK OF AMERICA 00180 001-400-1201-4305 00109 $40.44 06655 28382 6Y )0 57 MON EXPIK7—VORTHCRAFT R BANK OF AMERICA T2/U6/E38 CITY—MANAGER----/OFFICE—OPER SUPPE-1Es 00180 001-400-1201-4317 00157 $313.•39 $0700 06655 $T-00 12/08/88 28382 12/08/85 54 56 '/ 66 59 w MON £XP/YC—NORTHCRAFT 72706/88 CITY—MANAGER /t,ONFERENCE EXPENSE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** • $353.83 R BAY COPY CENTER & OFFICE SUPP. 02536 001-400-1121-4305 00088 $10.99 U973UIbs Lit), CLbJK /UFFICL.UPER—SUPPLIES 02536 - 001-400-1201-4305 00107 $12.78 00949 $0.00 00949 28383 12/07/88 28383 61 9. 63 66 65 66 6h MISC—CHCS/AUG—SEP 88 R •BAY COPY CENTER & OFFICE SUPP. MISC—CHCS?AUG=SEP 88 . 09730788 CITY—MANAGEROFFICE—DPEN SUPPLIES $0700 12/07/88 69 /0 it 1] n 16 /6 h W W V 4- +L 40 4- 4- 4- 4- 2 • • .. • • . . ''-/ e • GiTY OF H t..1 MOSA IiEA(.H t FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0006 TIME 15:23:13 FOR 12/13/88. DATE 12/08/88 6 • PAY VENDOR NAME VND # • ACCOUNT NUMBER ' TRN #AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC' PROJ # ' ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC 'DATE EXP 7 9 6• 16 R BAY COPY CENTER & OFFICE SUPP. 02536 001-400-1203-4305 00175 $12.78 00949 28383 MISC-CHCS/AUG-SEP-BB- 09730758 PERSONNEL /OFFICE -OVEN SUPPLIES $0700-12/07/88 R BAY COPY CENTER & OFFICE'SUPP. 02536 001-400-2201-4305 00246 $1.28 00949 28383 — .6 11 MISC-CHGS7AUC S ' 13t3 0`7/ !U/tl8 FINE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.60---12/07/88 12/07/88 16 7sR BAY COPY CENTER & OFFICE SUPP. 02536 001-400-4101-4305 00249 $9.50 00949 28383 :o 6 71 MISC-CHGSYAUC-8EP-85 0973U/sill PLANNING /Uhh1(E uPE K SUNNLItS $0700 12/07/98 I I/ 77 R BAY COPY CENTER & OFFICE SUPP. 02536 001-400-4201-4305 00368 $11.50 �7 00949 28383 24 MISC-CHGS7AUG--SEP 88 usf/!0788 SUILDING /Uhh1Ct UYER-SUPPLIES-------------$0700---1-2/0778d » 7 P 76 71 R BAY COPY CENTER & OFFICE SUPP: 02536 110-400-3302-4305 00485 $36.68 00949 28383 17 277 9 29 MISC-CHGSyAVG-SEP 85 U9/301.88 PARKING ENF /Uihi(E UPER-SUPPLIES $0700---12/07/88 7535 R BAY COPY CENTER & OFFICE SUPP. 02536 110-400-3302-5401 00021 $106.50 J1 :I 3 1127 06971 28383 e7 33 A DATF!LEYBASE III 11 i II/Id/didPARKING PARKING -ENP /EUUIY-LESS IRAN $600 $106.50 12/08/88 :5 7. 1 *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************************************************.************** $202.CI1 �s l e 57 7 9 76 1060 R BEACH CITIES OFFICE SUPPLY 02509 001-400-1122-4305 00068 $24.06 01149 28384J9 „ MISC CHCS/NOV 88 11/30/88 ELELIiUNS /UhiIC.t UPEN SUPPLIES $0.00 12707788 61 u 67 CITIES OFFICE SUPPLY. ' 9] 33BEACH 02509 001-400-2101-4305 00855 $117.78_ 01149 28384 44 14 MISC-CHCS/NOV 88 117.1ul55 POLICE /UFFTCE-DPER-SUPPLIES $0700 12/07/88 .5 ]5 . 46 R BEACH CITIES OFFICE SUPPLY 61 J6 02509 001-400-4201-4305 00366 $5.20 01149 28384 69 5, s e MISC-CHGSJNOV-88 11/3Ui88 UtJ DING /UICE LWBH SUPPLIES *-07007--12/07788 F1 . 11 s6 79 R BEACH CITIES OFFICE SUPPLY 02509 Od1-400-4202-4305 00344 $35.78 01149 28384 ,: 69 53 MISC-CHCS/NOV-88 11730788 PUB WKS-ADMIN7OFFTCE-OPER-SUPPLIES $070012/07/88 a 56 17 R - BEACH CITIES OFFICE SUPPLY 02509 001-400-4204-4309 01151 $10.•65 01149 28384 51 56 „ MISC-CHCS/NOV-88 11/.i0/bd BLDG -MAT NCE -MATERIALS $0700-12/07/88 57 56 /5 R BEACH CITIES OFFICE SUPPLY 02509 001-400-4601-4305 00582 $78.20 01149 28384 66 46 MISC CHGS/NOV 68 I1/30Id8 COMM RESOURCES 7OFFICE-OPER-SUPPLIES $0700-12/07/88 51 6 7 61 R BEACH CITIES OFFICE 65 „ • SUPPLY 02509 705-400-1209-4305 00004 $11.65 01149 28384 66 49MISC-CHGS1NOV-88 1-1/.50/88 LIABILITY -IN 'S /Uhh ICEUPEH SUPPLIES $-0700-12707/886s So 65 51 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $283.32 66 7 69 !9 70 R BEACH TRAVEL 00252 110-400-3302-4317 Q0094 $219.00 TR223 00223 28385 -2d3 72 15 16 AIRFARE7M. STURG IN 11/2.i/513 PARKING-ENF /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $0.00 12/08/88 56 16 • 75 57 . 9 ,6 • L 8 4/ 4 4. 4 4 01 4 4 4 ci • • • • CITY -DF HERMOSA Ii EACH , FINANCE-SFA340 DFMAND LIST PAGE 0007 TIME 15:23:13 - FOR 12/13/88 DATE 12/08/88 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK 0 6 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 6 *** VENDOR TOTAL***********•********************************************************* $219.00 10 • R —SOUND-TECH7TI=T9=:18 JIM*BLICKENSDERFER ,• 01303 001-400-4601-4201 00249 $119.00 -RESOURCES 06582 28386 I I I/ JU/88 LOM lCD • • $0.00 12/08/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $119.00 16 11 • R BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA 01308 001-400-1212-4188 01241 $72.15 00055 28387 CITY HEAtTFt IN57JAN-8Y Id/I0788 EMP -BENEFITS (EMPLOYEE BENEFITS *0.00 12/00/88 R BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA 01308 105-400-2601-4188 00645 $0.51 00055 28387 „ LITY-HEALTH INS7JAN-89 12710788 STREET -LIGHTING /EMPLOYEE -BENEFITS $0.00-12/08/88 29 74R BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA • 01308 110-400-3301-4188 00630 $2.05 00055 28387 75CITY-HEAtTH-INSYJHN a9 12/1U/UU VEH 'KG -DISI /EMPLUYLE BENEFITS $0.00 12708769 ' 16 27R BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA 01308 110-400-3302-4188 00834 $2.05 •. 00055 28387 78 CITY HEALTH-IN57UAN B9 14710/88 PARKING ENP. /EMPLOYEE-HENEFIIS $0.00-12/08788 79 . 30 R BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA CITY-HEALTH-I-NS7JAN-89 01308 145-400-3401-4188 00584 $0.26 00055 28387 „ • 12/10/88 DIAL A RTDE /EMPLOYEE UENE-IIS $0.00 12/08788 33R BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA . 01308 145-400-3402-4188 00582 $0.51 00055 28387 , 34 15 CITY-HEALTH---INS7JAN-Y 12/20788 ESEA /EMPLOYEE—BENEFIT' • $0.00---12/08/88• ,6 R BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA 01308 145-400-3403-4188 00070 $1.01 00055 28387 . . CITY-HEALTH-INS7JAN-89 12/10F 8 BUS-PASS-SUDSDY 7EMPLQYEE-BENEFITS $07U0---12708/88 61 - 9 R BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA 01308 155-400-2102-4188 00280 $0.51 00055 28387 , 46 CITY--HEALTH-INS/JAN 89 12/10Adu CROSSING-GUARB%EMPLOYEE-BENEFITS $0.00-12/08/88 5 41 � „ R BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA CITY-HEAtTFYINS7JAN-89 01308 160-400-3102-4188 00587 $0.•65 00055 28387 6 „ 1d-710/bri bEWER/ST DRAIN 7EMPLOVEE-BENEFITS $0.00 12/08/88 44 46 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $79.70 • 46 6 47 • 41R ' BLUE SHIELD PREFERRED 01293 001-400-1212-4188 01240 $12.150.05 6 00056 28388 6 „ CITY-HEALTH-INS/JAN-89 127T0/88 EMP BENEFITS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 12/08/88 6 ,0 • 6 R BLUE SHIELD PREFERRED 01293 110-400-3302-4188 00833 $1,433.06 00056 28388 b8 f1 CITY-HEALTH-INSTJAN-89 • I2/1Q/88 PARKING ENP (EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00-12/08/88 6 53 , 54 . 55 96 . 87 - 4 7 s 9 10 11 1 9 6 11 II I9 10 9 0 3 6 V J1r' W L 4, 4, 2 0 4. 9 9 9 40 L 44 L 1 tl 1 t 1 1 t, 1 19 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 3' 39 40 6 42 63 44 45 66 6, 66 69 50 51 51 53 5, 35 56 57 •1/e 0 r 7 -WORK 6 6 0 CITY OF-HERM05A-DEACH FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0008 TIME 1523. 13 FOR 12/13/88. DATE 12/08/88 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # • ACCOUNT NUMBER' TRN #• AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC• PROJ # • ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC 'DATE EXP . R BLUE SHIELD PREFERRED 01293 145-400-3401-4188 00583 $109.25 00056 28388 —CITY HEALTH INSYJAN 89 12710788— DIAL R RID ENErIis $0.00 12/08/88 . R BLUE SHIELD PREFERRED • 01293 145-400-3402-4188 00581 $38.49 00056 28388 .6 CITY-HEALTH-TN870A° : • :: /EMPLOYEE BENErIIb $23.00 12/08/88 Ir 18 R BLUE SHIELD PREFERRED 01293 705-400-1209-4188 00046 $107.26 00056 28388 -HEALTH r1 CITY INS/JAN-89 • 12/10/88 LIABILITY INS /EMF'LUYEE BENEFITS $0.00 12708788 • 1t R BLUE SHIELD PREFERRED 01293 705-400-1217-4188 77 00047 $213.76 00056 28388 26 .5 CITY-HEALTH-INs1JAN 8r Iz KERS-COMP /EMYLUYEE-BENtfIIb $0700—T2708789 16 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $14,051.87 �� 19 30 R BRANDON PLUMBING COMPANY 02607 001-210-0000-2110 02561 $1,600.00 59027 00005 28389 -REFUND 31 37 3r GUAR 5907 12!01!88 IDEPOSIIS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 1-27087$a- 36 *** VENDOR TOTAL-******************************************************************** $1,600.00 35 3t 36 R BRAUN LINEN SERVICE 00163 001-400-2101-4306 00585 $209.65 00118 28390 -CHGS1NOV-88 .0 MIS117307HEt FULILE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE $0.00 12/07/88 'I 61 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $209.65 4. .5 46 R BROOKES ELECTRIC 00355 001-400-4204-4321 00401 $295.10 7759 07253 28391 EMERG-EtECYC!TY-HALL 6e 7,Y . 10/18!88 BLUU-MAINi /BUILDING SAFETY/SECURIT $295 TO 12708788 50 *** VENDOR TOTAL**************************************4***************************** $295.10 52 53 •• 56 R BROWNING & FERRIS INDUSTRIES 00155 001-400-1208-4201 00500 $574.25 00005 28392 -PICKUP f5 56 TRASH -DEC 88 1e/U1/88 6EN•-APPRDP--`7CONTRALr SEMVI(,E/1'H1VAT $0.00 1-2707788-----" ' 5' R BROWNING & FERRIS INDUSTRIES 00155 110-400-3301-4201 00188 $46$.98 00005 28392 TRASH-PICKUP/DEC-88 66 61 12701788 VER-PKG DIST-7CONTRA-CT-SERVICE7FRTVAT $0700 12/07/88 • • 6: *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,040.23 R 67 65 R •BROWNING FERRIS INDUSTRIES 00158 001-400-3103-4201 00196 $2,561.83 81100-0037002 00004 28393 DUMP-CHARGES/NOV-88--370U2 b. 6° 11730788 ST -MAINTENANCE ICONTRACTSERVICE7PRIVAT $0700--12/08/88 . . ,3 ,6 - 75 r6 J A V L L L L 4 4 top 4 6 • PAGE 0009 DATE 12/08/88 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME PAY 15:23:13 l 1 TY-OF-HERMOSA-BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 12/13/88 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER. TRN #AMOUNT INV/REF DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL*****•********•a*********************************************** *****•u• $2,561.83 • „ R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-1202-4305 00187 $11.65 07137 28395 REIMB-PETTY-CASH/NOV-88 . I270578b FINANCE -ADMIN /OFFICE -OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 12/08/88 „ R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER' 02016 001-400-1206-4309 00104 $16.41 07137 28395 16 REIMB PETTY-CASH/NOV-88 • 12705788 DATAPROCESSING-7MAINTENANCE-MATERTAES $0. 00 —1-2/08/88 - 14 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER. 02016 001-400-1207-4316 00025 $15.00 07137 28395 , ,.KEIMB-PETS 88 127U5/ab UUS-LICENSE /TRAINING 0.00 12/08T88 2 30 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER -----REIMB-PETTY 02016 001-400-2101-4305 00857 $1.25 07137 28395 , CASH/NOV-88 PETTY CASH/NO68 12705/8 POLICE /OFFICE -OPER SUPPLIES $C70-0-12/08/88 03 J 24 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-2101-4310 00155 $10.00 07137 28395 , 3 REIMB-PETTY-CASFtTNOV-BB 12705788 POLICE /MUIUR FUELS AND LUBES $07-00 12/08/88 ,6 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-2101-4316 00298 $92.22 . 07137 28395 , „ REIMB-PETTY CASH/NOV-88 12/0576b POLICE /1RAINTN6 $0700 12/08783 29 3 3u R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-3103-4309 00763 $32.04 07137 28395 31 KEIMB PETTY-CASH/NOV-88- • . Id/05788 —S1-MAINTENAN • •. . . ..0.00 12/08788 1, •• „ R ----REIMB-PETTY-CASH/NOV-88 GARY*BRUTSCH. CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-3103-4311 00417 $4.03 07137 28395 34 I2/05786 ST -MAINTENANCE 7AUTO-MAINTENANCE O.-00-7-12./08/88 35 . u 76 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-3104-4309 00113 $22.37 07137 28395 11 3/ REIMB-PETTY-CASH1NDV-88 12705789 1KAFFIC-SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATEKIALS $0700-12/08188 6 3, 19 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-4201-4305 00369 $0.20•07137 28395 91 ,o REIMB-PETTY-CASH'/NOV-88 12705788 DUILDIN6 /OFFICE-OPER-SUPPLIhb $0.00-12/08/88 '' n. 91 „ R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-4204-4309 01154 $65.'53 07137 28395 9< 43 REIMB PETTY-CASH-/NOV-88 12iUbiRrs tiLDG-MAI ANCE-MAIENIALS $0700-12/08/88 5. 61Q 45R GARY*BRUTSCH. CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-4204-4321 00400 $2$.00 07137 28395 61 46 REIMB PETTY CASH/NOV-88 id/05788BLDG MAINT IBDICDiNG SAFETY75ECURIT $0.00 12%08/88 6' 13 41 . GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 001-400-4601-4305 00583 $8.02 07137 28395 61 19 $0.00 12/06/88 f1 REIMB-PETTY-CASH7NOV-88 1d/0b/ab LOMM-RESOURCESIDFFICE•OPER SUPPLIES 50 61 .,R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 110-400-3302-4305 00487 $11.72 07137 28395 61 REIMB-PETTY-CASH/NOV-8 . 127057881 PARKING ENP !OFFICE OPER-SUPPLIES $0T00 12/08/88 '' 53 • 91 •' i 53 96 . 93 . . 71 • 9v 9 0 y 3 3 9 y/ 3 6 9 0 3 40 •d r .r W w Gv tow V V v J J l 6• • • LiTY—OF—HERMOSA—BEACH FINANCE—SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0010 TIME 15:23:13 FOR 12/13/88 DATE 12/08/88• 4 3 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # • ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC. PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION. AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 6 , • R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 110-400-3302-4316 00142 $4.00 07137 28395 REIMB-PETTY-CASH/NOV-88 12705786 PARKING—ENF /TRAINING $0.00 12/08/88 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER 02016 705-400-1209-4305 00005 $10.63 3 07137$0.0 28395 —REIN/ PETTY—CASK/NOV-88 121Ub/.1i�I 13 LIABILITY INS /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 12/08/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL **********************•a•*•**************•p•******ar•u•******************** $330. 07 '7 16 . • R BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. 00630 001-400-4201-4201 00121 $1,453.14 59280 70 71 04997 28396 PIAN—CHECK FEES oV280 10/d8/88 24 20 IIUILIJING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $1,453.14 12/08/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,453.14 73 n 77 73 76 R BUSINESS SYSTEMS SUPPLY 00034 001-400-2101-4305 00858 $350.39 7e 7, 30 31 76 145035 07414 28397 COMP—TAPES/?APERIPOLILt 450j5 11/03!88 F'ULICE /UI -F -ICE WEN SUPPLIES $350.38 12708/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $350.39 31 33 34 33 7e 79 30 R C. P. P. A. 00818 110-400-3302-4315 00025 $120.00 06987 28398 `- 36 36 0 J1 u 33 - = NG END- /MEMBERSHIP $0.00 12/08788-----. *** VENDOR TOTAL************************#******************************************* $120..00 63 61 36 33 3607042 R CAL SURANCE ASSOCIATES, INC. 00038 705-400-1210-4201 00018 $160.00 •3 46 67 37 BONDS/MIDSTOKKE7DUKE• 12/05/86 28399 6e 3e 39 AUTU7PROP7BONDS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.O0—X2/08/88--" *** VENDOR TOTAL***************************************#**************************** $160.00 30 f7 60• u 42R CALIF CONF OF ARSON INVEST. 02588 001-400-2201-4317 00025, $85.00 TR226 33 15 43 61 00226 28400 REGISTRATION/BT—SCOT T TR226 12/01/88 F -IRE /LUNFERENCE EXPENSE $0700---12/08/8B7----" *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** • $65.00 56 56 39 60 ,y 6•61 6e R CALIF GANG INVESTIGATORS ASSOC 02572 001-400-2101-4316 00301 $30.00 42 63 49 30 07413 28401 TUIT-IR--SAtDANA 11/u1/88 POLICE /1RAINING $0.00 12/08T88-0 *** VENDOR TOTAL.******************************************************************** $30.00• 69 66 u., 6e ,7 33 39 R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-3101-4303 Q0018 $1,654.22 69 0 56 WATER—BILLS/NOV-88 00119$0.0 28402 11/40/tis ,7 sb 3,• MEDIANS /UTILITIES $0.00 12/08/88 • ,3 03 fl 6 J J l A L L L L L 4 4 1r 4 1r 16► 11, 4 21 7. n „ 9 14R 10 �7]I 2; A' 2 27 :i n 32 33 ,; 1] 3 ,1 ,y 11 .z , 44 45 „ 47 46 4 • . • 6 CITY-OF-HERMOSA EEKCH FINANCE-SFA34O DEMAND LIST PAGE 0011 •2 TIME 15:23:13 FOR 12/13/88 DATE 12/08/88 , , " , • PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # • ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC ' DATE EXP R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-4204-4303 00270 $706.92 00119 28402 y 10 11 13 16 11 II j0 n 22 2, 1b �B 19 30 32 ], N ]s ,6 37 ,6 29 w 22 ,, . 16 ,7 u 99 ]0 52 59 N 557 6 6 f2 6 1 66 61 67 6614 , 61 61 67 1 61 6, 0 71 2 73 7, „ 4 n WATER-BILLS/NQV-88 11730788 BLDG MAINT/UTILITIES $0.00 12/08/88 . R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 00016 001-400-6101-4303 00227 $866.32 00119 28402 WATER-BTttS7NQV-B8 0 11/JU/88 PARKS /UTILITIES -. $0.00 12/08/98 *** VENDOR TOTAL ***************** *** r*a**************•n**#******•n**�•********ata***** r $3.227.46 . • CANADA LIFE 00046 001-400-1212-4188 01243 $646.40 00008 28403 -TY -HEALTH LI INSCJAN 89 12/10788 EMP -BENEFITS /EMPLOYEE -BENEFITS - $0.0012/08/88-- • *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $646.40 • R CANADA LIFE 00239 001-400-1212-4188 01237 $3,176.76 00024 28404 CITY-HEALTH-INS/JAN 8Y I2/1U/aa ' EMP -BENEFITS /EMPLOVEE BENEFITS $0.00 12/08/88 R CANADA LIFE 00239 105-400-2601-4188 00642 $76,74 00024 28404 CITY-HEALTH-TNSIJAN-89 12710788 bTREET-FIGHTING-7EMPCDYEE-DENt4-IiS $070D---1-2/08/SS R CANADA LIFE 00239 110-400-3301-4188 00627 $17.37 00024 28404 CIT1rHEALTH'INS/JAN 89 12/ 10/ea vLH } -DTS4 /.MPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 12/08/88 R CANADA LIFE Y 00239 110-400-3302-4188 00830 $593.07 00024 28404 CITY-HEALTH-INS/JAN 89 f27T078a PARKING -ENE /EMPLOYEE-BENEFTTs $0700-12708/88 R CANADA LIFE 00239 145-400-3401-4188 00580 $19.11 00024 28404 CITY -HEAL -M -11457 -JAN -89 12/10788 8TAC-A-RTDE /EMPLOYEE BENt-ITS $07040-12/08/88 R CANADA LIFE y 00239 145-400-3402-4188 00578 $6.52 • 00024 28404 CITY-HEALTH-INS/JAN-89 r2710/88 LSEA /EMPE YEE-BENt-Iis $0T0-12/08/88 R CANADA LIFE 00239 145-400-3403-4188 00068 $1:95 00024 28404 CITY-HEALTH-INS/JAN 89 12/10788 >JUS-PASS-SUBSDY"7EMPL-OYEE-BENEFITS $0.00 12/08/88 R CANADA LIFE:+ 00239 155-400-2102-4188 00277 $13.45 00024 28404 CITY-HEALTH-INS/JAN-89 12/TO/B8 LROSSING GUARD /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS • $0.00 12/08/88 ' R CANADA LIFE 00239 160-400-3102-4188 00586 $94.78 00024 28404 CITY-HEALTH-MNS/JAN 49 50 ]] 89 1d/10/aa SEWER/STDRAIN /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 12/08/88 R CANADA LIFE 00239 705-400-1209-4188 00045 $17.77 00024 28404 CITY`HEALTH-INS7JAN-89 ,2 63 54• 12/10788 LIABILITY -INS /EMPLOYEE -BENEFITS $0.06-12/08/88 • f9 1 7 . . v ur lv 4• 4r tot k,2. • y , LITY UF HEHMOSAZ3EAGH FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0012 TIME 15:23:13 FOR 12/13/88. DATE 12/08/88 2 6 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # • ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC• PROJ # • ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP e 6 RCANADA LIFE __ 00239 705-400-1217-4188 00046 $6.31 00024 28404 --CITY Y Ip 12o 11 HEALTH INS7JAN 89 1d/i0/1d4TJORKERS COMP 7EMPLOVEE-BENtIIiy $0T —32/08/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL************•******************************************************** $4,023.83 10 7 4 15 R J. I.#CASE CREDIT CORP. 01147 160-400-3102-6900 00073 $748.32 00021 28405 1 9 leLEASE--PMT/JAN-89 IT 11 • Id7T0i8a SEWER7ST DRAIN /LEASE -PAYMENTS $D700 12/08/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $748.32 ,60 i7 i7 :4 t9 .t i, R CELLULAR DYNAMICS COMPANY 02449 001-400-2101-4304 00302 $72.69 01010 28406 75 1E : 22—CELLULAR-PHONE-COSTS7IICI 23 16 10/31/88 POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00---T2/07/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $72..69 i' 70 5. 7i25 ifi i/ . R CENTRAL BANK LEASING 01226 001-400-2101-6900 00370 $1,978.59 ' ' .00024 28407 34 5 16 19 30 LEASE-PMT1JAN-89 11271-078H POLICE /LEASE -PAYMENTS $0.00 12/08788-----3, *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,978.59 76 11 4o 31 32 3 R CENVAL LEASING 58 • 00875 001-400-2101-6900 00369 $594.51 00020 28408 :1 67 .6 34 75 36 —tEASE-PMTtJAN 88 U27UIia8 IOLIDE /LEASE -PAYMENTS - $0.00 [2/07/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $594..51 0 16 .a 37 11 R CERTIFIED LAB I 00613 0Q1-400-3104-4309 00114 $57.61 VO -13634 07235 28409 11 f0 ,2 60 11 1i SPRAY -LUBE 1x634 11 /i5/a8 THAFF IL SM1-E I Y /MATNTENTANCE MA I EH IALS $0.00 12/08788" R CERTIFIED LAB 00613 001-400-4204-4309 01155 $57.61 V0-13634 07235 28409 56 55 56 61 N 45R SPRAY-tUBE 13634 11/15/88 ULUG-MA • • , 1.1 • - • $0.00 12/08/8e------ CERTIFIED LAB 00613 001-400-4204-4309 01156 $215.38 VO -13633 07245 28409 56 69 66 47 0 EPDXY-PAINT 136 EDG-SAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $070D-12/08/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL********i********************************#************************** $330.60 R, 62 b4 49 50 51R CERTIFIED OFFICE EQUIPMENT 00389 110-400-3302-4305 00486 $42.55 01111 28410 65 66 67 61 ,i 53 s, —MISC-CHGS/NOV 88 ii/Ju/du PARKTNGENF /OFFICE-UPLN SUPPLIES $0700 12/07/88 69 16 n 11 55 56 $7 . .. I7 16 J 6• „ 11 23 N 21 7fi 7r 18 79 ,. 3, 31 ,1 „ ,6 ,7 d • •• • • • • CITY-DF-HERMO5A 13E4CH FINANCE-SFA340 • TIME 15:23:13 DEMAND LIST FOR 12/13/88 PAGE 0013 DATE 12/08/_88 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN #• AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # • ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP . *** VENDOR TOTAL*************************•************************************�t***** $42.55 '1C: • R,. CHAMPION CHEVROLET 00014 001-400-2101-4311 00580 $196.59 fQui 01112 28411 11/40756 _—MISC-CHGS7NOti-88 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL********************#*********************************************** $196.59 $0.00 12/07/88 4(. R FERNANDO M.*CHAVEZ 02594 110-300-0000-3302 24727 $41.00 488899 07313 28412 CITE -PMT -REFUND Y 1d/u1/HU !COURT-FINESlP71RKING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $41.00 $D -O0 12/087€38 �. R THOMAS*CIRILLO 02590 110-300-0000-3302 24730 $18.00 t.ITE-PMT-REFUND 37512 •..1 'Olr 737512 06986 28413 , 3 11/29/t313 /CUURT-FINES7PARKING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $18:00 $0.06-12708/88 ' R. MICHAEL H.*CLEMENTS 02608 001-210-0000-2110 02560 $50.00 •. � .'r 67897 07129 28414 3' ,I ANIMAL—TRAP REFUN 270T7B8 1DEPOSITS7AORK-BUARANTEE •*** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $50.00 $0.00---i27b6788 R COLICH & SONS 02294 115-202-0000-2020 00074 $27,192.62 "' r 7991 06785 28415 AI "' „ 'y w 52 FINA/BEACHTI/3U7dB -PAYABLE _ /ACCOUNTS R COLICH & SONS 02294 115-400-8302-4201 00043 $2,228.18 $0T00 T2/OB/88 7991 06785 28415 —FINAL PMT -/BEACH -DRIVE ---;7991 I1/307B11 CIP 87-302 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $29,420.80 $0.00-12/06/88 t „ ,fi • R COMPASS ENGINEERING CO., INC. •02120 001-400-4101-4305 00251 $1,626.60 3934 06065 28416 „ ,9 PUBLIC-NOTICING/PLANNING-3934 1T/177813 PLANNING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES. *** VENDOR TOTAL************************,******************************************** $1,626.60 SO.00 ► 2/OQ/88 " f 6, ,0 51 R DFCR NANCY*COOK 02173 001-400-2101-4312 00786 $86.00 07430 28417 f6 .., „ MEAL"STOFCR-SFTY-COURSE 10/14/d8 POLICE IiKAVEL EXPENSE -T -POST • • $0.00-12/08/88 70 17 „ ,6 57 . n 7, 6 0 44 va vw 4 4 h„ 4 Vr 4 4 4 15 6 II „ IS 15 11 11 1] 7a 29 30 ,I 1 33*** 34 ]s 31 3 a 39R w 67 43 44 • • • ~• C I TY-OF-HERMOSA BEAl.H FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0014 TIME 15:23:13 FOR 12/13/88. DATE 12/08/88 6 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # • ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC' PROJ # . ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC 'DATE EXP * VENDOR TOTAL ** * * ****a n a # * * tin # *# tr stra n $86. 00 - 9 R CSULB FOUNDATION 00349 001-400-4202-4316 00118 $290.00 8832/10205 06754 28418 FEESTWHEATONTGENGLER 10405 I7 16 n la 70 71 17 7. 7R 7, 76 7a 0 'I 34 35 16 37 36 .o 1 13 44 IS 16 .1 50 32 53 54 56 51 56 63 61 62 63. 64 65 66 6, 61 69 70 71 77 13 1• Id/UI/db _ F'UB-WKS ADMIN /TRAINING $450750 12/08/88 • *** VENDOR TOTAL**************************'***********************************'n***** $290.00 • • R THE*DAILY BREEZE 00642 001-400-4101-4305 00250 $128.92 890810 06066 2841973 •UBtrC-NOTTCE7Y - - O/8a F'LANNIN PEH SUPPLIES $0.00-12708/88 ** VENDOR TOTAL *************'p'**'''************************************************ $128.92 R DAPPER TIRE CO. 01390 110-400-3302-4311 00424 $733.32 01117 28420 MISCCCHGSTNOV-88 • I1/.i0/BB ' MARKING O� ANCE $0 0 12707788J3 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $733:32 R DATA SAFE 00156 001-400-1206-4201 00472 $81.00 39530 00047 28421 TAPE-STOR/IO-12 TO 11-11 J'i JU 1d/1a'/dB UAIA I'ROCESSIN6 /CUNIHACi SEHVI(.t/PRIVAT $0.00 12700788-11 VENDOR TOTAL************************'u'******************************************* $81.00 . R DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 00267 001-400-3104-4251 00005 $781.93 106929 07286 28422 HIGHWAY-MAINTI I1/09/uu WM-FIC SAF•EIY ICUNrHACI SEHVICL/GDVT $0.00 12/08788.---0 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 00267 105-400-2601-4251 00068 $781.93 • 106929 07286 28422 HIGHWAY-MA-INT/SEPT 88 069.Y 11/U9/uu STREti L1GHTINb'-7-CONTRACTSERVICE7GUVI $0700'12/08/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1.563.86 • R DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION '00269 001-400-2101-4201 00324 $396.00 372534789 00006 28423 COMP-MAINTIPD712=1T02/28-34789 a 47 .a 11/i8/u8 IOETLE /t.UNTRACT SEHVICE7PRIVAT $0.00-12/08/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL************'K'****************************4************************** $396.00 19 50 SI R •MIKE*DRUSKOVICH 02601 001-210-0000-2110 02564 $500.00 67502 07131 28424 DAMAGE -DEPOSXT`REFUND—67504 57 5 , N 12701,:8 /DEPOSITS/WORK ARANTEE $0:00--12/08/88 GU • 55 56 4 4 V 4 4 `e• V 6 6 4 v • • • • c ITY-UF-HERMOSA-33EhCH FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0015 TIME 15:23:13 FOR 12/13/88 DATE 12/08/88 PAY VENDOR NAME VND 4$ ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN ## AMOUNT INV/REF PO ## CHK ## DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ 4$ ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL**************************************a••n***************n•**********a•* $500.00 • it LAURIE*DUKE 00955 001-400-1101-4319 00065 $19.53 06651 28425 PLAGUE-ENGRAVINU 12707716 c.ITY-COUNCIL (SPECIAL -EVENTS $0.00 12/08j88 16 *** VENDOR TOTAL*******************•u****************+t******************************* $19.53 16 • 11 R TERRY M.*DURISH 02592 001-300-0000-3405 00673 $100.00 67467 06581 28426 „ KEFUND-IIAMAGE-DEPOSIT• bl4bi 11/ 0/11u /t,OMM CTR -RENTALS $0700 12/08/88 a. *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $100.00 • 79 74 DYNAMED _ 01498 001-400-2201-4309 00593 $4.77 48528901 01121 28427 „ MIS C CNG 61 11/dU/88 • FIRE. /T4ATNTENANcE-MATERIALS 40-06-12/08/88 E6 7, *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $4:77 79 79 30 R EASY READER 00181 001-400-1121-4323 00043 $730.75 04564 28428 „ PUBtTc--NorrCEs/ocT-ee ro/31/11 t:iIY CLERK /FUSE C NUIieIN6 $0.00 12/08/99— )7 3 R' EASY READER 00181 001-400-1203-4201 00402 $20.00 9033 07031 28428 -GUARD „ CROSSING AD 90.f3 1-27307b8 PERSONNEL /CONTRACT-SERVICE7PRTVAT $20700--12/08/88 16 36 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $750.75 , 77 0e 39R _ EFRAM MOBIL 01400 001-400-2101-4310 00156 $120.80 9861440 07409 28429 10 POLICE-GASOtI 01/88 1'OLTC/MOTOR FUELS-AND-LUDES $0.00 12/08/88 11 47 *** VENDOR TOTAL********************************************************************3120.80 le li 6, R EL CAMINO COLLEGE 01469 001-400-2101-4316 00300 $5.00 . 07447 28430 16 REG/G. CAINEStJ- GAINES 11/29788' POLICE /TRAINING $0700 12/08/88 ' • 47 61 *** VENDOR TOTAL********4*********************************************************** $5.00 19• 60 „ R •EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICES INC. 01294 001-400-4204-4201 00287 $1.325.00 031/026 00062 28431 57 JANITOR-SERV/NOV 88------1/026 1173078H BLDG MAINT /CONTRACT"SERVICE7PRIVAT $0.00 12/07/88 73 ,1 • 9 61 . ,7 7 6 10 II 17 11 11 n 11 16 19 79 SI 22 i7 N 23 76 7, 78 f9 70 ,I 6 0 9 0 a 4 9 0 J J J J J J J .40 ✓ s, w W W W W v a .J ./ l 4 e IU II 11•02593 u 14 15 16 li •1R II 10 22 1 5 1, 15 26 27 28MODEMS/COUNTY–SYSitvt 1 9 59 32 J5 >< 40MISC–CHGSYNOV ,1 41 Q N 45 46 ,1 ,e CITY–U - HERMOSA iIEACM FINANCE–SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0016 TIME 15:23:13 FOR 12/13/88. DATE 12/08/88 I ' ; e . 9 10 II , II 15 16 V u r0 71 11 7 14 15 16 21 19 90 SI 32 N 56 16 01 36 .o :2 11 44 0 ,6 ,17 e ,9 so 51 5, H 555 6 f/ 56 59 60 61 . fit 66 a� 69 ,0 i5 6 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # • ACCOUNT NUMuER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC' PROJ # ' ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC 'DATE EXP • *• *** VENDOR TOTAL****************************************•***********•***•************* $1,325.0012 ' • R DEAN*FRANCOIS 110-300-0000-3302 24726 $28.00 658038 07314 28432 LITE–PMT-REFUND • 380,38 12/01788 /COURF FINES/PARKING $0.00 12/08/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $28.00 • • FRANKSONS, INC. 00010 110-400-3302-4311 00425 $1,027.17 13754/13749 06973 28433 MAN–KARTS 13,74v 117-d27-88 PARKING–ENF /AUTO MAINitNANCE $1, 01S.311T2/08/88 - R FRANKSONS, INC. • 00010 110-400-3302-4311 00426 $137.90 13627/31/705 06967 2843327 CUSHMAN PARTS 1//U`J 11/11/88 I'ARKINGENF /AVM—MAINTENANCE $6700 12/08/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,165.07 R GENERAL DATACOMM, INC. 02524 001-400-2101-4251 00239 $3,590.65 ' ' 214843. 06871 28434 1-4842------097307811 POLICE ICDNTRACTSERVICE70QVT $3371750 7 12/08/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $3.590.65 R GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY 00058 001-400-4204-4309 01150 $101.18 01124 28435 MSC–CMS/NOV-88 i i /4U/t u BLDG FAINT /MAINTEfV $0700-12/07/88 R GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY 00058 001-400-4204-4321 00399 $187.44 01124 28435 MSC–CMS/NOV-88 11/30/88 IiCDG FtATNT /IIUILDING–SAFETY7SECDRII $0 D0 12/07/88 • R GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY 00058 105-400-2601-4309 00419 $64.71 • 01124 28435 88 11/30788 STREti LIGHTING 7MAINTENANCE MAItKIALb $0700-12/d7/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** •$353.33 . J . R GTEL •• 01340 001-400-2201-4304 00136 $216.40 01126 28436 MISC–CHGS/NOV-88 r1730/88 FIRE /ItLLI'HUNE $0700-12/07/815" R . GTEL 01340 001-400-4601-4304 00229 $99.72 01126 28436 MISC–CHGS/NGV 88 49 50 51 111:30/88 c.UMM RESUURCES / 1 tLtI-HUNt $0.00 12707788 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $316.12 5 1 55 ,,,• • R HAMILTON AVNET ELECTRONICS 02586 001-400-2101-5402 0.0009 $788.44 18559/24011 06802 28437 MODEMS/PD „•—. s.. 51 REMODEL 14011 U8726/da NOCICE /EQUIP–MORE THAN $500 $0.0612/08/88 • a .J ./ l A L L L L L L L V i0 „ V „ } :R 28 75 30 37I': 33 „ 35 36 v 38 39R „ 6. 'I 43 45,6 •••6• • • • I. 6 , CITY—UF—HER MOSA—BEi1CR FINANCE—SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0017 •' TIME 15:23:13 FOR 12/13/88 DATE 12/08/88 PAY ' VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ' ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL*********•****************•ir*****************************trot*****•p•***** $788.44 • R HARRIS & ASSOCIATES 02102 001-400-3104-4201 00016 $1,152.87 8805301 06787 28438 10 16 ie ,0 " u 73 24 J5 ]6 227 8 06 29 ]0 37 ]6 )5 36 » 38 39 .o u 11 u 9 !0 5, 93 54 "� „ 7' 59 1 60 61 60 63 7 NFP—PREP7TRAF—S2 U1 11/14/UU TRAFFIC—SAFEUY !CUNTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $2,920.00 12/08/88 R HARRIS & ASSOCIATES02102 001-400-3104-4201 00017 $1,055.41 8805401 06788 28438 . RFP—PREPIST-REPAIR V640i , 11/14/88 TRAFFIC—SAFEIY /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $1T70000--12/08788 R HARRIS & ASSOCIATES 02102 001-400-8176-4201 00002 $829.90 8805501 06789 28438 RFP—PREP7TRAF—SIG—PRE-ErI055 IP-86=176 /CONTRACT—SER $2.87 60—/2/08/88 R HARRIS & ASSOCIATES 02102 125-400-8508-4201 00007 $1,055.41 8805601 06790 28438 RFP-PREP/PARK—IRRIGATION-056-01 11/I4/88 CIP-85=508 /CONTRACTSERVILE/PRIVAT $1; 234T00—i-2/08/88 R HARRIS & ASSOCIATES 02102 160-400-8405-4201 00019 $796.00 06731 28438 RFPYSEWER AREA III 11/23/88 • LIP 8b -4U5 /CUNIRACI SERVICE/PRIVAT t796-700---T2/06/8g—'---n2 796 00 2/06/88'"— R 'HARRIS & ASSOCIATES 02102 160-400-8406-4201 00008 $1,304.00 • • 06731 28438 RFPISEWER—AREA—IV 11/23788 LIP 86-405 /CONTRACT—SERVTCE7PRTVAT $1,304700-32/08/68— *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $6,193.59 R HERMOSA BCH CHAMBER OF COMM. ' • 00643 001-400-1101-5401 00001 $2,500.00 06647 28439 —CHRISTMAS—DECORATIONS 12/01788 CITYCOUNCIL 7EGUIP=CESSZHAIT-4500 $0700-'—i-2/08/1:38 • *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $2,500.00 p - HIWAY MARKING SYSTEMS 00280 001-400-3104-4309 00115 $596.40 4914 07237 28440 PAINT—TRUCK—PARTS 49-1-4 II/10788 IhAFFIC—SAFETY /MAINTENANCE—NAItHIALS $0T00-12/08/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************* •$ 596. 40 • R HOLIDAY INN/CENTRE PLAZA " 02587 001-400-2201-4317 00024 $178.28 TR226 00226 28441 HOTEL= ADVANCE/B—SCOTT`—TR226 12701/88 46 47• .e FIRE /CONFERENCE—EXPENSE • $0.00-12/08/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL**************•If••*****************************************************$176.28 $176. 26 A6 50 5, R •MARY LOU*HOLMES 02603 110-300-0000-3302. 24725 $126.00 504651/524719 07311 28442 64 66 66 6e� 69 ,0 71 I ,1 ,6 7 t /6 12CITE—PMT—REFUND 53 54 44/19 12/01/88 /COURT—FINES7PARKING $0-0-02/08%88_ • • 55 SI 57 v 9 10 11 1 11 70 11 17 71 11 29 76 71 71 19 00 11 32 33 34 71 36 67 01 11 10 11 1 Y 4 • LIE¥-OF-HERMOSA13BACH • FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0018 TIME 15:23:13FOR 12/13/88' DATE 12/08/88 - PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ' ACCOUNT NUMBER • TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC 'DATE EXP 1 1 • *** VENDOR TOTAL********•*******************•*******************•***************•******* $126.00 11 13 • 16 R HOZIES RADIATOR SERVICE 00277 001-400-2201-4311 00252 $252.40 89421 05385 28443 I6 KESCUE I RADiAtUx H -. :- • - =- - -E /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 12/08/88 'r 1f *** VENDOR TOTAL*************•***********************************•******************** $252.40 ro • 11 77 n R ICMA 00157 001-400-1201-4305 00110 $398.00 120051 39800 28444 71 MGMT-INFO-SERV-DU !Oi/88 LITY-MANAGER7---7OFFICE-OPER-SUPPLIES $0.0 12/08/88 " 76 10 R ICMA 00157 001-400-1202-4305 00188 $77.33 079618-01 06622 28444 16 11 60 PUBLICATIONS 18=01 I0/1318es FINANCE-ADMIN—OFFICE-OPER-SUPPLIES $0:00-12/08/88 11 R ICMA 00157 001-400-1203-4305 00176 $40.37 • 079618-01 06622 28444 11 PUBLICATIONS 18 -OI 10/13/88 PERSONNEL /OFFICE-QPEK SUPYLIt'3 $0700 12/08/88 " 11 77 R ICMA 00157 001-400-1206-4305 00337 0 $72.38 079618-01 06622 28444 16 11 PUBLICATTDNS 18-01 10/13/88 DATA PROCESSING 70FFILt UNEK SUF'F'L1LS $0 012/08/88 71 19 R ICMA 00157 001-400-2101-4305 00859 $41.16 079618-01 06622 28444 l0 PUBLICATIONS 18-01 10/13/88 PUL1LE /UFFILE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 12/08/88 " 11 • 43 R ICMA 00157 001-400-2201-4305 00247 $41.16 • 079618-01 06622 28444 44 15 16 —PUMA :-• • LI -= IRE IDFFICE-QPEK SUPPLIES $0700-12/08/88- 47 R ICMA 00157 001-400-2401-4305 00095 $24.37 -UPEK 079618-01 06622 28444 41 $0.00 12708788--0 PU. • • :-• • - - . • 1IMAL CUNTROL /UFh iLE SUPPLIES 60 51 R ICMA 00157 001-400-4201-4305 00370 $106.37 • -OPER 079618-01 06622 28444 97 13 91 PUBLICAT-IDNS 18-01 10713/88 BUILDING /OFFICE SUPFEIES $0.00 12/08788 . 69 R ICMA 00157 001-400-4202-4305 00345 $12.38 079618-01 06622 28444 56 PUBLICAT'I. - • • :- PUB—WKS—ADMIN IUFFI,E UPER SUPPLIES $0700 12/08/89 " 59 59 R ICMA 00157 110-400-3302-4305 00488 $38.37 079618-01 06622 28444 60 B1 PUBLICATIONS 18=01 10/13/88 NARKING--ENF /01-FiCE UPEK SUPPLits $6700—I2708/88 67 83 R ICMA 00157 705-400-1209-4305 00006 $10.38 079618-01 06622 28444 64 PUBLICA •, :—• • :- 'BI • ■- - • $0.00 12708798- " 66 67 R ICMA 00157 705-400-1217-4305 00002 $12.38 079618-01 06622 28444 64 PUBLICATIONS' 18=01 10/13/Ides -WORKERS-COMP • /UFFICE-OPER SUPPLIES $070O--12/08/88 " 70 71 • . 72 n • A - • U U 'J 6I Ir. r iu r'r ie n• 13 Ir re rt pu 34 33 36R „ �� 10 ,1 44 45R „'- 11 41R CITY-OF-HERMOSA-BEACH • FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST ' TIME 15:23:13 FOR 12/13/88 PAGE 0019 DATE 12/08/88• PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # • ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PO # ' CHK # AMOUNT UNENCDATE EXP _ *** VENDOR TOTAL •n*+t*********+***•p•********************•a•n*********+t**u•*******•p•******** $874. 65 • 9 0 it R INDEPENDENT ORD. OF ODDFELLOWS • 02591 001-300-0000-3404 00286 $60.00 64177 06583 28445 —REFUND-F'OR-CIGHT`TECH-- 6417/ 11/3U/88 /COMM CTR LEASES ***VENDOR TOTAL*********************•*********************************************** $60.00 $0700---12/08/88-- 00012/08/88--"*** ,e • R INDEPENDENT ORDER OF ODDFELLOW 01997 001-210-0000-2110 02566 $500.00 DAMAGE -DEPOSIT -REF ND 641/d 64178 07133 28446 $0.00 2/08/88 -" ro rr rJ 11 r' n re 26 ro 'rDUES1W 3 34 If Ib sr 5 io 42 1] 11 IS 16 46 19 b, 12 ,1 34 56 66 Si '° «6 6' 6r e1 15 66 6, 66 ,u „ rr 73 74 b b Id/U1/dd /DEPOSITS7WORK GUARANTEE *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************************************************************4** 5500.00 R INTERNATIONAL CONF OF BLDG OFF 00781 001-400-4201-4315 00078 $140.00 M16463 04996 28447 GROVE 16463 TT/01/83 •BUILDING /MEMBERSHIP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $140.00 $50 12708/88— .•34 R KANE DALLMER & BERKMAN 00130 001-400-1131-4201 00439 $1,533.20 LEGAt-SERVYOCT 88 11.13 I11.13 _ 06649 28448 $0.00 12/08/8877.77-4, 11/14/88 CtIY AIIURNEYICONTWALi StNVICt/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL*******************************************************************8 31,533.20 JOHN*KEARIN 01032 001-400-2101-4312 00787 $21.75 07445 2844941 MEAtSIFIEtD-TRNG PROG 11r29/89 FOLIC E /TRAVEL EXPENSE . POST *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $21.75 $0700—$2/08788 " — R LEARNED LUMBER 00167 001-400-2101-4305 00854 347.07 MSC-CHGSfNOt!-88 2 01131 /07/ $0.00---12/07/86-----' 01131 28450 ?I/30/b8 di�0003 POC7Ct lUhhI(,t UP�50PPLIES LEARNED LUMBER • 00167 001-400-2101-4309 00176 $163.86 ---------MISC CHCS/NOV 88 I1/3078d POLICE" /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS LEARNED LUMBER 00167 001-400-3103-4309 00760 $2.58 _ $0. 0012/07/88 01131 28450 49 S6 51 11/30/89 -MAINTENANCE ST "/MAINTENANCE MATERIALS R LEARNED LUMBER 00167 001-400-4204-4309 01149 $111.72 MISC-CHCS/NOV 88 $0.00 12/07/88 01131 28450 „ a 6 , 11/30788 BLDG MAIM' /MAINTENANCE -MATERIAL , $0.00 12/07/88 15 36• S/ . A 1` SO ,2 2 2. 29 12 ,5 26 ,0 '9 .7 55 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 15:23:13 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION • City OF HEHMOSATBEALH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0020 FOR 12/13/88 DATE 12/08/88 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC . PROJ # .ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION INV/REF PO # CHK # R LEARNED LUMBER MISC-CHCS/NOV 8 R LEARNED LUMBER MISC-CHGS/NOV-88 R LEARNED LUMBER MISC-CHGS/NOV 8 00167' 001-400-6101-4309 00612 11730/8 PARKS 00167 001-400-8606-4309 00027 II73U/b8 CIF' 87-606 00167' 001-400-8614-4201 00004 11/30788 CrP-88=614 $20. 88 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS AMOUNT"UNENC DATE EXP 01131 28450 $0. 00 12/07/88 0 io $61.96 01131 28450 01131 28450 ;o 22 70 25 76 27 76 09 01133 28451 /C 070-2707/88 J3 $40.04 01133 28451 75 !CONTRACT -SE $0-00-12/07/88— 37 ]0 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $97.04 /CUNT RACTS'ERVICE/PR IVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL*********************************#*****#***********************#**** $505. 11 $0.00 12/07/88 $0. 00 12/07/88 R LOMITA BLUEPRINT SERVICE, INC. --MISC-CHGS/NOV 88 R LOMITA BLUEPRINT SERVICE, INC. MISC-CHGS/NOV 88 • 00077 001-400-1122-4201 00164 . $36.58 i1/30/1111 E1=ECTIONSERVICE/PRIVAT 00077 001-400-3104-4201 00015 11 /30/88 R LOMITA BLUEPRINT SERVICE, INC. MISC-CHGS/NOV-88 *** VENDOR TOTAL IRAFFIC SAFETY 00077' 001-400-8604-4201 00089 11/J0788 CIF -86=604 *****************************************##*****#r*###****#########* $105. 91 90 60 $29.29 01133 28451 $0.00 12/07/88 - R LONG BEACH UNIFORM CO. 01320 110-400-3302-4187 00155 UNIFORMS/MALDONADO/BYR Y/bb $622.33 PARKING-ENF /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R COUNTY OF *LOS ANGELES MAP REVISIONS/OC'-88 563 ii $15.60 PLANNINU /OFFICE-OPER-SUPPLILS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 00287 ' 001x400-4101-4305 00252 /0g/be $622.33 14128 06930 28452 $622733 12708/88 R LOS ANGELES TIMES ADVANCED- PLANNER -Ab R LOS ANGELES TIMES EMPLOYEE -ADS $15.60 563 06062 28453 $0:00 12/08/88 00213 001-400-1203-4201 00403 J8 11 2//bb $351.78 48-011138 07028 28454 PERSONNEL /LONTRACi 8ERVICE7PRIVAT $351.78--12/08/88 d8 62 6J 66 65 46 67 1 69 50 51 52 53 56 55 56 57 5, 59 60 00213 001-400-1203-4201 00404 11/27/ $1,146.70 48-011138 05898 28454 6, 88 YEHSO CONTRACT b`ERVICE/PRIVAT $875.20 12/0878$-65 66 *** VENDOR TOTAL***********************#************#******************************* R JAMES P. *LOUGH LEGAL-RETAINER/rvw bU • $1, 498. 48 00938 001-400-1131-4201 , 00440 $4,869.00 $9. 00 12/U6�/b9 CITY-ATTORNEY-7CDNTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 066542/0 $0..0 00 12/08/885 67 66 69 70 71 70 76 76 J J L L L L L , „ 3 m r. 22 23 24 35 26 n r6 r3 So „ 3r 33R „ 35 „ 37 31 39R 40 6i ,3 • • • • • • FINANCE-SFA340• TIME PAY 15:23:13 LITY-OF-HERMbSA-SEACH • DE A ND M LIST FOR 12/13/88 PAGE 0021 DATE 12/08/88 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DATE INVC PROJ # ' ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT'UNENC DATE EXP R JAMES P. *LOUGH EXTRA LEGAL SERV7N07 88 00938 001-400-1131-4201 00441 $1,454.00 06653 28455 *** VENDOR 12/02788 CITY ATTORNEY- 7CONTRACT-ERVICE/PRIVAT • TOTAL*************4*********‘******************************************** $6,323.00 $0.00 12/08/88 R . • LOUIS THE TAILOR, INC.00079 11730768 001-400-2101-4187 ;00213 $307.20 01134 28456 R MISC CHGS/NOV 88 LOUIS THE TAILOR, INC. 00079 POLICE /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 001-400-2401-4187 00017 $38.34 $0.00--12/07/88 01134 28456 MISC-CHGS/NOV-8811/30788 *** VENDOR TOTAL**************************************************************#***** ANIMAL CONTROE 7UNIFORM ALLOWANCE $345.54 $0.00 2/07/88 R • M&K METALS 00777 • _= 001-400-8612-4309 00002 $385.44 19398 07287 28457 3 LEASH -SIG = *** VENDOR TOTAL*************x*******************************ie********************** P-88-612 /MAINTENANCE -MATERIALS $385.44 D $0 o 12708798 3 R MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK 01859 001-400-1212-4188 01244 $1,145.07 00041 28458 3 3 , CITY-HEALTH-INSIJAN-89 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK ' CITY-HEALTH-INSIJAN-89 12/10/88 01859 EMY BENEFITS /EMPLOYEE BENEPI15 105-400-2601-4188 00646 $20.19 $0.00 12/08788 00041 28458 41 R MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK 1271-0/dd 01859 127T0788 STREET LIGHTING—/EMPEOYEE-BENEFITS 110-400-3301-4188 00631 $2.74 VEH-PKCDTSF /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 110-400-3302-4188 00835 $180.41 $0.00-12/08/8841 00041 28458 CITY-HEALTH-INS/0A N 89 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK 01859 127Y0198 $0.00-12/08/99 00041 28458 • 45 51 22 R CITY-HEALTH-INS/AN-87 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK 01859 12/10/88 PARKING ENF /EMPLOYEE BENEFIT. -.'. 145-400-3401-4188 00585 $5.12 0. $00- 8/ 127088 00041 2845E 53 5, 555 6 43 �, i5 ,1 ,.•R R CITY-HEALTH-INS7iAN-89 • MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK 89 01859 DIAL A RIDE-7EMPEOYEE-BENEFII5 145-400-3402-4188 00583 $1. 73 1 $0.00 2/08/88 00641 28458 53 55 59 6, ------CITY-HEALTH--INSIJAN MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK' 12710788 01859 12C10/8d ESEA EMPLOYEE BENEFIT5 • 145-400-3403-4188 00071 $0.55 $0.00 12/08/88-----" 00041 28458 49 50 StR CITY-HEALTH-INSIJAN-89 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK . 01859 HUS-PASS-SUBEDY /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS • 155-400-2102-4188 00281 $2.29 $0.00 12/08/88 00041 28458 65 66 66 6° 70 n n 51CITY-HEALTH-INS-IJAN-89 5 3 ,• 12/10788 CROSSING -GUARD 7EMPLOYEE-BENEFITS •5 $0.00. 12/08/88 55 >s sl • r, 75 76 3 Ir 13 5 9 20 r 3 5 6 9 } 3 .W .r' 1r� A1 • ,1 1. �6 • • CITY Or HENMOSA-BEACH FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST TIME 15:23:13 FOR 12/13/88. PAGE 0022 DATE 12/08/88• 3 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ' ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # 6 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC. PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT'UNENC 'DATE EXP e R MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK 01859 160-400-3102-4188 00590 $21.93 9 00041 28458 —CITY -HEALTH INS VAN 89 I2/10788 SEWER/ST-DRAIN—/EMPLOYEE BENEF•I IS RMANAGED HEALTH NETWORK • 01859 705-400-1209-4188 00047 $2.29 0.00 -32/08/88R $0.00 -12/08/88- 00041 28458 ,6 Il CITY-HEALTH-INS/VAN 89 id/1U/01 LIABILITY -INS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS R MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK 01859 705-400-1217-4188 •00048 $4.58 $0.00 12/08/88 00041 28458 :0 CITY HEALTH-INSCJAN-8y . Id/1u/u8 WORKERS COM NEFITS • $0.00 12/08/88 01 it *** VENDOR TOTAL *****•gat**•*******•***************************at************************ $1,386.90 i9 75 • 76 27] R MANERI SIGN CO., INC. 01255 001-400-3104-4309 00116 $452.62 7203 07261 28459 7 REFLECTORIZED DECALS idU.1 11/07/81:1iiAFFIC-SAFErY /MAINTENANCE -MATERIALS $0700-12/08/88 79 30 IJ 76 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $452.62 32 7, 33 • 3, 23 7 R CITY OF *MANHATTAN BEACH 00183 001-400-3101-4251 00001 $867.72 4731 07271 28460 $0700 12/08/88-----v 79 ARTESIA BLVD MA/NT 4/.11 1I/u//SF3 MEDIANS /CONFRALI SENVICE/GOVT 79 3e *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $867.72 .o 37 42 37• , R MANHATTAN FORD • 00605 001-400-4101-4311 00085 $54.91• 01137 28461 .� 36 MISC-CHGS/NOV 88 11730788 PLANNING /AUTO -MAINTENANCE $0T00 12/08/88 13 3, 36 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $54.91 .e 1/ • 69 • 50 31 39 R MARK IV CHARTER BUS LINES 01424 001-400-4601-4319 00264 $275.73 • 06580 28462 37 40 SR-CITIZEN-TRIP1Dtu 1 11/ U/ t,OMM-RESOURCES /SPECTAL—EVENTS $0.00 12708/88 53 s6 �: *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** • $275.73 • 59 u 57 5e 44 59 65 R MARQUETTE LEASE SERVICES, INC. 02272 001-400-2101-6900 00371 $1,233.52 00056 28463 60 49 LEASE PMT7JAN 89 1271078b POLICE /LEASE -PAYMENTS • $07U0---12/08/88 61 43 67 61 61 R MARQUETTE LEASE SERVICES, INC. 02272 001-400-2101-6900 00372 $1,072.55 00059 28463 66 19 LEASE-PMT1VAN 89 12/10T88 POLICE /LEASE PAYMENIS $0.00 12/08/8 —65 ' 66 50 51 *** VENDOR TOTAL*•******************************************************************* $2,306.07 6e 57 69 53 • 5, R MARTIN & CHAPMAN CO. 00289 001-400-1122-4201 00165 $591.52 11806 04566 28464 77 ,3 SPEC -ELECTION -COSTS I1IUb 11/IU/iiti ELECTIONS RVICE/PRIVAT $0700---12/08/88 9• 75 37 • 76 J J J J A V L L L L `. w V ,r1• 0. • 1/ I ' z , 11 I, 6 ,, 11 7] 15 �, 1 e 159 30 ] 1 33R 34MICROFICHE-STORED-PtANS 35 56 37 4 10 1 11 I J 44 �5 ,0 47 .e CITY UF�FIERMOSA-HEACHJ FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND •LIST PAGE 0023 TIME 15:23:13 FOR 12/13/88 DATE 12/08/88 PAY VENDOR NAME VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN Si AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK it DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ * • ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP • e *** VENDOR TOTAL********************#*********#*#*#*#************#****************** *591.52 9 io I. 15 I, 11 m 11 2 2. 26 76 19 30 37 „ �R ,I SI 40 11 11 143 4 46 .e 19 50 51 5: ss 54 03 5f 51 50 59 61 0: w1 05 R0 net 09 r0 /1 1 r� 11 15 le R ALANA*MASTRIAN-HANDMA IV. 00219 001-400-4601-4315 00041 387.50 06577 28465 t'0TARY-DUES7- -1 ::• ' -RESOURCES :: ❑MM HIP $6-66/08/88 -12 *** VENDOR TOTAL **********************************#***********• #.***#*************#*** 387.50 • R DENISE E.*MC NEILL 02604 110-300-0000-3302 24724 382.00 121815/118689 07312 28466 -PMT -REFUND• GATE 18689 12/01/au /COURT FINES7NANKiN( *0.00 12/01379a----22 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** • *82.00 • R MCI. MAIL— 02153 001-400-1206-4304 00127 $10.00 7476872 00058 28467 ' ELECTRONIC-MAIL/OGT 8b 7aB 2 11/10/88 UAIA PROCESSTN •11 *0.00 12/087-88 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** *10.00 R MICRO PUBLICATION SYSTEMS ' 02457 001-400-4201-4201 00120 3427.61 43677 01161 28468 MISC-CHGS/NOV 88 446// i1/4U/aa .IJUrLDLN6 FLUNIKA(.1 SEHVIct/PRIVAT *0.00 12/08/88 MICRO PUBLICATION SYSTEMS 02457 001-400-4201-4201 00122 3256.18 43578 01749 28468 43378 10/3r/88 BUILDINU /CONTRACT-SERVICE7PRTVAI $14T777---12/08/88'----0 *** VENDOR TOTAL#********#******###***************#*********#****##***************** 3683.79 R MYERS STEVENS & COMPANY 00091 001-400-1212-4188 01242 3805.80 00013 28469 CITY HEALTH -INS/ -JAN -89 12/1078a EMP13ENEFTTS /LMPC0YEE-BENEFITS $0700 12/08788 *** VENDOR TOTAL************************************#******************************* 3805. 8D R NADER TECHNICAL ENTERPRISES 00656 001-400-2101-4313 00179 3201.14 07446 28470 TUITION/RON-FOX 11/29788 POLICE /IRAVEE-EXPENSE; STC 30.00 12/08/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL**************#*******#***#***##**###***#***##*$#***#*#******#**#*** 3201.14 n 50 51 R NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOC 00399 001-400-2201-4316 00147 336.00 T085714 05382 28471 3UBSCRIPTION-RENEWAL 53 !/ 5714 10724788 FIRL /TRAINING $070012/08/88 • . 53 M 51 . • L J ..r v rad • • • LI . _ /1 , 7 10—PUBLICATIONS 17 13 14 „ 17 16 16 2,R 77MON 74 09 26 7'36 28THEATRE-LIGHTS „ 31 32 33 „ 39 3. 3, 36 79 40CITY-HEALTH-INSYJAN 41 42 ,3 4 „ ,6 40R CITY Oh.HERMOSA-BEACH • FINANCE-5FA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0024 TIME 15:23:13• FOR 12/13/88. DATE 12/08/88 2 ; PAY VENDOR NAME VND # • ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC• PROJ # ' ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC 'DATE EXP 6 s • R NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOC 00399 001-400-2201-4316 00148 $124.35 132667/133163 05379 28471 • Io 15 16 I 11 If 70 0 :I 72 23 24 25 76 31 79 3230 333: 34 35 38 39 40 41 .7 13 ,� 46 42 ,3 4, 50 jl s: " 3, 3f 66 6' 36 ss E6 61 6, 64 65 E6 66 f3 70 ,1 ,7 ., 79 07T27b13 FIRE / IRAINING t070-0--1-2/0878$ *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $160.35 • R NEW PACIFIC LUMBER CO. 00606 001-400-4204-4309 .01152 $36.82 00939 28472 M I SC -CHCS I SEP-eB 09/40788 -MAT • . BLDG AN $41-00----1-2707788 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $36.82 . KEVIN B.*NORTHCRAFT21 02064 001-400-1201-4305 00108 $11.66 06652 28473 EXP/NOV 88 11/30788 CITY -MANAGER /OFFICE-OPE-SUPPLIES $0.00 2/08/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $11..66 • • • R OLESON'S ELECTRONICS 01936 001-400-4601-4305 00584 $3,081.47 • 213138/212914 06576 28474 12'11'4 11/2ti78b COMM RESOURCES /UPI ICE-OPER SUP'P'LIES $37031794---12/08788----v *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $3.081.47 • R OLYMPIC CREATIONS 02580 001-400-2101-4305 00860 $185.31 5550 07426 28475 DARE BANNER 5350 11/08781 210004 POLICE /UhhTCE-OPER-SUPPLIES $185-4i--12/08788 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $185.31 R ORAL HEALTH SERVICES 00235 001-400-1212-4188 01238 $1,138.88 - 00019 28476 — 89 12710788 EMP-BENEFTTS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 12/08/88 R ORAL HEALTH SERVICES 00235 105-400-2601-4188 00643 $52.71• 00019 28476 -HEALTH -IN CITY •• : • :: • -LEI LIGHl1N6 /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $D.00 12/08/88 '• 110-400-3301-4188 00628 $4.32 R ORAL HEALTH SERVICES 0023500019 28476 CITY-HEALTH -INSIUAN-89 12770788 -BENEhIij• VEH-PKG-DI SI /EMPLOYEE$0700-12/08/88 ORAL HEALTH SERVICES 00235 110-400-3302-4188 00831 $313.60 00019 28476 CITY -HEA - 46 50 51 • :- •AHKING-ENF /EMPLOYEE BENEFTIS $0.00 12708788 R ORAL HEALTH SERVICES 00235 145-400-3401-4188 00581 $0.58 00019 53 93 94 CITY-HEALTH-INS/jAN-89 28476 14/10/88 •UTAL A RIDE /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0700 12/08/88 • • ss• 96 v •• J J 1. L V V L L L V li. , 7 0 . ,0R 17 11 19 0• 2,R 22 23 24 3, 26 21 ,tl 29 30 31 31 31R 34 35 ,6 37CITY-HEALTH 31 39 ,o 42R • • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME PAY 15:23:13 LITY-DFHERMOS D • DEMAND LIST FOR 12/13/88 PAGE 0025 DATE 12/08/88 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION • VND # ' ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT'UNENC DATE EXP R • ORAL HEALTH SERVICES CITY-HEALTH-INStJAN BY 00235 145-400-3402-4188 00579 $0.29 00019 28476 ----C/TY R • ORAL HEALTH SERVICES 89. 1211'078a 00235 ESEA /EMPLOYEE -BENEFITS 155-400-2102-4188 00278 $5.93 -"GUAR $0.00 12'/08/88 00019 28476 --CITY-HEALTH-INS/JAN • ORAL HEALTH SERVICES - —CITY-HEALTH-INSIJAN-8Y 12/1018b 00235 CROSSING 160-400-3102-4188 00587 $43.09 $0.00 12/08/88 00019 28476 1d71U/bb • *** VENDOR TOTAL *tit*********************atit*********..*********•***.k.*ac******* ' SEWER7ST7DRAIN- EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ********** $1,559.40 $07-0-0----T2/08/88 . . PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMP HOOKUPS/NOV-88 00321 1170178b , 001-400-2101-4304 00303 $172.76 00036 28477 *** VENDOR POLICE /TELEPHONE , TOTAL******************************************************************** $172.76 $0700-12/08/88 R PACIFICARE CITv-HEALTH-IN3/JAN 89 00575 001-400-1212-4188 01239 $13,789.54 00016 28478 3 3 3 4 R PACIFICARE C ITY-HEALTH •INS/JAN 89 1d710788 00575 EMP BENEFITS /EMPLOYEE-BENEhIIS 105-400-2601-4188 00644 $540.95 $0700-12/08/88-^' 00016 28478 $0.00 12708/88 00016 28478 PACIFICARE 12/10/88 00575 12710788 0I FihE I LIUHTIN(I /EMPLOYEE RENEE• I I b 110-400-3301-4188 00629 $33.74 R i-ITY-HEALTH-INSYJ•AN-89 PACIFICARE 00575 VEH PKGITS /EMPLOYEE -BENEFITS 110-400-3302-4188 00832 $2,327.85 $0.00--32/08/88 00016 28478 41 R 1N3J'JAN- 89 PACIFICARE CITY -HEALTH -!NStOAN 89 12710/88 00575 PARKTNGENF /EMPLUYEE-BENEt I l b 145-400-3401-4188 00582 $7,gg $97-00-12/08/88 .+ S( 51 00016 28478 ,; $0700-12/08/88--,, 94U 00016 28478 555 6 PACIFICARE 12770788 00575 DIAL A -RIDE /EMPLOYEE -BENEFITS 145-400-3402-4188 00580 $2.25 • 43, „ R CITY-HEALTH-INS/JAN-89 PACIFICARE 1zI101bb "00575 ESEA--7EMPLOYEE-BENEF•Ilb 145-400-3403-4188 00069 $5.60f9 $0-00-12/08/88 00016 2/0B/ 51 9 46 . , ,1•R CITY-HEALTH-INS1`JAN-89 PACIFICARE 89 12710766 00575 12/10/88 00575 12710786 BUS PASS -SUBSDY-7 EMPLOYEE-BENEt1iS . 155-400-2102-4188 00279 $49.52 $d. 00-12/08/88 00016 28478 6 61 63 64 6S i7 6e 49CITY-HEALTH-INS/JAN ,0i6 R PACIFICARE CROSSING'-BUARIT—TEMPEOYEE-BENEFITS 160-400-3102-4188 00588 $387.62 $0.007--T2/08/88 00016 28478 82CITY-HEALTH-INSIVAN ,3 S,• 89 SEWER1ST DRAIN /EMPLOYEE -BENEFITS • $6-0d--32/08/88 19 70 7, 71 SS ,6 31 73 74 15 ,6 , 5 • I 3 6 9 0 3 6 0 1 3 5 9 0 .1 J J i.i 5,4 v v .0 r • 411, 41, V u. • • 'e CITY OF HER • FINANCE–SFA340• DEMAND LIST PAGE 0026 7 TIME 15:23:13 FOR 12/13/88. DATE 12/08/88 ; PAY VENDOR NAME VND # • ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # ~ 6 6 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC• PROJ # • ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT'UNENC • DATE EXP ' 7 9 10 *** VENDOR TOTAL******•p•***************tc***********•x•*********#•u•*****u•*****•u*x•**a•#**** $17.144.95 R PAGENET• 02487 001-400-2101-4307 00152 $100.00 00059 28479 ,6 PAGING–SERV/DEC 88 12/01/88 I'OLILE /RADIO MAINTENANCE 416700 12/07/88 ' .5 *** VENDOR TOTAL**************************************************+t*********•n******* $100.00 20 16 •77 • II 19 R PAUL'S RENTALS 00607 001-400-6101-4309 00613 $4.79 01041 28480 MISC–CH • :- • -- -ARKS /MAINItNANCE MATERIALS 40700----r2/07/88 2 _„ 76 0 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** • $4.79 za ] I 39 7] 70 74 75 R PEP BOYS 00608 001-400-2101-4311 00581 $46.85 - 10/31/88 POLICE /AUTO MAIN7ENANt.E 01042 28481 ;, MISC–CHGSIOCT 88 $0700-12/08188 ]� 76 A 7, *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $46.85 �s 24 71 36 R PHYSIO–CONTROL 00622 ]9 30 001-400-2201-4309 00594 $173.35 E26798 05384 28482 60 ], PARAMEDIC EDU-IP–R U/dB FIRE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 12/08/89 4' ]7 67 ]] *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************* $173.35 .� 65 ]5 66 J6 R PRINCIPAL CASUALTY INS. CO. EMPLOYEE—BENEFIT/JAN 00585 001-400-1212-4188 01234 $72.25 00038 28483 .Y :- - cENEEITS /EMP 8-• $07-00-12/08/88— 19 ] Y 50 „ R PRINCIPAL CASUALTY INS. CO. 00585 105-400-2601-4188 00639 $0.50 • 00038 28483 52 60 EMPLOYEE–B£NEFITYVAWS9 id/107B8 STRh i LIVHTTNG—/EMPLOYEE IUENE*IIS $07010-12/08/88 s] a 1. R PRINCIPAL CASUALTY INS. CO. 55 67 00585 110-400-3301-4188 00624 $0.50 00038 28483 56 0 EMPLOYEE–BENEFIT/JAN-89 I271-0788 VEFVFKG–DISI /EMPLUYhE BENttIIS $D7D0 i2708/88 s7 44 56 R PRINCIPAL CASUALTY INS. CO. ' 59 65 EMPLOYEE 00585 110-400-3302-4188 00827 $4.25 00038 28483 66 66 BENEFIT/).A Y 12770/tib PARKING–ENE /EMPLUYEE–BENEFIrb• $0700 12/08/88 61 67 67 0 R PRINCIPAL CASUALTY INS. CO. 00585 160-400-3162-4188 00583 $1.00 6] 00038 28483 64 69 50 EMPLOYEE–BENEFITYOAN-89 12/1C78s SEWER/r DHAIN /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 12/08/88 65 66 51R PRINCIPAL CASUALTY INS. CO. 00585 705-400-1209-4180 00044 $1.25 00038 28483 68 52EMPLLIYEE–BENEFI TlJAjl 89 12/1u/bibs_ LTADILTrY INS-7EMPCQYEE–DENEFITS $01-00-12/08/88 69 53 70 n 54 72 55 7] sY 76 5, 75 76 u. Lr 114.11 v 9 7. 7 30 11 33 34 5 •, .l •0 0I 55 4 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 15:23:13 LITY-OF 1ERMOSA-BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 12/13/88 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION PAGE 0027 DATE 12/08/88 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP R PRINCIPAL CASUALTY INS. CO. 00585 705-400-1217-4188 00045 —EMPLOYEE BENEFIT/JAN-89 -'-12/10788 $1.25 00038 28483 WORKERS COMP /EMPLOYEE -BENEFITS $0.00 —12/08/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL***********************4F**tr•n**************************************** R PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY FLAGS/STOCK $81. 00 01030 001-400-1208-4305 •-;00581 $152.40 1007618/7858 06258 28484 /7858 10720788 GEN-APPROP------7(7FFICE-OPER SUPPLIES $0.0101-12/08/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL*********************4********************************************** * * * R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO 00173 MSC- CHGS/NOV 88 12730/88 R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO 00173 MISC-CHCS/NO U7aa R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC--CHGS/NOV-88 001-400-2101-4305 00856• POLICE 001-400-2101-4306 00584 POLICE 00173 701-400-4201-4305 00367 Ir/3Uia8 UUICDINt� $152.40 $66. 02 /UFFICE-OPER-SUPPLIES $140. 62 INRTSONER MAINTENANCE $42. 64 /U)-tILE OPER-SUPPLIL8 VENDOR TOTAL************************************************4i******************* * * * R READICARE MEDICAL GROUP -LAX EMPLOYEE-PHYS/OCT 88 1.7568 • 02390 1270878E $249. 28 01144 28485 $0.00 12/07/88 01144 28485 $0760 12/07/98 .1 1 J 1 1 10 II 12 15 19 20 21 27 23 24 20 7, 71 29 30 31 32 33 01144 28485 _ 30700-32/07/88 37 001-400-1203-4320 00221 $188.00 94-17223/17568 PERSONNEL 7PRE EM EDYMENTEXAMS VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** THE*RELIABLE CORPORATION MICROFICHE -STORAGE -CONT -590W 01447 09/2778a 001-400-4201-4305 BUILDING 00371 $188.00 07036 28486 $0.00---12/08/88---- $188.00 0.00-12/08/88-- $53. 86 • 7OFFICE-OPER SUFPCIES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R OFCR DAVID*RICKEY MEALS/FTO-COURSE 00949 1171b, $53. 86 72559000 01750 28487 353722-32/08788 001-400-2101-4312 00788 $36.25 POLICE — — 7TRAVEC-EXPENSEPDST 0$0 0 127431 708//88 *** VENDOR TOTAL************************************************4******************* R RUIZ ENGINEERING FINAL—RETENTION/ST REP. 02482 1T/03788 $36. 25 115-400-8160-4201 00037 $3,847.05 07284 2 CIP 85=160--7CONTRACT SERViCE7PRIVAT /089 �0��-i2/oe/es 34 39 .0 42 43 N U 411 44 19 51 52 53 5. 55 56 5, 59 59 60 61 97 63 6. 65 16 6, 69 69 ,0 ,5 ,6 .1 J 5J v v v v r • • • 99, 6 6 • • • e 1 DEMAND LIST FINANCE—SFA340 L2� M05AZ3EACH PAGE 0028 7 • TIME 15:23:13 FOR 12/13/88. DATE 12/08/88 ' ; PAY VENDOR NAME VND # • ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # 6 6 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC' PROJ # • ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT-UNENC 'DATE EXP 1 e 9 e 10 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $3,847.05 ;1 16 R SUSAN*SAXE—CLIFFORD,PH D 00839 001-400-1203-4320 00220 $550.00 8-1121-4 07041 28490 .6 PSYCH—TESTS/DI 1-4 11/21/88 PERSONNEL /I'HE—EMPLOYMENT EXAMS $0.00 12/08/88 7 Ie 19 I1 R SUSAN*SAXE—CLIFFORD,PH D 00839 001-400-1203-4320 .00222 $825.00 07037 28490 70 16 PSYCH—TESTSIPOt2CE/FIRE 11/17,88 PERSONNEL /PRE—EMPLOYMENT EXAMS $0700-12/08/88 }1 . 22 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,375.00 74 15 711 ' 1' • R CRAIG*SCHEYER 02602 001-210-0000-2110 02563 $175.00 59024 00036 28491 ,a WORK—GUARANTEE—REFUND3 I7B8 /DEF'U5IT5/WUHK GUARANTEE $0700 12/08/88 79 7 3 30 , *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $175,00 3� 73 33 26 31 3'. R SCHULTZ ELECTRIC, INC, 02418 001-400-8602-4201 17 00022 $3,896,30 1060 07279 28492 36 71 FINAL—RETENTION—PMT 1060 08775788 CIF -86-602 /t,ONTR CT—SERVICE/PRIVAT $0700---12/087G8-----37 7 9 38 J0 R SCHULTZ ELECTRIC, INC. 02418 001-400-8602-4201 00023 $112.00 1063 07278 28492 40 31 EMERG—EREPAIR 1063 08/23/88 CIF 86-602 /CONrRACr SERVICE/PRIVAT *0.00 12/08/88 91 3 7 61 33 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************* $4,008.30 .� 39 11 16 67 R SECRETARY OF STATE 36 02605 001-400-1131-4251 00072 $33.50 04565 28493 ,e J7 NOTARY APP/L. RIDDLEid/u1/88 CITY AirUHNEY /CUNIHACr SERVICE/GOVT 10.00 12/078— '9 31 ' so 38 *** VENDOR TOTAL**************************************iF***************************** $23..50 43 33 91 5, 47 R SENTINEL SIGNAL SYSTEMS 01025 001-400-4204-4321 00403 $300.00 07280 20494 36 43 FIRE—ALAR ■•— •• • :_ c 9 • 9 21 . 9 ECURIT *0.00 12/08/88— ' 44 31 „ *** VENDOR TOTAL*********************************************************ie********** $300.00 . 60 61 97 67 61 63 R SINCLAIR PAINT CO. 01399 001-400-4204-4309 01153 $192,18 01146 28495 64 99 MISC CHGS/NOV 88 11/.0,88 BLDG MAINr /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 12/07788 65 9 0 66 51 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $192.18 68 67 69 53• 70 94R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-2101-4306 00586 $73.82 01147 28496 77 N MISC—CHGS/NOV-88 11/10/88 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTERANCE $600 1 132/08/88 14 56 . 7' •37 76 3 J ky, .fes. 7. 4- L L L V 1• J . 1. /1 /e , CITY—UF-HERMOS4—BEACH FINANCE—SFA340 DEMAND LIST• PAGE 0029 TIME 15:23:13 FOR 12/13/88 DATE 12/08/88 1 2 , PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # .AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ 4 • ACCOUNT DESCRIPTIONAMOUNT'UNENC DATE EXP e I°, R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-2201-4309 00592 $37.43 01147 2849612 — — 9 I,. MISC-CHGS/NOV 88 11/30788— FIRE -- /MAINTENANCE—MATERIALS $0.00."_i2/09/88 *** VENDOR'TOTAL **************************•nor**************************************** $111.25 19 's 16 " • R SMITH—EMERY COMPANY 02595 115-400-8165-4201 .00009 $389.00 317771 07242 28497 I6 ,6 BIKE PATHREPAIRS177/1 1I/T178ti CIP-87=365 . /(;UNIHAC i SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 12/08/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $389.0023 22 24 t1 • R SO BAY FIRE CHIEFS ASSOC. 00786 001-400-2201-4315 00042' $150.00 05383 — —DUES/S:--WISNIEWSK1 25 26 71 22 ., _28498 I1/01.788 FIRE /MEMBERSHIP $0.00-12/08/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $150.00 • 29 30 el u 2I R SO CAL PUB LABOR REL COUNCIL 00117 001-400-1203-4316 00143 $50.0096 07040 28499 J2 71SEM 2 as REG/BLACKWOOD/SIL,ER 11/2Y/tiu PERSONNEL /IRAININ6 $0T-00---12/08/8837 *** VENDOR TOTAL************************************************4******************* $50.00 16 3$ 19 ,o 32 13R . SOURISSEAU SECURITY SYS, INC. ' • 02075 001-400-2101-4201 00325 $2,490.00 07441 28500 ,I 62 ., „ BACKGRND—INVESTIGATIONS 1172Y/t1b POLICE— J 1 26 !CONTRACT—SERVICE7PRTVAT $0706 12/08/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $2,490.00 .5 66 96 31 32 39R SOUTH BAY GLASS 00351 001-400-3103-4311 00418 $37.03 28184 07262 28501 69 50 62 40 —SAFETY—GLASSYELGIN—SWEEP-28184 TI71-6Y88 ST"MAINTENANCE 42 7AUTO--MAINTENANCE $39787---12/08/88- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** . $37.03 53 66 66 6] 45R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00118 110-300-0000-3302 24729 ' $14,379.00 07315 28502 sl se 69 --CITE CITE SURCHARGE/NOV-8 12/01788 a .e • !COURT—FINES7PARKING $0706-12/08/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL**************$***************************************************** $14,379.00 11 62 64 49 50 11 R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT 00400 110-300-0000-3302 24728 $214.00 2850366 06997 6 666 „ LOURT—CITE—BAIL 12701/8ti 66 9 9 N /COURT—FINES7PARKING $0-06-12/08/88 i9 10 71 71 f! 16 f2 . • /7 /6 ,6 i -I J J 7 „ 75 z/ ae 79 30 Jt 33 34ELEC ,6 v 3 e 39 ,a ,: 43 34 45R � • • • . , e trITY-IIF HERM05i-DEAL'Fi • FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST TIME 15:23:13 FOR 12/13/88. PAGE 0030 DATE 12/08/88 6 ; PAY VENDOR NAME VND # • ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF DESCRIPTION DATE INVC' PROD # ' ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC "DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL####*#*****#*#*#*iFit.lF.tF.1Fit#*#il.#iF4F.ri#*#it#.1F#.p.#*t(..It.IF.p#*#x.###i1.iF*il.iktb*itiF*tFit#•p.# *214.00 �o R SOUTH BAY WELDERS00018 001-400-3103-4309 00761 $13.18 MISC-CHCS/OCT-88 . -MAINTENANCE 01051 28504 16 29 =a 22 73 =� 75 :r 7B 19 30 7 34 36 37 3a 79 ,o 13 44 43 ,56 ,47 e 19 )a 55 33 33 !6 37 3B 659 e 63 1 fi3 6fi 6B a 70 71 77 73 , 1U731/88 ST 7MAINTENAN R SOUTH BAY WELDERS 00018 001-400-3104-4309 .00111 $68.36 —MI SC CHGSIOCT 88 $0.00 2/07/88 01051 28504 tO73i788 i RAFFIC-SAFE 1 Y IMKTIVTENANCE-i1A I tR IALS R SOUTH BAY WELDERS 00018 105-400-2601-4309 00420 $13.17 MISC-CHGSIOCT-88 $10700 T27b7798 01051 28504 10%31781:1 S I HEE I Li6HTI r • ' ' • • - $000 12707/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL *****.*.********************* ******** ********* ***************:****** • $94. 71 R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. 00159 001-400-3101-4303 00019 *19.77 ELEC-8itts1NOV-88 72730788 01152 28505 MEUTANS /UTILITIES. R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. 00159 001-400-3104-4303 00010 *547.89 ELEC-i3 I ttSYN0�88]a 1 $0-00 12708788-- 01152 28505 I /:30/uil t HAFFIC SA R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. 00159 001-400-4204-4303 00271 *6,689.30 ELEC-8I $-0-0-�-1-2708788" 01152 28505 i. -: - . :_ t(; MAIM /VIILiIiES R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON.CO. CO00159 001-400-6101-430343 00228 $828.07 BILCS1NOV-88 11730788 *0.00 1270878-0 01152 28505 PARRS /UTILITIES R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. 00159 105-400-2601-4303 00165 *281.87 ELEC-8ILLSINOV-88 $0.015-12/08/88 01152 28505 11/30/8u SIKcEI LiU R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. 00159 160-400-3102-4303 00091 *62.40 • ELEC BILLS/NOV 88 111.40/86 $0.00 12709/ 9 01152 2850551 SEWER/ST-DRAIN /OTTEITIt5 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $8,429.30 • *0.00 1270879S- 2708788— • SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. " 00170 001-400-4204-4303 00269 *464.97 —MISC CHGS/NOV 01153 28506 ,a ,e tr 88 111307bBCI3�MA ILITIES • *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************************************ai.*****i**********a.********* $464.97 $0706-12I0778862 ,f 51R • SOUTHWEST REG OCC TRNG CENTER 02295 001-400-2101-4312 00789 *223.00 5883 07433 28507 52TUITION/D—RICKEY 3 3 34 5883 11/Ib/8b .POLICE . /IHAVEC-EXPENSE , POST • • $0700---'12/08/88 Sf 3e f7 .. • • 11. s e A L• Ll L3 L✓ L. L. Lr Li L/ LJ �.i • • e . i .... .. . - .. , r T., .-in' F . 77M74-41'!" .; ... . ., C .fr n qn..n +w „rA-wnw..Np.,,.o,y.►MW J !.1 6 6• • r1 1 CITY-OF14ERM0S4-B FINANCE-SFA340 • DEMAND LIST • PAGE 0031 3 { TIME 15:23:13 FOR 12/13/88 DATE 12/08/88 , PAY' VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # ` DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT•UNENC DATE EXP 6 9 *** VENDOR TOTAL*ac*#atxfLuraaxaast*atttat*putaitar#att#tFtFat###p#to#attt######*+tx*ttitat#*at* $223.00 r 13 • 17 R SPECIALTY MAINTENANCE'CO • 00115 001-400-3103-4201 00195 $2,375.10 2309 00029 28508 SWEEPING-SERV/NOV-8b 13 . 2sU9--II730/88 ST-MAINTENANCE-7DONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 12/08/88 t7 { 16 15 ,6 R SPECIALTY MAINTENANCE CO 00115 110-400-3301-4201 00189 $2,902.90 2309 00029 28508 » 19 1a 71 SWEEPING SLRV/NOV-Bb 3U9 . II730788 VEH PKG DIST- / ONTRACT-SERVICE/PRIVAT $0700 12/08/88 1 7 ***[-.VENDOR 21 16 TOTAL****•********a•*******•************•********************************* $5,278.00 :� 19 :, 1 0 16 7, .,R; STATE OF CALIFORNIA 00364 001-400-2101-4251 00238• ` $55.50 , 863441 00023 28509 FINGERPRINT-APPS/OCT-88-63441 17 11/16/ti8 POLICE— /CONTRACT-SERVICE7GOVT $0700—i2/08/88 19 30 14 ***-'VENDOR TOTAL************************•p•******************************************* $55.50 3, 37 7, 13 16 N 77 R .STONEDGE TECH 02518 110-400-3302-5401 00022 35 19 $205.00 881024-09 06947 28510 METER -WORK -ORDER 36 3! SOWAR-2411/08788 F„RKING- TIF /EGUIP=LESS-THAN — $530 $308.8512/08/$8 22 30 3o ***r VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $205.00 0 31 41 37 42 R SUPERIOR MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 00425 001-400-2201-4309 „ l 5 00590 $21.0043 MISC-CHCS/NOV-88 01155 2851144 .6 _^0 11730788 FIRE /MAINTENANCE -MATERIALS $0.00-12/07/88 *** VENDOR J6 TOTAL******************************************************************** $21.00 �� 37 49 50 R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY 00124 001-400-6101-4309 00614 $195.72 01157 28512 MSC-CMS/NOV-8e 51 46 11/su/ats PARKS /MAINTENANCE -MATERIALS $0:00-12/07/88 f3 5{ R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY 00124 160-400-3102-4309 00323 $37.21 • 01157 28512 MISC-CHGS/NOV--88 56 ,3 11/30/eti SEWER/STDRAIN—/MATNTENANCE-MATEhtIALS $6700-12/07/88 '! 44 ,6 {, *** VENDOR TOTAL******•w************************************************************* $232.93 {6 •• {I 47 R 61 46 •I '. TOMARCO 00775 001-400-4204-4309 01157 $73.60 135768 07256 28513 REPAIR DRILL MOTOR 4, 65 49 35/68 11703788 BLDG -MAIN- /MATNTENAN $71789 12/08/88 56 ff 51 R TOMARCO 00775 001-400-8606-4201. 00048 $438.35 136144 07227 28513 DRILL -LOADS 66f!• ,7 361-44 17/087813 CIP 87-606 /CONTRACT-SERVICE-PRIIIATE $0.00-12/08/88 6f 53 6 71 5 5 ,3 51r5 • 16 U j ./ 4 J J --J J J .J A l:. L 6 • , , CI i Y OF HhNMO5A-BEACH FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST - PAGE 0032 TIME 15:23:13 FOR 12/13/88. DATE 12/08/88 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # • ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC• PROJ # ' ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT'UNENC DATE EXP R "•i° R TOMARCO 00775 160-400-3102-4309 00324 $322.91 136602 06794 28513 9 ° „ —DRILL -AND -DRILL LOADS 36602 11723/88 SEWER/ST-DRAIN-7NAINTENANCE-MATERIALS $321:20-12/08/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL ######******tt **.x•1- ** ******** #**** ***# #*#######****a•**##u•* $834.86 ,2 13 N 16 14 R TRANSAMERICA OCCIDENTAL 00240 001-400-1212-4188 .01235 $157.68 00029 28514 V IS ,6 6 " ----CITY HEALTH-INS7VAN-89 . • 2 /88 EMP BENEFITS ----/EMPLOYEE NENti-IIS $6700 12/08/88 R TRANSAMERICA OCCIDENTAL 00240 105-400-2601-4188 00640 $1.52 00029 28514 t' 22 " „ .n CITY-HEAtTH-I NS1JAN 89 12/70/88 8iPEEi LIGHTING /EMF"LUYEE BENEFITS $0700 1708/88 R TRANSAMERICA OCCIDENTAL - 00240 110-400-3301-4188 00625 - $7.05 00029 28514 :6 :6 ,q 12CITY-HEALTH 2330 :6 — 2NS/JAN-89 12710/88 VEH-PKG-DIST- /EMPLDYEE BENEFITS $0700 12708/88 R TRANSAMERICA OCCIDENTAL 00240 110-400-3302-4188 00828 $1058 00029 2851431 : a+ 25 :6 _' CITY-HEALTH-IN57JA - • -- •-RT NEF ITS $0700 12708/88 R TRANSAMERICA OCCIDENTAL 00240 145-400-3401-4188 00578 $0.94 00029 28514 J7 ll 34 36 29 '° CITY HEALTH-INS7JAN-89 1277U/t3t:i DIAL -A RIDE /EMPLOYEE BENE -Iib $0700--12/08/88 R TRANSAMERICA OCCIDENTAL 00240 145-400-3402-4188 00576 $0.38 00029 28514 76 » ]R '9 32 3 CITY-HEALTH-INS�JAN 89 14/10/88 EbEA /EMPLOYEE BENEI-ITS $0.00 12/08/88 R TRANSAMERICA OCCIDENTAL 00240 155-400-2102-4188 00275 $1.76 • 00029 28514 40 4' 6: 43 „ 36 36 CITY-HEALTH-INSYJAN-89 127T0788 CROSSING-GUARD-7EMF+LUYEE BENEFITS $0-700 ---12708/88 R TRANSAMERICA OCCIDENTAL 00240 160-400-3102-4188 00584 $3.04 00029 28514 ,6 u 36 3$ 31#** CITY- HEALTH-INSYJAN-89 . /2770788 SEWLKISF DRAIN /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0700 12708788 VENDOR TOTAL**####*####*######ar**###*#•p•*•N•####*##•p•#if##*ar##*##*###############*### $182.•95 447 8 '° 50 ;; 40 41 42 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE 00123 001-400-2201-4309 00588 $112.38 01158 28515 53 N 66 56 43MISC-CHGSYNOV-88 44 45 1T/.s0/88 FIRE /MAINTENANCE -MATERIALS $0700-12707/88 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE 00123 001-400-3103-4309 00759 $53.93 • 01158 28515 57 R ,R MISC CHCS/NOV 88 11/40/88 — MAINTENANCE7I'TAINTENANCE1IAIEKIAL5 959 0 47 41R aT $0700---12/07/88 TRIANGLE HARDWARE 00123 001-400-3104-4309 00109 $31.83 01158 28515 61 6: „ 6° %,R MISC CHGSYNOV--88 1"7730/88 TKA) -F1(: SAFE•Y /MAINFENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 12707788 TRIANGLE HARDWARE 00123 001-400-4204-4309 01147 $340.61 01158 28515 66 66 52MISC-CHCS/NOV-88 R1 54• 11/30/88 .BLDG MAIN/ . /MAINTENANCE -MATERIALS $0706 2/07/88 • • 667 6 0 :R 21 66 56 67 • • ]J If 6 S S S S S S LJ ILA • L✓ I I' •J J J J J .l ..l J V -1 L' . • • LITY-UF-HERMOSA-BEACH . 7 FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST • PAGE 0033 7 , TIME 15:23:13 FOR 12/13/88 DATE 12/08/88 , s 5 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # • CHK # 6 6 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # - ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP e 9 IU X• , R TRIANGLE HARDWARE 00123 001-400-4601-4305 00581 $12.96 01158 28515 17 MISC CHGS/NGV 88 IT/30788 COMM -RESOURCES 7DFFICE-OPER-SUPPLIES $0.00 12/07/88 11 11 ] R TRIANGLE HARDWARE 00123 001-400-6101-4309 00611 $53.67 01158 28515 .6 1 —MISC-CHCS/NOV-BB II/JU/BB • PARKS 7MJTF'TENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 12/07/88 .1 19 15 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE . 00123 001-400-8606-4309 00026 $53.20 01158 28515 70 MISC CHCS/NOV-88 11/30788--'-CIP 87=606---MAINTENANCE-MATERIALS 30:00----12/07/98------ „- . 77 . 71 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE • 00123 160-400-3102-4309 00322 $8.27 01158 28515 79 11/J /1:1111 MISC-CHGS1NOV-88 SEWER /ST-DRATN /MATNTENANCE MATERIALS $0730 12/07/88 75 19 76 70 7, 71 *** VENDOR TOTAL*******•*********•**************************4 ************************* $666. 85 28 29 30 77 71 R THE*UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS CO. 02355 001-400-1212-4188 01236 $668.95 00028 28516 17 CITY-HEALTH-INS/JAN 89 12/IO/H8 •EMP BENEFITS /EMPLOYEE 13ENEFI►S $0700----Y2/08788 13 75 „ 76 .THE*UNION 15 27R CENTRAL LIFE INS CO. 02355 105-400-2601-4188 00641 $24.68 00028 28516 16 CITY -HEALTH INSIJAN-89 i2/1078U STREET-LIGHTING%EMPEDYEE-BENEFTTS $0.00 12/09/88 1' 7/ 18 79 9 J0 THE*UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS CO. 02355 110-400-3301-4188 00626 $1.80 00028 28516 60 CITY-HEAtTH-2NST"•' =- . • =- "KG—DISI /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $07440 12/08/88 97 17 U 23 R THE*UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS CO. • 02355 110-400-3302-4188 00829 $134.73 00028 28516 99 LITY HEALTH-INS/JAN-8Y 12710788 PARKING-ENF /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 2/08/88 11 34 ,6 35 47 R THE*UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS CO. 02355 145-400-3401-4188 00579 $0.99 00028 28516 96 12/10/88 DIAL A RIDE /EMPLOYEE 1ENEFIIS CITY-HEALTH-INS/JAN 8Y 307b0 12/08/88 '" 37 50 34 SI 31R THE*UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS CO. 02355 145-400-3402-4188 00577 $0.32 00028 28516 - 57 CITY-HEALTH--INSIJAN-8Y 12/70/88 ESEA !EMPLOYEE-DENEFIIS $0.0-0-1-2/08/88 f1 43 59 41 55 42R THE*UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS CO. 02355 145-400-3403-4188 00067 $0.49 00028 28516 56 CITY HEALTH-INS/JAN-89 12/10788 BUS PASS-SUBSDY-7EMPLOYEE BENErIiS $O OO 12/08/88 57 91 59 44 . 59 45 R THE*UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS CO. • 02355 155-400-2102-4188 00276 . $2.05 -GUARD 00028 28516 65 Eh CITY-HEALTH-INS/JAN-89 12/10788 CROSSING EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00-12/08/88 61 97 67 61 SOR THE*UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS CO. 02355 160-400-3102-4188 00585 $19.20 00028 28516 6fi ElCI-TY-HEAtTR-INS1JAN-89 12/10788 SEWER7ST-DR. ' . - s' • ` 30700 12/08/88 61 66 0 *** VENDOR TOTAL*******************•*******•*•***************************************** $853.21 76 57 69 70 55 71 S.R VERNON PAVING COMPANY • 00019 • 001-400-3103-4309 00762 $117.17 01160 28517 77 SS 11/JU/US ST—MAINTENANCE-7MAINTENANCE-IIAIERIALS $0700-7-12/07/88 74 74 56 75 57 ' ' /6 I I' •J J J J J .l ..l J V -1 A Moor `.v V Its 6 , 6 16 77 7? 74R 25 „ 76 7 9 32 » 34 35 36 „ 31 59 60 41R „ 65 66 47 46 • • • , I,, • LiTY-OF HUHMOSR-DEACR FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0034 TIME 15:23:13 FOR 12/13/88. DATE 12/08/88 ; PAY VENDOR NAME VND # • ACCOUNT NUMBER ' TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC• PROJ # ' ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT'UNENC DATE EXP 6 9 12 u ,15 6 7 9 10 71 77 77 76 75 7, 76 79 30 9, 31 95 56 v ]6 09 69 U 65 66 17 48 50 5: 5] 56 56 p1 41 09 65 67 65 61 66 6, 66 65 „ ,7 ,6 7576 *** VENDOR TOTAL +r**tt**a**###n*n###u#a*$117.17 R RONALD*VOLMER 02606 001-210-0000-2110 02562 $276.77 59001 07134 28518 -GUAR -REFUND --7-------b9001 WORK 12/cJi/bu /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 12/08/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL***•u***************tr•n*******************•n***a'*****+r***************** $276.77 . R THERESA*WATTS 02600 001-210-0000-2110 02565 $100.00 64222 07132 28519 DAMAGE-DEPOSIT'REFuNL 6422a 12/01 788 J1t -■ .... v.... $0700 12/08%88 *** VENDOR TOTAL***********************************************�•**************4***** $100.00 WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY 00141 001-400-1131-4201 00438 $17.54 46938632 04567 28520 PUBt2CAT2■ __ • :: • ■-NEY /LUNIHACr SERVICE/PRIVAT $0700 12/09785- *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $17.54 R WESTERN ENGRAVING 02578 001-400-2101-4305 00861 $56.55 6822 07406 28521 ENGRAVING-SERVYPOLICE 6Hz2 1I718/88 NULiLE IUFFII;E UPJ - ■-- 28/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $56.55 R SALLY A. *WHITE 00140 001-400-4102-4201 00181 $229.50 06067 28522 SEC-SERV/NOV 15,88 11/30/88 PLANNING -COMM /CUNiHACi Stt1VICE/PRIVAT $0.00 12708788E--" *** VENDOR TOTAL**************************************iF***************************** $229.•50 JUNE*WILLIAMS 01507 001-400-1101-4317 00286 $15.00 06650 28523 MON-EXP-NOV-88 11/30/d8 • LiiY L'UUNCIL /CONFERENCE EXPENSE $0.00 12/08/88 *** VENDOR TOTAL*************************'iF***************************************** $15.00 R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-1208-4201 00501 $2.19 018716704 07318 28524 EXCESS -METE 49 50 1iR -■ - •• • .: GEN APP -2- ■. -• •• •. $0.00 12/08788-----65 XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-1208-6900 00123 $943.72 520738474 00048 . 28524 LEASE-PMT/DEC-89 S2 11,6 56 38474 1d70T781=f .GEN-APPROP /LEAbE PAYMENTS $0.00-12/07%88 .7 55 56 52 . • . h J 1 0b t) (.1 1 13 71 : ; 16 11 16 7, 33 33 32 33 34 35 35 37 36 39 40 u 42 63 44 45 67 N 61 10 31 13 13 • • A• . n CITY OF-HERMOSA-REACH • FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0035 TIME 15:23:13 FOR 12/13/88 DATE 12108/88 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF ' ,P0 # CHK # 6 DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION -AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP , ' 9 • 10 R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-1208-6900 00124 $321.08 520738959 00049 28524 12 LEASE "PMT/DEC "88 7-38959-.---7-12/0178U GEN-APPROP- —LEASE -PAYMENTS' $0.00 12/07/88 13 R XEROX CORPORATION . 00135 001-400-1208-6900 00125 4238.16 520738958 00050 28524 16 LEASE-PMT/DEC-88 ,11:19bI 127017B8 GEN-APPROP /LEASE PAYMENTS $0.00 12/07/88 1 1, 11 19 R XEROX CORPORATION • 00135 001-400-2201-6900 00059 $47.62 520738955 00053 28524 20 LEASE PMT/DEC 88 3%95b • I2701788 FIRE /LEA -SE -PAYMENTS $0.00-12/07/88 =' 22 R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-2401-6900 000215 $56.15 520738956 00051 28524 24 LEASE-PMT/DEC 88 48956 1270171313 ANIMAL CONTROC 7LEASE PAYMENTS. $0T0---12700/88 76 76 R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 001-400-4601-6900 00024 $189.21 520738957 00052 28524 26 LEASE PMT/DEC 88 48957 1270I788 COMM RESOURCES -PLEASE -PAYMENTS $0.00-12/08/88 n 30 R XEROX CORPORATION 00135 110-400-3302-6900 00107 $114.,00 520738956 00051 28524 32 LEAST7DEC-88 38956 id/01/ea PARKING ENF /LSASE-PAYMENTS $0T0-12/08/88 31 3. *** VENDOR TOTAL*********•***************•****************************************fit*** $1,912.13 36 37 31 *** PAY CODE TOTAL *********************************************.******************* $184,637,56 .0 .* { 61 *** TOTAL WARRANTS****************************************************************** $247.347.21 w 63 66 6! • 4 CLaTzI Y_INAI-THE-DE14ANDS.DR LAMS COVERED Bt—, -.0* -10-8 • THE WARRANTS LISTED ON,,,y'ES d/AyTO—INCLUSIVE OF THE e0 ., WFRRAN REGISTER FOR � %/'*( A ARE ACCURATE 31 37 tt • 0 OS A32":OlI /�,.1'tttC" Ff .�Y..1EMT'TNERfi£O• 33 55 FINANCE ADN f IIIST" AMOR 36 16TE . o v v 39 • 60 it • 67 63 66 63 66 11 61 69 • • 70 . • • 77 73 16 • • 13 76 • III •J I✓ Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council December 7, 1988 City Council Meeting of December 13, 1988 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Responsible Agent December 19, 1988 (Adjourned meeting) Audit Finance Administrator Adoption of Noise Ordinance Public Safety Director Joint meeting with Civil Service Board January 10, 1989 Proclamation - Martin Luther King, Jr. Birthday Week January 8-18, 1989 Consent Calendar Monthly Investment Report - December City Treasurer SCAG Housing Needs Assessment Planning Director Recommendation to employ Cable consultant General Services Director Review of Illegal Dwelling Unit Enforcement Procedures Building Director Aviation Boulevard traffic safety review Public Works Director Vehicle and property insurance renewal Risk Manager Public Hearings Appeal from Planning Commission denial of variance on property located at 1836 Palm Drive Planning Director January 24, 1989 Proclamation - American History Month, February, 1989 Consent Calendar • Monthly Revenue Reports Finance Director Treasurer's Report - December Report on MUC moratorium - steps being taken to correct problems referenced in ordinance 88-963 Municipal Matters Mid -year Budget Review City Treasurer Planning Director CM/ACM/Fin. ***************************************************************** Upcoming Items Not Yet Calendared Resolution listing all existing one-way streets Call for bids - Highland Avenue Bicycle path repairs, CIP 87-165 Report on problems with campaign contribution ordinance. Recreational Vehicle ordinance Development of design standards and criteria by which to review projects for EIRS Results of SCAG Santa Monica Bay Pollution Symposium Uniform Fire Code Fire Sprinkler Ordinance Ordinance amending provision against selling gasoline and alcohol at same location Public Works Director "Public Works Director Public Works Director City Clerk General Services Director "Planning Director Planning Director Public Safety Director Public Safety Director City Attorney Report on County HWMP final draft Building Director ***************************************************************** Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council December 5, 1988 City Council Meeting of December 13, 1988 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT OF INACTIVE PUBLIC_ DEPOSITS FOR HERMOSA,BEACH Attached is a report of all Inactive Public Deposits for the month of November 1988. Respectfully submitted, «Z/l / /� _ /�.Gt'C 1. Gary Brush City Treasurer NOTED: kevingNorthcraf City Manager 1d 1NST.ITU'JJ( N 4A>i F BALANCE 11/01/88 Withdrawal Withdrawal Investment Investment Balance 11/30/88 TOTAk INVESTMENT REPORT - NOVEMBER 1988 DATE_,OF_INVESTMENT DATE_ofMATURITY __INTEREST $2,220,000.00 (100,000.00) (250,000.00) 350,000.00 350,000.00 $2,570,000.00 CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT: County,Savings Bank Investment $ 100,000.00 Qalifornia Federal_S & I, Investment $ 100,000.00 First_C0ifornia Investment Long _Beach _S & L Investment $rookside S,& L Investment QalAmer3Fan Sayings Investment $ 99,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 99,000.00 $ 99,000.00 11/17/88 11/23/88 12/23/87 12/28/87 1/6/88 1/6/88 1/13/88 1/13/88 11/4/88 11/15/88 10/27/88 1 /6/89 12/30/88 1/6/89 1/6/89 1/12/89 1/12/89 8.341% 8.375% 8.15% 9.01 8.5% 8.5% 8.75% Perpetual.,Savings Investment $ 99,000.00 1/13/88 1/12/89 8.75% Pacific`Savings_Bank Investment $ 99,000.00 1/13/88 1/12/89 8.85% Beverly_Hills S & I, Investment $ 99,000.00 1/15/88 1/17/89 9.15% EoundersS &,L Investment $ 99,000.00 2/4/88 2/3/89 8.625% Westwood S,&,L Investment $ 99,000.00 2/5/88 2/3/89 8.50% utterfieU _& j. Investment $ 99,000.00 2/18/88 2/22/89 8.20% Qolden .,Gate $ank Investment $ 99,000.00 2/24/88 2/23/89 8.0% Kunt}ngton S & L Investment $ 99,000.00 2/25/88 2/24/89 7.85% olumb� &,.L Investment $ 99,000.00 3/3/88 2/27/89 7.4% Westgrn_Eederal Investment $ 400,000.00 3/31/88 3/17/89 7.75% Union,Federal S&L Investment $ 500,000.00 9/22/88 9/22/89 8.50% Union Federal __S&L Investment $ 500,000.00 10/27/88 10/1/89 8.40% CORPORATE NOTES: E9rd Motor_Credit Co,, Investment $ 500,000.00 5/19/88 5/20/93 [�errll Lynch_ & Co. Investment $ 500,000.00 6/30/88 1/2/90 Summit Bancorporation Investment $ 500,000.00 9/15/88 10/16/89 FHLMC: Fe(]eral Home Ioanr_MortgagQ,Corp. Investment Investment $ 248,733.64 $ 249,320.88 TOTAL BALANCE $2,456}04.5 Respectfully Submitted, Gary Bruts h City Trea urer 3/26/87 5/26/87 3/1/17 8/2/16 9.10% 8.35% 8.90% 8.0% 9.50% December 5, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council December 13, 1988 CONTRACT AWARD FOR SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 87-405 TARGET AREA 3 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: .1. Award the contract for Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation, CIP 87-405 to Colich and Sons (JV) for a cost not to exceed $680,845, and 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the contract. 3. Authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary within budget limitations. Background: At the September 13 1988 meeting, City Council approved the Plans and Specifications for Capital Improvement Project 87-405, and authorized staff to advertise for construction bids. This project provides for rehabilitation of more than 8,000 lineal feet of existing deteriorated sanitary sewer main at various locations and construction of certain minor storm drain facilities. (The County of Los Angeles will contribute up to $55,000 for the storm drain.) The project was advertised and on October 27, 1988 bids were received, publicly opened and read aloud by the City Clerk. A total of six (6) bids were received ranging from $618,950 to $1,083,454. (See the attached bid summary sheet). Colich and Sons (JV) submitted the low bid of $618,950. Colich & Sons has satisfactorily completed the Beach Drive Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drain project and the 6th Street Storm Drain project within the City. Analysis: The analysis is divided as follows: 1. The Bids 2. Fiscal Impact 1 1. The Bids The Plans and Specifications provided for alternative bidding of three different methods of rehabilitation (reconstruction, inversion lining, and sliplining). The Engineer's estimate for the various alternatives ranged from $785,000 for inversion lining to $1,035,000 for reconstruction. The following tabulation shows the lowest bid for each of the alternate methods. Alternate Alternate •Alternate Alternate A, Reconstruction B,. Inversion Lining C, Sliplining Lowest 'Bid $891,145 $833,048. $618,950 Sliplining, at a savings of over $200,000 from the next lowest alternative method, is recommended. Sliplining requires less digging and is less inconvenient to the public than reconstruction. A summary of all bids received tabulated by area is attached for reference. Full sets of Plans and Specifications are available for review in the Office of the City Clerk. 2. Fiscal Impact Contractor Amount Not to Exceed Bid Amount 10% Contingency Not To Exceed Amount FY 88-89 Anticipated Budgeted Expended thru Expended thru FY 88-89 12/31/88 6/30/89 Prelim. Engin. $ 0 $ 0 Design 0 10,997 Construction 900,000 0 Inspection 90,000 0 $ 0 10,997 680,845 83,021 $618,950 61,895 $680,845 Previous Year Expenditures FY 87-88 -Total Project Cost $11,264 $11,264 40,280 51,277 0 680,845 0 83,021 Subtotal 990,000 10,997 774,863 51,544 826,407 Contingency 99,000 0 77,486 0 77,486 Total $1,089,000 $10,997 $852,349 $51,544 $903,893 2 FY 88-89 Total Budgeted Amount Total Anticipated Expenditures Anticipated Under Budget $1,089,000 852,349 $ 236,651 Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. Reject all bids and drop the project. 2. Modify the scope of work. Respectfully submitted, Ant`"•ny Antich Director of Pub c Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: Unavailable for signature Viki Copeland Finance Administrator Attachments: Bid Summary Sheet Map of Work Areas Project Budget Project Schedule pwclerk cassr 3 ' Concur: evin B: Northcraft City Manager CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BID SUMMARY SHEET SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 87-405 OCTOBER 27.,1988 BID ENGINEER'S COLICH INSITUFORM MATT J CHRISTEVE MASANOVICH DRAINAGE SCHEDULE ESTIMATE BROTHERS SOUTHWEST ZAICH CORP. CONST. CONST. SCHEDULE A ALT. A $145,000 $109,630 $162,740 $186,170 ALT. B $120,000 $135,978 ALT. C $152,000 $109,419 $117,870 • SCHEDULE B ALT. A $57,000 $71,330 1109,520 $97,600 ALT. B $57,000 $50,205 ALT. C $77,000 $43,192 $87,386 SCHEDULE C ALT. A $51,000 $40,270 $29,913 $40,220 ALT. B $42,000 $53,608 ALT. C $47,000 $41,953 $29,122- SCHEDULE 29 122. SCHEDULE D ALT. A $163,000 $128,800 $92,303 $112,076 ALT. B $100,000 $112,122 ALT. C $153,000 $82,771 $101,447 SCHEDULE E ALT. A $266,000 $208,180 ALT. B $188,000 $181,145 ALT. C $273,000 $154,192 $223,972 $246,418 $290,852• SCHEDULE F ALT. A $51,000 $72,945 $52,995 $63,036 ALT. B $49,000 $83,375 ALT. C $57,000 $38,483 $80,192 SCHEDULE F -D ALT. A $49,000 $60,450 $32,515 $32,390 ALT. B $49,000 $66,675 ALT. C $49,000 $37,150 $85,155 SCHEDULE 6 ALT. A $196,000 $149,140 ' $200,830 $221,350 ALT. B $140,000 $111,510 ALT. C $137,000 $80,506 $134,960 SCHEDULE H ALT. A $57,000 $50,400 $33,720 $39,760 ALT. B $40,000 $38,430 ALT. C $42,000 $31,204 $36,874 TOTAL ALT. A $1,035,000 $891,145 $960,954 $1,083,454 ALT. B $785,000 $833,048 ALT. C $987,000 $618,950 $896,972 VAR FROM ENGR. EST. FOR ALT PROPOSED: -371 6X -141 -9X -7X 5% AREA A\ C I • _ ► 1 AREAE AREA F PROJECT NO. OP 87-405 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH r6 -7U g AREA II � AREA C. • DENOTES APPROX, TEST LOCATION PLATE A CIP 86-405 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS - TARGET AREA 3 BUDGET SCHEDULE Col 1 24 -Aug -88 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Col 5 Col 6 Col 7 EXPENDED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED PROJECT PROJECT ELEMENTS EXPENDED BUDGET THRU EXPENDED BALANCE BUDGET COST FY86-87 FY87-88 2/29/88 6/30/88 6/30/88 FY88-89 TO DATE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING • 0 0 PLANS, SPECS & ESTIMATES 0 40000 14464 51544 ,-11544 51544 CONSTRUCTION • 0 477825 0 0 477825 900000 900000 •INSPECTION 40000 0 0 40000' 90000 90000 OTHER DIRECT COSTS (VIDEO LINES) 2138 0 0 2138 0 0 SUBTOTAL 2138 557825 14464 51544 506281 990000 1043682 • CONTINGENCY 0 48000 . 0 0 48000 99000 99000 TOTAL EXPENDITURE 2138 605825 14464 51544 554281 1089000 1142682 EXPENDED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED PROJECT FUND FUNDING SOURCES EXPENDED BUDGET THRU EXPENDED BALANCE BUDGET COST NUM FY86-87 FY87-88 2/29/88 6/30/88 6/30/88 FY88-89 TO DATE 001 GENERAL FUND 0 0 SB90 0 0 SB90 Admin Reimbursement O. 0 105 STREET LIGHTING FUND i 0 0 110 PARKING FUND 0 0 115 STATE GAS TAX FUND 0 0 120 COUNTY GAS TAX FUND 0 0 • _125 PARK .FAC TAX FUND _ 0 0 130 GENERAL REVENUE SHARING 0 0 150 GRANT FUND 0 0 Federal Aid Urban 0 0 Roberti-Z'Berg 0 0 Office of Traffic Safety 0 0 160 SEWER FUND 2138 605825 14464 51544 554281 1089000 1142682 UNFUNDED 0 0 TOTAL FUNDING 2138 605825 14464 51544 554281 1089000 1142682 ZERO CHECK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE PROJECT NAME : Target Area 3 - CIP 87-405 ACCOUNT NUMBER : LEGEND TENTATIVE SCHEDULE : onleommum ACTUAL SCHEDULE : X : 100% COMPLETE I I I I I TASKS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEG Final design approval before advertising I I -1 1111,; for construction II Prepare advertisement & set' bid.openingl 1 111 date - 1 1• 1 Advertising period (issue addendums as necessary) Accept sealed bids & public bid opening Review bids Award contract Sign contract (bonds,insurance & workers comp. cert.) Preconstruction meeting procedure • Issue "Notice to Proceed" Construction Period Monitor progress & maintain records Progress payment and change order procedure Acceptance of work as complete 'Issusing and recording a "Notice of Completion" Retention Payment Project close out I I I 1111111, 1 1 1 111.1 I 111 1111. 11 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111J 1 I 1 11 l I 1 uinnnuiununIinnnnnunun 111111111111111111111111111111111111,11,, 1 1 I 1 I I 1 •�I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ii, 1 .1 1 1 1 I 1 111 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1111111111111111.111111111 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 30, 1988 Regular Meeting of December 13, 1988 AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS, TARGET AREA 3, CIP 87-405 Recommendation: It is recommended that City -Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement with James M. Montgomery for contract. administration and•inspection services at a cost not to exceed $83,021. • 2: Authorize staff to issue addenda as•necessary within budget limitations. Background: On September 13, 1988 City Council authorized staff to advertise for construction bids for Sanitary Sewer Improvements, Target Area 3, CIP 87-405. The project provides for rehabilitation of• more than 8,000 lineal feet of existing deteriorated sanitary sewer main at various locations and construction of certain minor storm drain facilities. The County of Los Angeles will contribute up to $55,000 for the storm drain. Analysis: This section is divided as follows: 1. The Firms and Their Cost 2. Decision Analysis 3. Weighing Benefits vs Consequences 4. References 5. Summary 6. Fiscal Impact 1. The Firms and Their Cost All proposals are in the City Clerk's office and are for review. Each firm was interviewed by the Department of Public staff. Below is a brief description of each firm. A. ASL $45,800 The firm has been involved in the design and construction of sewer mains in Southern California for over 40 years. ASL provided inspection and contract administration services for the construction of approximately 4,000 lineal feet of sanitary sewer for Target Area 2, CIP 85-401, 402 and 403. The firm designed 7,300 lineal feet of sewers for Target Areas 1 and Beach Drive. 'The available Works - 1 - If project manager has eight years of experience in the design of sewers. The three proposed inspectors have from 13 to 27 years experience in design and inspection of civil engineering projects. Each inspector has inspected at least two sewer projects. B. Harris & Associates $55,116 The firm has 24 years of experience in the design and construction of sewer projects. Harris & Associates designed approximately 8,000 lineal feet of sanitary sewer for Target Area 4, CIR 87-405 (the project to be inspected). The project manager has been involved in public works management for 15 years, serving three California Cities as Director of Public Works and City Engineer. The proposed inspector has 32 years of experience in construction including inspection of sewer projects. C. James M. Montgomery $75,472 The firm has designed sanitary sewers for 44 years. The project manager has 12 years of experience in construction management, design of pipelines, wastewater treatment plants and field studies. The proposed inspector has over 18 years of experience in design, contract administration, construction and field office management, testing and inspection and plant operation on water, wastewater and energy recovery projects. 2. Decision Analysis A decision analysis method was used for selecting a consultant. This method consists of the following procedures: 1. Identifying desirable needs or "wants" 2. Defining the "wants" 3. Using a priority matrix to establish a relative order of importance of each of the "wants" 4. Using a decision analysis worksheet to determine a tentative choice 5. Consider the adverse consequences of the tentative choice 6. Make a final recommendation The following "wants" were identified, in order of importance: 1. Reference 2. Inspector's Related Experience 3. Project Manager's Related Experience 4. Probable Level of Service 5. Firm's Contract Administration Resources 6. Cost 2 The three firms were ranked as follows: 1. James M. Montgomery 2. Harris & Associates 3. ASL Consulting Engineers Tentative Score Choice 93.0 First 86.2 Second 78.6 Third The maximum possible score is 100 points. The complete decision analysis is available for review in the. Public Works Department. 3. Weighing Benefits vs Consequences Bidding (considering cost only) for engineering services often produces unsatisfactory results for the City. •Several reasons are: Bidding does not recognize professional judgement which is the key difference between professional services and the furnishing of products. - In order to be competitivethe firm selected based on lowest cost will as a matter of economic survival apply routine solutions and provide only minimum service necessary to perform within the bid price. When comparing the benefits vs consequences it becomes clearer which firm is the best forthis project. Firm: ASL Reasons to Choose: Adverse Consequences: Firm: Harris & Associates Reasons to Choose: Adverse Consequences: Firm: James M. Montgomery Reasons to Choose: Lowest cost Good track record with City Least qualified Lack of confidence in inspector Lower cost Designed plans & specs Good track record with City Inspector wasn't at the interview (he was at another job site) However staff did interview the project engineer. Most qualified Highest confidence level in inspector Higher level of organization Have established written procedures for construction management 3 Adverse Consequences: Highest cost No track record with City 4. References Staff contacted other cities which have used the three firms for inspection and contract administration services on similar projects. All three firms had good references. 5. Summary ASL is not sufficiently qualified to inspect this work and Harris is not as qualified as Montgomery. James M. Montgomery is the most qualified firm to perform the work. The higher cost is outweighed by the benefits gained by a more qualified firm. 6. Fiscal Impact Contract Amount Not To Exceed: Proposed Amount $75,474 Contingency 7,547 Not To Exceed Amount $83,021 Amount Budgeted $90,000' The contract is approximately $7,000 under budget. Alternatives: Another alternative available to City Council and considered by staff: 1. Award the consultant agreement to Harris & Associates. Respectfully submitted: Brian Gengler Concur: Ant "ony Antich Assistant Engineer Director of Pu►lic Works Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Noted for Fiscal Impact: Nat Available For signature Viki Copeland Finance Administrator Attachments: Project Budget Project Schedule sansew pwlcerk 4 CIP 86-405 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS - TARGET AREA 3 BUDGET SCHEDULE Col 1 24 -Aug -88 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Col 5 Col 6 Col 7 EXPENDED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED PROJECT PROJECT ELEMENTS EXPENDED BUDGET THRU 'EXPENDED • BALANCE BUDGET COST FY86-87 FY87-88 2/29/88 6/30/88 6/30/88 FY88-89 TO DATE I I • I I I I I PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING 0 0 PLANS, SPECS & ESTIMATES 0 40000 14464 51544 —11544 51544 CONSTRUCTION 0 477825 0 0 477825 900000 900000 • INSPECTION 40000 0 0 40000 90000 90000 OTHER DIRECT COSTS (VIDEO LINES) 2138 0 0 2138 0 0 SUBTOTAL 2138 557825 14464 51544 506281 990000 1043682 • CONTINGENCY 0 48000 0 0 48000 99000 99000 TOTAL EXPENDITURE 2138 605825' 14464 51544 554281 1089000 1142682 EXPENDED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED PROJECT FUND FUNDING SOURCES EXPENDED BUDGET THRU EXPENDED BALANCE BUDGET COST NUM FY86-87 FY87-88 2/29/88 6/30/88 6/30/88 FY88-89 TO DATE I I I 1 1 1 1 I 001 GENERAL FUND 0 0 SB90 0 0 SB90 Admin Reimbursement 0. 0 105 STREET LIGHTING FUND 0 0 110 PARKING FUND 0 0 115 STATE GAS TAX FUND 0 0 120 COUNTY GAS TAX FUND 0 0 • _125 PARK FAC TAX FUND - 0 0 130 GENERAL REVENUE SHARING 0 0 150 GRANT FUND 0 0 Federal Aid Urban 0 0 Roberti-Z'Berg 0 0 Office of Traffic Safety 0 0 160 SEWER FUND 2138 60582514464 51544 554281 1089000 1142682 UNFUNDED 0 0 TOTAL FUNDING 2138 605825 14464 51544 554281 1089000 1142682 ZERO CHECK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE PROJECT NAME : Target Area 3 - CIP 87-405 ACCOUNT NUMBER : LEGEND TENTATIVE SCHEDULE : immummons ACTUAL SCHEDULE : X : 100% COMPLETE TASKS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC I I I I I I-. I Final design approval before advertising 111111 for construction gi I I I I Prepare advertisement & set bid opening 11111 date Advertising period (issue addendums as necessary) 1 Accept sealed bids & public bid opening Review bids Award contract Sign contract (bonds,insurance & workers comp. cert.) Preconstruction meeting procedure Issue "Notice to Proceed" Construction Period Monitor progress & maintain records Progress payment and change order procedure Acceptance of work as complete •Issusing and recording a "Notice of Completion" Retention Payment Project close out 1 1 1 I I I 1 II 11111111111111111611111111111111111111 I 11i11111111111111111111 11111111111111111 1 1111111; 1 1— 1 Il 1• 1 1 I 1 I 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 1 1 1 1111 I- ----I 1 1 1 1 1 I 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 11116111111111111111111111 1 December 5, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council December 13, 1988 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE COMMUTER TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (CTIP) INITIATED BY: HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the subject Memorandum of Understanding. Note: The City has previously approved participation in CTIP. This is simply a revised contract to the program. It should be also noted that CTIP is considerably less expensive than the previous HERMAN system. BACKGROUND HISTORY In late 1986, discussions were held between the Cities of Hermosa Beach, Rancho Palos Verdes, and the Los Angeles Transportation Commission to address the unmet transportation needs of South Bay commuters traveling to local aerospace employment centers. These discussions resulted in a request for a study. A contract for the study, known as, The Commuter Transportation Implementation Plan (CTIP) was awarded in August 1987, to Ekistic Transportation Systems. The study was sponsored by the -Cities of Hermosa Beach, Rancho Palos Verdes, Torrance, El Segundo, Lawndale, Los Angeles, and by the Los Angeles Transporation Commission. A Cities Staff Task Force was created, comprised of represenatives from each member city, to monitor the consultant and study the issues which arose as the study progressed. Following review of the final report issued by Ekistic Consulting Firm, the task force members choose to support Alternative #2. Alternative #2, implements three of the eventual fourteen routes. (Exhibit B outlines the proposed routes). One route travels from the beach cities, one from San Pedro, and one from the Peninsula. All routes lead to the El Segundo employment center. The service will utilize eighteen vehicles (six per line). CITY PARTICIPATION 1 1g We are now at the stage of obtaining Council approval for a Memorandum of Understanding between the Cities of Torrance (lead agency), El Segundo, Hermosa Beach, Lawndale, Lomita, Los Angeles, Manhattan Beach, Rolling Hills Estates, and Ranchos Palos Verdes. The Cities of Torrance, Rancho Palos Verde, Manhattan Beach, Rolling Hills Estates, and El Segundo have already approved this MOU. Note, Redondo Beach City Council has endorsed the participation in the Commuter Transportation Plan. They shall be added to the membership once the MOU is adopted by all the original cities. FUNDING Funding for the operation of the Commuter Service is shared between member cities and LACTC (see Exhibit C). The Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) has expressed interest in this unique project and the LACTC has submitted an application for a grant which cover seventy-five percent (757) of the costs of purchasing the CTIP vehicles. Additionally, funding for start-up marketing costs are anticipated from UMTA throught SCAG for a public/private partnership project. LEAD AGENCY The City of Rancho Palos Verdes acted as lead agency until recently when liability became an issue of great concern to the member cities. At that time, the Torrance Councilmembers felt that their City should assume the role as lead agency since they in fact, are a local municipal operator and have a Department of Transporation equipped to deal with UMTA reporting and maintenance matters, etc. Further, and most importantly, the City of Torrance is willing to assume liability under a hold harmless clause in the agreement (Section 10 of MOU). Rancho Palos Verdes was unable to match such a liability clause. ANALYSIS Staff is recommending the City Council approve a MOU for the Commuter Implementation Plan based on the following data: - Hermosa Beach residents represent 6.97 or 2,759 of •the total number of South Bay residents employed in the El Segundo employment center. - Of the 12,000 employee surveys returned to the CTIP consultant, 6% (720) were residents of Hermosa Beach. The majority of the respondents indicated that they would use the commuter bus all or part of the time. (ridership is expected to grow as the service establishes itself) 2 In addition to the information above which indicates there is need for a commuter service, the proposed funding for this program is favorable. Hermosa Beach has been awarded ;$45,735 by LACTC for CTIP. Therefore, only Proposition A funds shall be used in supporting this program. No general fund monies will be used for the operation of this service. CONqUR: A Michael Schubac Planning Director Kevin B. North,craft City Manager ATTACHMENTS 1. Memorandum of Understanding for Implementation Plan (CTIP) 2. Exhibit A, B, C, & D 3 Respectfully submitted, Alex Hernandez Assistant Planner NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: Vicki Copeland Finance Administrator Commuter Transportation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 '•9 10 11. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 2 26 28 RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE COMMUTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held a meeting on this matter and made the following Findings: A. The City of Hermosa Beach is desirous of providing a commuter service for its residents to 'the El Segundo Aerospace employment center; B. The proposed Commuter Transportation Plan will utilize LACTC Proposition A funds. No general fund monies will be allocated to support this program; •• C. The City of Hermosa Beach acknowledges that this will be a unique services that shall benefit its residents and residents of other South Bay communities. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY APPROVE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING THAT WILL ENDORSE THE COMMUTER TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (CTIP). PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: A CITY LERK PROVED A: TI FOR 11"-124 TY ATTORNEY 1 AGREEMENT FOR REGIONAL COMMUTER BUS SYSTEM THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 1988, by and between the City of Torrance (hereinafter referred to as "Lead Agency") and the City of El Segundo, the City of Hermosa Beach, the City of Lawndale, the City of Lomita, the City of Los Angeles, the City of Manhattan Beach, the City of Rolling Hills Estates; the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, (hereinafter referred to as "Cities"). WHEREAS, Lead Agency and Cities are located in the South Bay area of Los Angeles County, a region which has experienced an increase in peak -hour traffic and a reduction in regional mass transit; and WHEREAS, the Cities have previously jointly funded a commuter transportation implementation study to address the lack of commuter transit service to and within the South Bay aerospace employment center; and WHEREAS, the Cities identified and selected a viable transit service program (hereinafter referred to as "SERVICE"), a copy of which program is attached hereto as Exhibit A, in an effort to meet, at least, a portion of the transit requirements in the region; and 1 WHEREAS, the Cities recognize the potential cost savings and increased transit efficiency of providing a network of commuter transportation services in the South Bay by coordinating transit services-, administration and marketing; and WHEREAS, each City is willing to fund its present share of the cost of the SERVICE using each City's Proposition A Local Return Funds; and WHEREAS, the operation of this joint program is eligible for a subsidy (hereinafter referred to as "SUBSIDY") to partially defer the administrative, marketing and operating costs of the service; and WHEREAS, additional funding from the United States Government is being sought to defray the costs of marketing the SERVICE for the first year and to finance seventy-five percent (75%) of the cost of vehicles for SERVICE. NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereto agree as follows: Section 1. Administration of SERVICE The Lead Agency shall implement and administer the SERVICE. 2 Section 2. Term of Agreement A. This agreement shall be effective as of , 1988 and shall expire three years following the date SERVICE is initially provided, unless the Agreement is sooner terminated as provided in Sections twelve (12) and fourteen (14). This agreement may be extended upon the consent of all parties. Section 3. Organization A. Policy for the SERVICE shall be set by a policy steering committee ("PSC'). The Lead Agency and each City shall have the right to appoint either its Mayor, or one member of its City Council to the PSC.' Each member of the PSC shall have one vote. The Lead Agency and each City shall also appoint an alternate member who shall be its Mayor, a member of its City Council or a permanent deputy to the Council member representative. The alternate shall have all of the powers and duties of the regular member at any PSC meeting which the regular member does not attend. Regular and alternate members shall serve at the pleasure of their City and until their successors are appointed and qualified. Each City shall notify the City Manager of the Lead Agency of its appointees and of any change thereof. (1). The PSC shall set policy for the SERVICE on the following: (a) Fares (b) Route Structure (c) Award of Contracts (d) Time Span of Service (e) Annual Operating Budget (f) Participant City Funding Shares (g) Lease or Purchase of Vehicles (h) Name and Logo for Service (i) Increase or Decrease in Scope of Overall Service (j) Authorization of Funding Applications B. All decisions of the PSC shall be made by a majority. vote of all cities represented on the PSC except as otherwise provided in this agreement. C. Technical assistance shall be'provided to PSC by a city -staff task force ("CSTF"). The Lead Agency and each City shall have the right to appoint one city staff member to the CSTF. Section 4. Provision of SERVICE The Lead Agency shall provide SERVICE as described in Exhibits A and B. Changes to SERVICE may only be implemented by the PSC. Section 5. Fares The PSC shall establish fares for patrons utilizing the SERVICE. Changes in fares may be made by the PSC. The fare revenues shall be utilized by the Lead Agency to defray the expense of operating the SERVICE. 4 Section 6. Operating Funds and Payment for Service To initially fund SERVICE, each City agrees to pay to the Lead Agency the sums listed on Exhibit C. Interest earned on these payments shall be applied toward any operating or capital costs incurred in providing service. For all subsequent years Cities shall pay to the Lead Agency the amounts determined by the PSC which are sufficient to fund each City's annual proportionate share of SERVICE. Each City shall pay to the Lead Agency quarterly, in advance, upon receipt of an itemized' billing from the Lead Agency, each City's share of the estimated total costs for the following quarter less any anticipated unexpended funds from the previous quarter. The sums tb be paid by each City shall be based on the percentage shares listed in Exhibit D. The Lead Agency shall deduct each month from said funds an amount equal to the estimated costs of the program for the following month, including all administrative charges incurred by the Lead Agency. The costs of operating the program shall be net of any fare revenue and SUBSIDY to be received during that quarter. In addition, each City agrees to pay the Lead Agency any additional funds as authorized by the PSC which might be required to provide service during any quarter should the costs be greater than anticipated, provided, however that such additional funds shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of the amount shown in Exhibit C in any one year. All billings shall be paid by each City within thirty (30) days of receipt. 5 Section 7. Permits and Licenses The Lead Agency shall secure and maintain all permits and licenses required by law for the provision of SERVICE. Section 8. Marketing The Lead Agency shall prepare a Request for Proposals for a private entity to provide marketing of the SERVICE. The Lead Agency shall enter into an agreement with the respondent approved by the PSC. All costs for said marketing. shall be considered as a portion of'the costs for purposes of this agreement. Marketing costs shall not exceed One Hundred and Forty Thousand Dollars. ($140,000) for the' first year. 'Any additional sums expended for marketing during the second and third years of this agreement shall be incurred only if approved in advance by the PSC. Section 9. SERVICE. The Lead Agency shall prepare a Request for Proposals for a private entity to provide the SERVICE. The Lead Agency shall enter into an agreement with the respondent approved by the PSC. Section 10. Liability A. Lead Agency hereby agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend each City for any claim, legal action or liability arising out of this Agreement. 6 B. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection A, each City hereby agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend Lead Agency for any claim, legal action or liability arising out this agreement and/or related to the condition of that City's streets, sidewalks or other public improvements. C. The PSC shall attempt to obtain excess liability insurance. The cost of said insurance shall be considered as a portion of the costs for purposes of this agreement. Section 11. Insurance A. The Lead Agency shall require the contractor providing the SERVICE to obtain and maintain'in force at all 'times during the term of the agreement with the contractor commercial general liability and property damage insurance in amounts of not less than ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00) for injury or death arising out of any one incident; three million dollars ($3,000,000.00) for injury or death to any one person; and one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) for property damage. Thecontractorshall also obtain automobile insurance including collision and comprehensive vehicular liability insurance coverage for all vehicles used to provide the SERVICE in amounts of not less than ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00) for injury or death arising out of any one accident; three million dollars ($3,000,000.00) for injury or death to any one person; and one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) for property damage. 7 B. Certificate of Insurance. The Lead Agency in its agreement with the Contractor shall require the Contractor to provide to Lead Agency and Cities, certificates of insurance and a signed agreement form evidencing compliance with subsection A above not less than ten (10) days prior to the commencement of SERVICE under the agreement with the Contractor. Said certificates shall name Lead Agency and each City and their respective officers, employees and agents, as additional insureds. Each policy shall provide that it may not be cancelled or reduced in coverage without sixty (60) days written notice to Lead Agency and each City.• C. Workers' Compensation Insurance. Throughout the term of this Agreement, the Contractor will be required to obtain and maintain workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance as required by the laws of the State of California. A certificate evidencing such insurance coverage shall be filed with Lead Agency and Cities not less than ten (10) days prior to commencement of services hereunder. D. The insurance provisions of this section shall only be changed by the agreement of both the Lead Agency and the PSC. Section 12. Failure to Provide Insurance Failure on the part of the Contractor to maintain the required insurance shall constitute grounds for any party to terminate this agreement. No such termination initiated by a City may occur until the City has given the Lead Agency 8 fourteen (14) calendar days written notice of its intention to so do and the contractor has failed to obtain the insurance during this time. Section 13. Independent Contractor Status No employee of the Lead Agency or any City shall become an employee or officer of the other or any other party to this agreement by virtue of entering into this agreement, and this agreement shall not create the relationship of agent, servant, employee, partnership, or joint venture between the parties. No employee or contractor of the Lead Agency will be considered an employee of any City for purposes of' workers' compensation liability. Each City shall bear full responsibility for furnishing workers' compensation benefits to any of its employees for injuries arising from or connected with activities performed by said employee pursuant to this agreement. Section 14. Termination of Agreement A. In addition to the grounds of termination provided in Section twelve (12), this agreement may be terminated by any party giving written notice to the Lead Agency and the PSC of such intent to terminate ninety (90) days prior to the anniversary date of the commencement of SERVICE with the provider of SERVICE. Within thirty (30) days after such notice is received by the PSC, the PSC shall meet and determine whether to terminate SERVICE or re -apportion the respective share of any city terminating participationin this program. In the event the PSC determines to terminate service, the Lead 9 Agency shall terminate all agreements with its contractors. All Parties participating in this program shall be responsible for all costs resulting from termination including the costs resulting from termination of the contractor agreements. B. Any City may terminate its participation in this agreement prior to the execution of an agreement with the provider of SERVICE. Said City shall be responsible for its proportionate share of the costs incurred prior to termination. Within thirty (30) days after such notice is received by the PSC, the PSC shall meet and determine whether to terminate SERVICE or re -apportion the respective share of any city terminating participation in this program. In the event the PSC determines to terminate service, the Lead Agency shall terminate all agreements with its contractors. All Parties participating in this program shall be responsible for all costs resulting from termination. C. This Agreement may also be terminated at any time by agreement of the PSC. In the event the PSC determines to terminate SERVICE, the Lead Agency shall terminate all agreements with its contractors. All parties participating in this program shall be responsible for all costs resulting from termination including the costs resulting from termination of the Contractor Agreements. D. Each Party shall be responsible for its respective share of the termination costs as provided in Exhibit D. In the event the costs of termination are less than the sums held by the Lead Agency, the Lead Agency shall remit, within thirty (30) days after all termination costs have been paid, each City's proportionate share of the remaining balance. Section 15. Inability to Perform The Lead Agency will not be required to administer or provide SERVICE during the time and to the extent that it is prevented from performing by acts of God, fire, strike, loss of transportation facilities, loss of funding, lockout, commandeering of materials, products, plants, or facilities by the federal government or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of the Lead Agency. Section 16. Record Keeping, Reporting and Auditing The Lead Agency will provide access to all records in its possession relating to SERVICE during normal working hours of City. The Lead Agency shall keep records of all operating costs of SERVICE in accordance with generally acceptable accounting procedures and in accordance with the requirements of any entity providing a SUBSIDY. The Lead Agency shall retain all records for a minimum of five (5) years following the close of that fiscal year. At any time a City at its own expense may conduct an audit of the Lead Agency regarding the SERVICE. If such audit finds that the costs of operating the SERVICE are less than previously indicated by the Lead Agency and Lead Agency agrees with the results of said audit, the'City agrees that the difference' may, in the sole discretion of the Lead Agency, be: 1. repaid forthwith by the Lead Agency to the Cities in the proportionate shares provided in Exhibit D or 2. credited against any future payments owed hereunder to the Lead Agency. If such audit finds that the costs of operating the program are greater than payments made by the City then the difference shall be paid to the Lead Agency by the Cities based upon each City's proportionate share. Section 17. Vehicles. The Lead Agency shall cause to be supplied sufficient and adequate vehicles, including backup vehicles, to insure that SERVICE is provided on an uninterrupted basis. All equipment and facilities shall meet all requirements of applicable federal, State and local ordinances and laws. Section 18. Notices A. Notices required to be given pursuant to this agreement shall be given by enclosing the same in a sealed envelope addressed to the party for whom intended and by depositing such envelope with postage prepaid for delivery by Certified Mail in the United States Mail. 12 1. Any such notice and the envelope containing same shall be addressed to Lead Agency at the following address: City of Torrance Office of the City Manager 3031 Torrance Blvd Torrance, CA 90503 2. Any such notice containing same to each city shall be addressed as follows: City of El Segundo Office of the City Manager 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 City of Lawndale Office of the City Administrator 14717 Burin Avenue Lawndale, CA 90260 City of Los Angeles Office of the General Mgr. of the Dept. of Transportation 200 North Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 City of Rolling Hills Est. Office of the City Manager 4045 Palos Verdes Dr. No. Rolling Hills Est., CA 90274 13 City of Hermosa Beach Office of City Manager 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 City of Lomita Office of the City Administrator 24300 Narbonne Avenue Lomita, CA 90717 City of Manhattan Beach Office of the City Manager 1400 Highland Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Office of the City, Manager 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 Section 19. New Parties The PSC can accept new Cities, or the County of Los Angeles, as participants in the SERVICE. In such event, the Lead Agency shall enter into an agreement with said entity providing said entity with the same rights and obligations of each other participating City. The PSC shall determine the percentage contribution required of said entity and the obligation of each signatory to this agreement reflected in Exhibit D shall be proportionately diluted to reflect the percentage allocated to the new entity. Section 20. Applicable Law This Agreement is made under, governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. It may be executed in multiple counterparts. // // // // // 14 EXHIBIT A CTIP SERVICE Requirements Operating hours of SERVICE shall be during peak -hours within two service windows of approximately 6 -'8AM and 4 - 6PM, five (5) days a week,.Monday through Friday. SERVICE will not operate on the following six major holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Indep- endence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and.the day.after, and Christmas Day. SERVICE will be provided on three routes as identified.in Exhibit B. Service shall be open to the general public and provided as a com- muter bus. Patrons will be picked up only northbound and discharged only southbound at designated stops. In addition, unrestricted boarding and alighting will be allowed at three (3) stops on each line approved by the Policy Steering Committee.' At the employment center, patrons will be discharged and picked up in the opposite direction. Frequency shall be every 20 minutes to and from the El Segundo employment center. Equipment operated on service shall be 18 medium size transit coaches (under 30 feet) with commuter style amenities i.e.,.high back seating, lighting, overhead compartment, etc. Each vehicle shall be lift -equipped and have one wheelchair tie down. Three back-up vehicles shall be provided. These shall be identical to the other 18 coaches. SERVICE shall also include a sweeper bus on each route to accom- modate employees working overtime. A fare structure, including monthly or•discount passes established by a majority of the CTIP Policy Steering Committee shall be charged. SERVICE may be adjusted or expanded on a majority vote of the CTIP Policy Steering Committee. SERVICE Area SERVICE shall be provided in the South Bay as identified on the attached map (APPENDIX B), and shall include additional service as approved from time to time by the CTIP Policy Steering Committee. • ALTERNATIVE 2 BUS ROUTES Iu1111AL NUT IL SG1hMUp Kew • \\......... +1m It tout 11wt Figure 4 19 LEGEND emelt1 ••••••••••• 1011116 """'•••••. 10111 EXHIBIT C CTIP Budget FY 1988-89 Local City Funding Amounts FY 1988-89 El Segundo • $ $ 31,710 Hermosa Beach 28,737 Lawndale 9,909 Lomita 10,240 Los Angeles 80,596 Manhattan Beach 25,104 Rancho Palos Verdes 48,226 Rolling Hills Estates 15,194 Torrance 80,596 Total $330,312 EXHIBIT D CTIP Budget Local Cities Shares - By,Percentage - 9 Cities Share El Segundo .096 Hermosa Beach . ,087 Lawndale .030 Lomita .031 Los Angeles .244 . Manhattan Beach .076 Rancho Palos Verdes .146 Rolling Hills Estates .046 Torrance .244 1.000 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: FINAL MAP #46950 (C.U.P. CON NO. LOCATION: 442-504 HERMOSA AVENUE APPLICANT: STEVEN STAPAKIS REQUEST: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP FOR 6 -UNIT December 5, 1988 Regular Meeting of December 13, 1988 87-8) CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Tract Map #46950 which is con- sistent with the approved Tentative Parcel Map, and recommends the City Clerk be directed to endorse the certificate for said map. Background The Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map #18932 at their October 6, 1987 meeting. However, after. review of the map by -the Los Angeles County Public Works Department, it was deter- mined that a tract map is required for the proposed subdivision rather than a parcel map. Therefore, the map has been changed from a parcel map to a tract map. The maps are identical except a new tract map number has been issued. Analysis The staff has reviewed the Final Map and found it substantially consistent with the Tentative Parcel Map approved by the Planning Commission and in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act. CONCUR:, Michael Schubach Planning Director Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager T/srfinmap Resp ul s .mitted, A I Andrew '.er-. Associate P anner lh 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. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF. FINAL TRACT MAP #46950 FOR A SIX -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 442-504 HERMOSA AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on December 13, 1988 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. 87-55, adop- ted after public hearing on Octobe 6, 1987, however, the original approval was for Tentative Parcel Map #18932. Said map is in substantial conformance to Final Map #46950; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City •of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 1 2 3 4 6 8 .0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 . 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 Tract Map #46950 in the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, being a Subdivision of Lots 6 & 7, Block 38, First Addition to Hermo- sa Beach Tract, as recorded in Book 1, Pages 59 & 60 of Maps, in the Office of the Recorder of Los Angeles, for a two -unit condominium project on land commonly known as 442-504 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermo- sa Beach, California. ATTEST: T/rsfinmap ITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY December 5, 1988 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the Regular Meeting of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL December 13, 1988 SUBJECT: FINAL MAP #19588 (C.U.P. CON NO. 88-8) LOCATION: 1061 LOMA DRIVE APPLICANT: OLGUIN & RUTHERFORD DEVELOPMENT REQUEST: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP FOR 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Parcel Map #19588 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 #19588 at their May 17, 1988 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. CON : �� i r/ .lam Mi a Schubach Planning Director Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager T/srfinmap Respetted, Andr- Perea Associate P1. ner 1i 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. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #19588 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1061 LOMA DRIVE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on December 13, 1988 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. 88-40, adop- ted after public hearing on May 17, 1988. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 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 #19588 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 in the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, being a Subdivision of the Southerly 30 feet of Lot 3, Block 2, Hiss' Second Addition to Hermosa Beach, as recorded in Book 7, Page 123 of Maps, in the Office of the Recorder of Los Angeles, for a two -unit condominium project on land commonly known as 1061 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermo- sa Beach, California. ATTEST: PPROVED A,5 TO FORM: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 'ynti�!1 T/rsfinal • CITY CLERK • CITATTORNEY 2 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: FINAL MAP #19757 (C.U.P. CON NO. LOCATION: 1057 LOMA DRIVE APPLICANT: OLGUIN & RUTHERFORD DEVELOPMENT REQUEST: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP FOR 2 -UNIT December 5, 1988 Regular Meeting of December 13, 1988 88-10) CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final .Parcel Map #197.57 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 #19757 at their June 21, 1988 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. CONC Michael'ASchGbach Planning Director evin B. Northcr`aft City Manager r• T/srfinmap Respely - •witted, Andrew 'erea Associate P1;nner 11 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. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP #19757 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1057 LOMA DRIVE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on December 13, 1988 and made the following Findings: A. This project will not violate any 'of the provisions of Sections 66427.1,#66474, 664.74.1, 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 (commencfng 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. 88-48, adop- ted after public hearing on June 21, 1988. ' NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 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 #19757 in the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, being a Subdivision of the Northerly 30 feet of Lot 4, Block 2, Hiss' 1 Second Addition to Hermosa Beach, as recorded in Book 7, Pages 123 of Maps, in the Office of the Recorder of Los An - 2 geles, for a two -unit condominium project on land commonly known as 1057 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 4 1988. 3 5 PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermo- sa Beach, California. 7 ATTEST: 8 CITY CLERK PROVED AS m F M 11 1 13 14 15 16 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 T/rsfinmap CITY ATTORNEY 2 • December 1, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council December 13, 1988 REQUEST FOR 4 -WAY STOP AT LONGFELLOW/TENNYSON PLACE AND NO PARKING ZONE (RED CURB) ON WEST SIDE OF TENNYSON PLACE Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 88- approving the installation of two additional stop signs on Longfellow Avenue at Tennyson Place to create a four-way stop at this intersection. Background: Mr. Butch Kuflak of 666 Longfellow Avenue submitted two petitions to the City (copies attached). The first 'requests a four-way stop at Longfellow Avenue and Tennyson Place. The second request is for red curb on the west side of Tennyson Place, between Longfellow Avenue and Boundary Place. The traffic engineer studied the intersection and street and a copy of his report is available for review in the Office of the City Clerk. Analysis: This analysis is divided as follows: a. 4 -Way Stop Request b. Red Curb Request c. Fiscal Impact a. 4 -Way Stop Request Sight distance for emerging Tennyson Place drivers is restricted at Longfellow Avenue in part due to curb parking and the geometric design of Longfellow Avenue. The downgrade and hill at Longfellow Avenue makes it difficult to emerge from the Tennyson Place cross street. School children are encouraged to use Longfellow Avenue (which is on the suggested route to school) as they walk to and from school. Safety considerations, rather than satisfying recognized numerical warrants, have led the traffic engineer to recommend installation of a four-way stop. b. Red Curb Request The width of Tennyson Place between Boundary Place and Longfellow Avenue is 28 feet. 1 lk Curb parking on both sides makes this in effect a one-way passage on a two-way street. The traffic engineer recommends red curb installation. Resident Survey Results: The Public Works Department surveyed 56 residents. Twelve (21.4%) responded to the survey (these are in the City Clerk's Office for review). No Response 44 78.6% In favor 7 12.5% Not in favor 5 8.9% • Total 56 100.0% It should be noted that the person most affected (i.e. the property owner on the west side of Tennyson) is strongly opposed to the red curb. Attached is a spot map showing the survey results and a sample survey form. Accident History: From January 1983 to November 30, 1988 there have been no reported accidents on Tennyson Place between Longfellow Avenue and Boundary Place. Field Survey: The Public Works Department conducted a field survey and found that a large camper is parked on the street. This camper tends to restrict sight distance. A letter has been sent to the registered owner informing them of the resident concerns. In addition, parking enforcement has been informed to monitor the area. Public Works Department Recommendation: The Public Works Department's recommendation is not to install the red curb and continue to monitor the area. c. Fiscal Impact Approximately $300 is required to perform the stop sign installation. No additional appropriation is necessary as all work can be done within formerly budgeted amounts. 2 Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. Do nothing. 2. Install red curb on Tennyson Place. 3. Request additional information. Respectfully submitted, Concur: / J i • AntIl'ony Antich j Keyin B. Northuraft Director of Public Works City Manager Attachments: Petitions Survey Results and Survey Form • Resolution No. 88- , Stop SIgn Installation cc: Joan Noon, General Services Director trafcon pwadmin 'September 15, 1988 Mt. Tony Antich Public Works Director 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254 T.r ( r'. L -Re: Traffic on Longfellow Avenue Dear Mr. Antich, We are long time Longfellow Avenue residents in Hermosa Beach and'are• deeply concerned about our street. Something needs to be done about the traffic on Longfellow with regards to: 1. the amount of traffic 2. the 'speed of the traffic 3.. the size of the vehicles 4. the total disregard for the "STOP" sign at the Morningside intersection. Considering the size of the vehicles, the speed they travel, and the high number of vehicles that travel on Longfellow Avenue, another thin messy layer of slurry is totally inadequate. This once quiet "residential" street has become a very busy, high speed thoroughfare and deserves at least a new layer of asphalt if not cement. Regarding the flagrant speeding and "Stop sign" violators, I hope and pray the Police Department, Building and Safety Department and the City Council can devise a solution to this ever increasing problem. Something has to be done, and soon, before a very serious accident occurs. Robert S. Erhart 408 Longfellow Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254 cc: Hermosa Beach Public Works Director IIermosa Beach Public Safety Director Hermosa Beach City Council Easy Reader We, the undersigned residents of Longfellow Avenue in Hermosa Beach, hereby petition the City Council to eliminate parking.on the west side of Ten- nyson Street between Longfellow and Boundary Place. The width of this section is just 28'. Opposing traffic must give way for safe passage when cars are . parked on both sides, making this a one-way street, many times blocking the in- tersections. If parking were eliminated on the west side, opposing traffic could pass smoothly and visibility would increase, thus reducing the hazardous blind intersection condition. A similar situation exists between Longfellow and 30th Street.i sould be investigated.• 1,/ = 0 N Piz tr noa d 34 Ie 9(9s C,ry o, co„ /9 yc 4,4 ��77 os ;?k J e: :Es --VAC„ 4.,:27n=':' X w& PI b I 1 ••c 141 A�L PA -1 • . 64/ a z4,,..1/L0-6 e, /4/e._. C-.1.2, 4G!Y �__r, ELL—( / 9 - - u ,4/7g f4,. e -__t__e___ . 1/ *-t->,11,„u,,,a,_,,. ID tp 7 2_ /� Q ,- J, - .)'‘ 11711- b,;(c L,C9N(-0 DJ A-1.- - 6V3 - -)-- . / =�-c� -- �-.7 •+ SIGNATURES (f1Ade 11) 4Iin `ti.(i ILi ADDRESS Le5yr321 tZ v Lr9)1 L te \jCL- ;rtrjp, i -1°11' 4S111 411W 1Z[' 2c/af-G.Coc__<,' T3) AGJ (7-75cLc.U'J 4/3 , /;z_ H/3 (-ed 7kr-r)--6eze' czA - v d 1-/-e7// Lo7L,51-e_12 •Itzsz yi gm) 6-", oyt-8 _//(;)-(A).ft(-t -,L4 � � U vi',0 6._ ij u Z. / `d2i1-7 4J 4e -Ci fat -A -e--4 'SIGNATURES 2(7-7?/)?,w ADDRESS oa !ofve1 zeSi GiA,1, ft L L 0/!% t/►"G 1.4p/mita el C'�•t_ LA • 0ztaL_P-1•--- 4( If OIL y..Qv t A-ti,(AZI, 4 3 CS) -ZZ6-6,) / .,/v tis . 4/ . .A 0 iL. (3,t Aie_ 16 90-2A-- 12t f j,,__ 3W 4», A ./C� 2v. E. ',oz,y 33/4-7121zeek,o-i, 67— 40, ),s'( f/e). 57 6 ic),,V-,.-4-'7.c:c7-c) le)g- 111),erpj g/0 le,?/ 4-2/04 /3/P .SURVEY • • .__ IN FAVOR NOT /A/ FAVOR - X • .THUS • *Proposed No • Parking Zone I October 24,1988 City of 21ermosa lr3each• Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach. Calilornla 90254-3885 . CITY SURVEY Dear Resident: s ' Several residents on Longfellow Avenue have petitioned the City to consider removal of curb parking on the West side of Tennyson Place between Longfellow Avenue and Boundary Place. I"Tennyson Place is presently 28 feet wide and has curb parking orr both the east and west side. Opposing traffic has difficulty passing each other when vehicles park along the curbs. This could result in blockage of the Longfellow/Tenny- son intersection and could lead to potential accidents. Please take some time to complete the questionnaire below and return it to City Hall by November 8, 1988. If you have any questions, call Gary Wheaton at 318-0213 [ ] I AM IN FAVOR OF ELIMINATING THE CURB PARKING ON THE WEST SIDE OF TENNYSON PLACE FROM BOUNDARY PLACE TO LONGFELLOW AVE. [ ] I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF ELIMINATING THE CURB PARKING. . Comment: Name: Address: Mir pwadmin /S City Hall (213) 376-6984 • Community Center 379-33121376-6984 • Fire Department 37624791376-6984 • Pollee Department 3764981/376-6984 S SURVEY R gS U LTS NOT RESPONDING 4L4 I Al FArVOFC /7 _OPPOSED • ....... "TOTAL 56 _ r SURV,E•Y FORfr\ 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 88-5185, BY ADDING THERETO A STOP INTERSECTION ON LONGFELLOW AVENUE ENTRANCE TO TENNYSON PLACE EASTBOUND AND WESTBOUND AS HEREIN SET FORTH. WHEREAS, The City Council desires to create a 4 -way stop intersection at Longfellow Avenue and Tennyson Place. WHEREAS, there presently exists a two-way stop northbound and southbound only, Tennyson Place to Longfellow Avenue. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Resolution No. 88-51854 as amended shall be and is hereby further amended by adding the following stop intersection. LONGFELLOW AVE: Entrance to intersection with Tennyson Place eastbound and westbound traffic. SECTION 2. That this amendment shall take effect immediately. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of December, 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: 1 'PROVED AS TO ORM: If , CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY November 30, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council December 13, 1988 RESOLUTION TO IMPROVE SIGHT DISTANCE ON VALLEY DRIVE AT 25TH STREET Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: • 1. Adopt Resolution No. 88- , establishing a "No Parking" Zone (red curb). a. Along the west side of Valley Drive north of 25th Street by adding an additional 46 feet of red curb. b. On 25th Street 50 feet west of Valley Drive on the south side of the street. Background: This agenda item is a follow-up to the November 9, 1988 Council meeting, at which sight distances on Valley Drive at 24th Place, 24th Street and 25th Street were discussed. At that meeting, the matter was referred back to staff. The Director of Public Works spoke to the residents in attendance at the Council meeting. The resident's comments were given to the traffic engineer who was asked to re-evaluate his report and reduce the scope of work to include only the 25th intersection. A copy of the traffic engineers revised report and the previous agenda item are available for review in the Office of the City Clerk. A copy of this agenda item was delivered to the affected adjacent properties. Analysis: The analysis is divided as follows: a) Resident Concerns b) The Traffic Engineers Revised Report and Recommended Solution c) Residents Response d) Field Survey & Parking Space Losses e) Fiscal Impact a. Resident Concerns At the meeting of November 9, 1988 five residents of Valley Drive were in the audience. After public input and Council discussion, the matter was referred back to staff.. • After meeting with the residents they all agree that there is no problem at 24th Street or 24th Place, however there is a sight distance problem at 25th Street. 1 I also spoke to Mr. Rod Merl, who brought this sight distance concern to the City's attention. Mr. Merl also agrees that there is no problem at 24th Street or 24th Place but there is a sight distance problem at 25th Street. b. The Traffic Engineers Revised Report and Recommended Solution The traffic engineers revised report addressed only 25th Street. The recommended solution to improve the sight distance on 25th Street is to paint red curb on the west side of Valley Drive from 25th Street to approximately 150 feet north of 25th Street and on 25th Street. approximately 50 feet west of Valley Drive. This is illustrated on the attached drawing. Valley Drive: Because of the angle of intersection of Valley Drive and .25th Street; the existing red curb on Valley Drive, and a driveway approach- only 46 additional feet of red curb are necessary. 25th Street: There is existing red curb on the north side of 25th Street. There is ho red curb on the south side of 25th Street near Valley Drive. If a vehicle or large truck parks close'to Valley Drive it will block the stop sign and also force drivers turning (right onto 25th Street) into the lane of on coming traffic. This is a potentially dangerous situation. By painting red near the corner it allows for the stop sign not to be hidden by a parked vehicle and gives more room for turning vehicles. c. Resident Response I spoke -to each of the residents who attended the November 9, 1988 Council Meeting and they agree with the solution. d. Field Survey & Parking Spaces Losses A field survey was performed and photographs taken showing existing and proposed conditions. These photographs are available for review in the Office of the City Clerk. The red curb on Valley Drive will result in the loss of two parking spaces. The red curb on 25th Street will also result in a loss of two parking spaces. 2 e. Fiscal Impact No additional appropriation is necessary as all work can be completed within budgeted amounts. Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff available to City Council are: 1. Do nothing; thereby, not eliminating a potential liability. 2. Require further study. Respectfully submitted, Concur:. A ony Antich Kevin B. Nortperaft Director of Pub is Works Attachment: Resolution No. 88 - Drawing pw/clerk vdcss 3 City Manager 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. NS 2435, AS AMENDED BY ADDING THERETO A NO PARKING ZONE ALONG VALLEY DRIVE AND 25TH STREET HEREIN SET FORTH. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Resolution No. NS 2435, as amended shall be and is•hereby further amended by adding the -following subsection to Section 4, No Parking Zone. Section Section 4.133 25th Street: Starting from'a point of intersection of the northerly prolongation of the west curb face. on Valley Drive and the easterly prolongation of the south end of pavement of 25th Street and ending fifty feet west of said point. 4.147 Valley Drive:' Starting from a point intersection of the southerly prolongation of the west curb face on Valley Drive and theeasterlyprolongation of the north curb face on 25th Street and ending 150 feet north of said point. 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SECTION 2. That this amendment shall take effect immediately. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of December 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City•of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS 0 FORM: Y ATTORNEY PROPOSED NEW RED CURS . Z115.7'1NG RSA CUR fl 1 December 5, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council December 13, 1988 CERTIFICATION OF ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SPEED SURVEY MONTEREY BOULEVARD Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 88- ' , a resolution of the City of Hermosa Beach, certifying the engineering and traffic survey increasing the speed limit from 25 mph to 30 mph on Monterey Boulevard. Background: On November 22, 1988 City Council directed that the engineering and traffic speed survey on Monterey Boulevard be redone and rechecked. A copy of the November 22, 1988 agenda item is available for review in the Office of the City CLerk. Analysis: This anWs'is is divided as follows: 1. Speed Limit Proposed on November 22, 1988 2. The New Engineering and Traffic Speed Survey 1. Speed Limit Proposed on November 22i 1988 Posted Recommended Location Speed Speed Monterey Boulevard Manhattan Avenue to Herondo Street 25 mph 30 mph Reason for Change: The 85th percentile speeds in this section were taken at three locations. They were 34, 35 and 36 mph. This is well in excess of the posted speed limit of 25 mph. The land use, driveway considerations and side street spacing is similar to Manhattan Avenue. School children have "back door" access to the elementary school at Loma Avenue and 16th Street. This is one short block east of Monterey Boulevard. The reported history of speed related accidents along Monterey Boulevard does not show any occurrences. Fifty percent of the drivers travel at 30 mph. While an increase in speed limit to 35 mph is excessive in view of the residential uses and curb parking 1 1m conditions, there appears to be a majority of traffic that is traveling at 30 mph. 2. The New Engineering and Traffic Speed Survey The recommendation of the traffic engineer is: "In view of the majority of the present users wishing to travel at a speed higher than 25 mph on this roadway, it is the belief of the City Traffic Engineer that the posted limit be increased to 30 mph for the entire section. This is conk§istent with the initial survey and the updated data for the corridor. The Engineering and Traffic Speed Survey for Monterey Boulevard is in the Office of the Public Works Department for review. Alternatives: • Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. City Council orders a new survey. 2. City Council does not adopt the resolution;.thereby, making speed limits unenforceable on Monterey. Respectfully submitted, Ant'hy Antich Director of Public Works 2 Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Unavailable for signature Steve Wisniewski Public Safety Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE ENGINEERING AND'TRAFFIC SPEED SURVEY ON MONTEREY BOULEVARD. WHEREAS, Enforcement of speed limits by radar must be justified by an engineering and traffic speed survey; WHEREAS, Section 40802 of the California Vehicle Code requires an engineering and traffic speed survey to be performed every five years; WHEREAS, the most recent survey was presented to and adopted by City Council on November 22, 1988, with the exception of Monterey Boulevard. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA • BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. To certify the attached engineering and traffic survey for Monterey Boulevard. SECTION 2. Direct that a copy of the resolution be forwarded to the presiding judge of the South Bay Municipal Court. SECTION 3. That this resolution take effect immediately. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 13th day of December, 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City o Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS FORM: i't'y Attor i- • December 2, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of December 13, 1988 REQUEST TO ADOPT NEW CLASS SPECIFICATION FOR DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER AND REVISED CLASS SPECIFICATION FOR BUSINESS LICENSE INSPECTOR. AND APPROVE AMENDING PUBLIC WORKS POSITION ALLOCATION PLAN: TO DELETE ONE ASSISTANT ENGINEER POSITION AND ADD THE POSITION OF DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council: . 1) adopt the attached class specification for Deputy City Engineer and the revised class specification for Business License Inspector; and 2) approve amending the Public Works "position allocation plan" to delete one Assistant Engineer position and add the posi- tion of Deputy City Engineer. BACKGROUND: Deputy City Engineer: The classification of Deputy City Engineer is being proposed as a position in the Public Works Department. Currently, the clas- sification immediately below that of Public Works Director is Assistant Engineer. Of the two Assistant Engineer positions al- located within the department, one is currently vacant. The Public Works Director has proposed that this position be replaced with the position of Deputy City Engineer. The attached class 'specification has been developed to reflect the duties of that proposed position. Business License Inspector: The present Business License Inspector, Mr. Frank Holborow, is retiring from City service on January 5, 1989. As part of the Civil Service review, an analysis of the class specification is made before conducting an examination for the position. The ex- isting class specification was developed in 1982. The proposed revisions update the duties and employment standards of the posi- tion to meet the need of the department. ANALYSIS: Deputy City Engineer: One position for Assistant Engineer was allocated to the Public Works department in 1985. Recruitment for the position attracted in 83 applicants, of which 2 were determined to be eligible. One of those two was appointed January 1, 1986 and held the position until leaving for the private sector this year. The second position of Assistant Engineer was allocated in 1987. Of the 57 applicants for the position, eight were found eligible and the number 1 candidate was appointed and currently serves in the position. The recruitment to fill the current vacant position resulted in 2 of the 48 applicants being minimally qualified for the position. The Deputy City Engineer position is intended to address this recruitment difficulty. The class specification for, Deputy City Engineer requires: 1) four years experience in civil engineering or twoyears with registration as a Professional Engineer. 2) possession of an Engineer -in -Training certificate. The intent of developing this position is to attract a career Engineer thereby providing continuity in the 'position as well as allowing for the the assignment of more complex tasks. Following approval of the class specification, a salary range will be negotiated with Teamster Union representatives. Because of the current vacancy and associated salary savings, no addi- tional appropriation will be necessary for this fiscal year. Business License Inspector: In anticipation of the vacancy caused by the retirement of the current Business License Inspector, preparation is being made to initiate recruitment. The attached class specification has been developed with the consultation of the Director of Building and Safety and has been agreed to by the Teamster Union. This class specification does not constitute a job upgrade or necessitate a salary range increase. Respectfully submitted, R4Zt.cifir''‘ Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director Teamster Union, Local 911 agrees to the attached class specifications: Michael Flaherty Chief Union Steward 2 Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Noted for fiscal impact Not available for signature Viki Copeland Finance Administrator December 7, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of The Hermosa Beach City Council of December 13, 1988 RATIFICATION OF REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS CENTER AGREEMENT RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Ratify staff action to extend Regional Communications Center services into December, 1988, and authorize the City Manager to sign the attached (or substantially similar) new month-to-month contract agreement for services with RCC. 2. Receive and file this report. BACKGROUND: There are continuing delays associated with our plans to self -dispatch Hermosa Police and Fire service. This has caused the timetable for withdrawing from the regional commmunications center (RCC) to be extended into the month of December. Such a large and intricate undertaking has been racked with shipping delays, wrong parts sent from vendors and returned, installation failures and personnel requisition problems. ANALYSIS: A staff review conducted at mid-November clearly indicated that a changeover from RCC dispatching to self -dispatching on December 1, 1988 would place the entire project in jeopardy. The dispatching consoles were incomplete and staffing personnel on a 24-hour basis was improbable. Staff pursued the possibility of extending our service with RCC at existing prices which meant a departure from the existing contract which called for a much larger payment schedule for the month of December. RCC's management response was favorable to such conditions, pending approval from its Board of Directors. The subsequent reduced billing was sent to the City of Hermosa Beach for consideration. Several more meetings were held to determine our preparedness. The final recommendation was to request RCC's continued services. Approval to ratify the new contract agreement would be in the best interest of the city. CONCUR: evin B. Northcr City Manager Respectfully submitted, STEVE WISNIEWSKI Director of Public Safety all By OMMANDER VAL STRASER Hermosa Beach Police Department — 1 — 1 o CONTRACT AGREEMENT 1. The City of Hermosa Beach ("City") hereby requests and the South Bay Regional Public Communications Authority ("Authority") hereby agrees to provide public safety telecommunications service to City on a month-to- month basis during Fiscal Year 1988-1989. Services to be provided are limited to: a. Twenty-four hour answering of all incoming calls for service received on 9-1-1 telephone lines, City seven -digit emergency lines (376- 9454, 376-9455, 376-9456, 372-2188, 372-2189), and alarm circuits. b. Twenty-four hour dispatching of all City Fire and Police calls for service, and alarm notifications. c. Maintenance of all presently serviced electronics equipment; equipment for City communications center use is specifically excluded. d. Complaint investigation service. 2. This agreement does not convey to City any duties, responsibilities or privileges of membership in Authority; City is contracting for service only. City has no membership or voting rights on any Authority Board or Committee. As a contracting agency, City will be welcome to attend any meeting. 3. As established by the Board of Directors, monthly contract cost shall be twenty-nine thousand, three hundred dollars ($29,300.00). The Authority has the right to increase the amount of compensation based on incremental computer system developmental costs with written notice given at least 20 days prior to the month in which they are to be charged. 4. Invoices for monthly service will be furnished 20 days prior to the service month, and are due and payable fifteen days before the beginning of the service month. (January, 1989 service •invoice furnished December 10, 1988, payable December 25, 1988.) Payments.received by Authority Treasurer from one to seven days late will require a 5% penalty; more than seven days late incurs a 10% penalty. 5. Authority requires and City agrees to provide 5 -day written notice to Authority's Executive Director to end service agreement. Penalty for in- sufficient notice shall be as determined by Authority Board of Directors. Provision of service for less than one month will still incur the full monthly charge. Agreement entered into this day of , 1988. City Authority CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMO HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS DATE: DECEMBER 7, 1988 CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMANDER VAL STRASER ADMINISTRATION DIVISION SUBJECT: DISPATCHING STATUS REPORT ***************************************************************** December 15, 1988 has been designated for all items to be opera- tional for voice radio dispatching, with the dispatchers sitting at the consoles. All dispatchers are on board. The least amount of training received will be two weeks by the last three hirees. Two dispatchers have been here and training for two months. Their work schedule has been assigned. With personnel in place, the remaining areas are equipment items and radio frequencies. The interface of the voice dispatching with our computer system is still dependent on and awaiting a computer circuit "card" that allows the 911 computer to talk to our records computer. This item and corresponding cable are on order from the State. The voice transmitting frequencies are operational. Lastly, the police officer vehicles and handheld talkies are di- vided half old "RCC frequency" and half "new" frequency HBPD dis- patch. In this manner, if we do have a failure during the test- ing phase on the "new" frequency and equipment we can revert back to "RCC" and make corrections. Voice dispatching and the 911 system will be operational. Total computer aided dispatching (CAD), recording and interfacing with the records management system (RMS)is nearing completion. Respe tful y submitted, rd‘/<1124/4<- Commander Val Straser Administration Division Hermosa Beach Police Department Honorable Mayor and Members December 8, 1988 City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of December 13, 1988 RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE SOLICITING PROPOSALS TO SELL SURPLUS CITY LOTS ON 1ST STREET AND 1ST PLACE Recommendation: That the City Council authorize appropriate staff actions in or- der to offer for sale three City surplus lots on 1st Street and 1st Place. Such steps to include review of title, notification of lessee of two of the lots, and solicitations of real estate broker proposals to conduct the sale as specifically recommended below. Background: The City currently owns residentially zoned lots at 705 1st St. (4,600 sq. ft.), 704 1st Place (4,600 sq.ft.), and 634 1st Street (4,568 sq. ft.). While much attention has been generated regard- ing the surplus Biltmore site owned by the City, these other sur- plus lots also should be considered for disposition. None are currently serving a public purpose. Two are currently leased to Vasek Polak, while one formerly was leased to the Jeep dealer- ship. All three are currently zoned R-2, General Plan designa- tion of medium density residential. Analysis: Being a public entity, a general rule is that our organization's resources should be used to serve the public. While surplus par- cels are sometimes held for investment purposes, it is possible that proceeds from the sale of surplus lands could be reinvested in other land that would appreciate equally but will also serve a public purpose. The subject three lots are not currently being used for any public purpose, nor is any street or other public purpose antici- pated. While the lots have been used to supply parking to the commercial area, they are residentially zoned, and such use is inconsistent with the City's current code provision prohibiting use of residential lots for commercial parking (the leased use is grandfathered). The purpose of this prohibition is to mitigate against residential/commercial conflicts. The leased lots are good exam- ples of such conflict, as we receive many complaints regarding the commercial use of these lots in the residential area. In fact, the use of these lots by the lessee has been found less than satisfactory from his perspective as well. For these reasons, staff is recommending that the City take steps to sell these parcels and put them on the tax rolls. The City - 1 - p then can use the proceeds, extimated in the area of $700,000, for public purposes. We also propose that we contract with a real estate broker for the sale and follow an auction process similar to that used for the Seaview property. However, we are suggesting that we seek a diversity of proposals to identify per- haps other methods of obtaining the most satisfactory result. Staff is also requesting that the Council confirm its direction to notify the current lease holder of termination of the lease as of January 31, 1989. Finally, because of the City's numerous actions to reduce density, it is suggested that the sale be noticed that merging of lots to add to the number of units al- lowed will not be permitted. Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager KBN/ld cc: Building and Safety Director Grove December 1, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council December 13, 1988 PROJECT TOUCH LEASE AGREEMENT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council approve the attached lease agreement between the City and Project Touch for space in the Community Center. BACKGROUND Project Touch presently leases Room C in the Community Center, located on the first floor across the hall from the Community Resources office. They have been tenants since October, 1979. ANALYSIS Room C is 312 square feet and the lease rate will be $.70 per square foot ($.218/month) through June, 1989. Beginning July 1, 1989 the rate will increase to $.74 per square foot ($231/month) and continue through December, 1989. All other conditions of the lease agreement remain the same.. Concur: evin :. Northcraft City Manager 1 Respectfully submi e Alana Mastrian-Handman Director Dept. of Community Resources Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER LEASE AGREEMENT This Leasing Agreement is made and entered into on this, the 1st day of Januarj 19 89 , by and between the City of Hermosa Beach, a Municipal Corporation (City) and PROJECT TOUCH (Lessee). A. RECITALS: 1. The City is the owner of a recreational/civic service facility generally referred to as the Hermosa Beach Com- munity Center (referred to herein as the "facility"). 2. The facility is subject to certain agreements and deed restrictions entered into on the'28th day of February 1978, between the City and the Hermosa..Beach City School District and is further subject to certain provisions imposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment as set fortn in a document entitled Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Property and dated the 28th day of February 1978. These documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City and are public documents and by reference are incorporated into this leasing agreement and are referred to herein as the HUD and SCHOOL DISTRICT AGREEMENTS. 3. The Lessee desires to use a portion of the facility on the terms and conditions set out herein. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. TERM. The term of this lease shall be for a period of one (1) year commencing on the 1st day of Januarx_ ,1989 , and ending on the 31st day of December ,19 89 2. DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES. The Lessee is leasing from the City that portion of the facility described as: Room C (312 s•. ft ) 3. RENT. Lessee agrees to pay to the City rent accord- ing to the following schedule: Januar 1 1989 thru June 30, 1989: $.70 per sq. ft. $21 er month. July 1, T9 thru December 31,1989: $.74 per sq. ft., $231 per month. Payable on the first day of the month. If this lease commences on a day other than the first day of the month, then the Les- see shall pay upon the commencement of the lease the rental on a pro rata basis for the remainder of that month and commence a full rental payment on the first day of the following month. 3A. OTHER CONDITIONS. The following additional condi- tions are agreed to by the Lessee: 1 1. Lessee shall not mark, drill or deface any walls, ceilings, floors, wood or iron work without Lessor's written consent. 2. No signs or awning shall be erected or maintained upon or attached to the outside of the premises except such signs showing the business of the Lessee. All such signs shall be in accordance with the policy established by the Lessor. 4. USE. The Lessee agrees to use the premises only for the following purpose or purposes: Goals and ob•ectives of Project Touch ,and for no other purpose without the express written consent of the City. Lessee also agrees the premises shall not be•used in viola- tion of the Department of Housing and Urban Development • (HUD) or School District Agreements as those agreements are interpreted by either the City o•r tne Hermosa Beach City School District or the Department of Housing and Urban • Development. 5. INSURANCE LIABILITY. Lessee shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this agreement Comprehensive General and Automobile Liability insurance protecting Lessee in amounts not less than $1,000,000 for personal injury to any one person, $1,000,000 for•injuries arising out of any one occurrence, and $1;000,000 for property damage or a com- bined single limit of $1,000,000. Such insurance shall name City of Hermosa Beach and their officers, employees, elected officials and members of Boards or Commissions as additional insured parties. Coverage shall be in accordance with the sample certificates and endorsements attached hereto and must include the coverage and provisions indicated. Lessee shall file and maintain the required certificate(s) of insurance with the other party to this agreement at•all times during the term of this agreement. The certificate(s) is to be filed prior to the commencement of tne work or event and should state clearly: (1) The additional insured requested; (2) Thirty day prior notice of change or cancellation to the City of Hermosa Beach; (3) Insurance is primary to that of the Additional Insured; (4) Coverage included; (5) Cross -liability clause. WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE. Lessee shall obtain and maintain at all times during the term of this agreement Work- er's Compensation and Employers Liability insurance and fur- nish the City (or Agency) with a certificate showing proof of such coverage. Such insurance shall not be cancelled or 2 materially changed without a thirty (30) day prior written notice to: City Manager, City of Hermosa Beach. INSURANCE COMPANIES. Insurance companies must be rated (B:XIII) or better in Best's Insurance Rating Guide. 6. CONDITION OF THE PREMISES UPON TERMINATION OF THE LEASE. Lessee agrees to keep and maintain the premises in good con- dition and repair and to return to the City the premises upon termination of this lease in the same condition 'as when Les- see took possession of the premises excepting any repairs or alterations which were approved by the City,• reasonable wear and tear excepted, and does promise to pay the City upon de- mand the reasonable sums to repair the premises in the event of a violation of this provision. 7. CONSTRUCTION. Lessee is prohibited from'making any al- terations or performing any construction whatsoever on the • premises without the expressed written approval of the City. Any such approval shall include provisions to protect the City from potential liens of labor and material persons. ' 8. DESTRUCT1ON,.PARTIAL DESTRUCTION OR NECESSITY TO REPAIR BECAUSE OF CONDITIONS CAUSED BY OTHER THAN LESSEE. The City has no duty'. or obligation to reconstruct the premises in the event of destruction or partial destruction of the premises.. The City at its option may reconstruct or repair the prem- ises, whereupon this lease shall remain in full force and effect except that no rent will be owing to the City during said period of reconstruction or repair if such reconstruc- tion or repair interferes with the tenancy created herein to the extent that the premises cannot be used for the purposes intended. In the event the City at its sole discretion determines not to reconstruct or repair the premises then either party at its option may cause this lease to be termi- nated and neither party shall have any liability each to each other. 9. HOLD HARMLESS. Lessee promises to hold the City harmless from any claims, causes of actions or damages of any nature whatever arising from Lessee's use of the premises and will pay the City any monies to which the City may become obli- gated because of Lessee's use of the premises. Lessee shall, if so instructed by the City, cause any occupants of the premises to execute a document in a form prepared by the City wherein that occupant snail expressly waive any right of ac- tion against the City for damages for any injury sustained because of Lessee's use of the premises. 10. RULES, REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES. The Lessee agrees to comply strictly with all applicable laws and any uniform Com- munity Center rules and regulations adopted by the City Council. 3 11. TAXES AND CHARGES. Lessee agrees to pay when due any and all taxes, assessments or charges levied by any governmental agency on or to the lease -hold premises. 12. DEFAULT. Should Lessee fail to pay any monies due pur- suant to this lease within three days after written notice from the City or to perform any other obligation required pursuant to the terms of this lease within thirty days after notice from the City, City may immediately cause this lease to be terminated and thereafter take any action and pursue all remedies available under the laws then existent in the State of California. 13. NOTICE. Any notice required to be made or given pur- suant to the provisions of this lease may be either personal- ly served upon the party, or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, LESSOR: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY HALL 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 LESSEE: Project Touch 710 Pier Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attn: Julie Dorr Feys Any notices so given pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph will be deemed served twenty-four hours after the deposit thereof in the United States mail. 14. ATTORNEYS FEES. The parties agree that in the event any action is instituted concerning any of the provisions of this lease agreement, the prevailing party may in the discretion of the court be granted as an additional item of damages its attorneys fees. 15. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Lessee may not assign or sublease all or any portion of the premises without the writ- ten consent of the City, which consent may be granted or de- nied at the exclusive and total discretion of the City. 16. SUCCESSORS. Subject to prior provisions, this lease is binding upon the heirs, assigns and successors of interest of the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Hermosa Beach Community Center Lease Agreement at Hermosa Beach on the day first hereinabove set forth. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a Municipal Corporation, Lessor By 14 ATTEST: PROVED AS CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY LESSEE: December 1, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of the City Council December 13, 1988 APPROVAL OF THE PER CAPITA GRANT PROJECT: DEVELOPMENT OF OUTDOOR BASKETBALL COMPLEX RECOMMENDATION To adopt the attached resolution approving the development of an outdoor basketball complex at the Clark Field Complex as the project to be funded through the Per Capita Grant Program,060,000). BACKGROUND In August, the City Council approved in concept the development of an outdoor basketball complex on the northerly lawnbowling green. in September the Commission held a Public Rearing regarding this matter and there was no opposition to this project. ANALYSIS The application deadline for the Per Capita Grant is January 13, 1989. It is therefore very important that the papers be submitted as soon as possible. In discussions with the State, this project would be eligible. It is staff's intention to draw down 10% of the allocated amount and expend a portion of that to prepare an RFP for design services for the preparation of plans and specifications sufficient for bidding purposes. City Council will then award the contract for design services. The bid package is developed and sent to various interested parties. Once the bids are received, and should they be higher than the contract amount, staff can scale down the project or return to the City Council and request an additional appropriation. If the City of Hermosa Beach fails to submit an application for its allocated amount, the allocation will be lost to the City. The Council has many recreational projects it could fund with this grant, as an example the purchase of the Railroad Right -of -Way but the Commission has been studying this development of the outdoor basketball complex for six months and they feel this should be the priority project for these funds. Respectfully submitted, Concur: Alava Mastrian-Handman Assistant City Manager Not Kevin B. Northcraft Anthony Antich, erector Dept. of Public orks City Manager Viki Copeland �r RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE PER CAPITA GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE, COASTAL, AND PARK LAND CONSERVATION ACT OF 1988 FOR THE FOLLOWING PROJECT. Develo ment of Outdoor Basketball Complex WHEREAS, the people of the State the California Wildlife, Coastal and of 1988, which provides funds to the political subdivisions for acquiring of California have enacted Park Land Conservation Act State of California and its and/or developing facilities for public recreational and open space purposes; and WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within the state, setting up necessary procedures governing application by local agencies under the program; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and Recreation require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval of application before submission of said application to the state; and WHEREAS, said application contain assurances that the applicant must comply with; and WHEREAS, the applicant will enter into an agreement with the State of California for acquisition or development of the project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Hermosa Beach hereby: 1. Approves the filing of an application for the Per Capita Grant Program under the California Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land Conservation Act of 1988 state grant assistance for the above project; and 2. Certifies that said applicant understands the assurances and certification in the application form; and 3. Certifies that said applicant has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project; and 4. Appoints the City Manager as agent of the City of Hermosa Beach to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THE 13TH day of December 1988. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. was duly adopted by the City Council following roll call vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: ATTEST: CITY CLERK CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MAYOR, City of Hermosa Beacn ASSURANCES Applicant possesses legal authority to apply for the grant, and to finance, acquire, and construct the proposed project; that a resolution, motion or similar action has been duly adopted or passed as an official act of the applicant's governing body authorizing the filing of the application, including all understandings and assurances contained therein, and directing and authorizing the person identified as the official representative of the applicant to act in connection with the application and to provide such additional information as may be required. Applicant will maintain and operate the property acquired, developed, rehabilitated, or restored with the funds in perpetuity. With the approval of the granting agency, the applicant or its successors in interest in the property may transfer the responsibility to maintain and operate the property in accordance with section 5919 of the Public Resources Code. Applicant will use the property only for the purposes of the Wildlife, Coastal, & Park Land Conservation Act and to make no other use, sale, or other disposition of the property except as authorized by specific act of the Legislature. Applicant will give the State's authorized representative access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the grant. Applicant will cause work on the project to be commenced within a reasonable time after receipt of notification from the State that funds have been approved and that the project will be prosecuted to completion with reasonable diligence. Applicant will comply where applicable with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Relocation Assistance Act, and any other state, and/or local laws, rules and/or regulations. December 1, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council December 13, 1988 MASTER PLAN FOR PARKS AND RECREATION RECOMMENDATION It is recommended City Council approve the concept of developing a City-wide Master Plan for Parks and Recreation; appropriate $25,000 from Prospective Expenditures into the Community Resources Contract Services Account; and direct staff to issue a Request for Proposals. BACKGROUND The Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission has been studying the various parks located in the City and has been involved in developing recreation programs for the community. In doing so, Staff and commission feel it would be of paramount importance to have a detailed master plan in place for futher development of the park system and for recreation programs and facilities. ANALYSIS The purpose of a Master Plan for Parks & Recreation is to assess the quality and diversity of recreation opportunities, identify unmet interests and desires of the community and present recommendations for implementing an expanded level of service to the residents. The Master Plan should be used as a general guide in the decision-making process for recreation issues in the future. As the City Council of Hermosa Beach has voiced concern and interest in the development of parks and recreation., staff and the commission felt it may be prudent to develop the Master Plan at this time. In developing the Master Plan the process will include, among many other things: ▪ The establishment of a Task Force composed of residents to work with the project team to develop the Master Plan. • Questionnaire mailed to a scientifically random sampling of Hermosa Beach households. • A minimum of two Public Hearings held at the Park, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission level. Site inspections and assessment of existing recreation/park/school facilities with regard to potential for expansion/development. It is anticipated the project will take approximately 6-8 months to complete. Staff is requesting an appropriation from the Park & Recreation Facility Tax Fund in the amount of $25,000 for this project. That figure is based on preliminary discussions with several consultants. STATE GRANT UPDATE At this time staff would like to update the City Council on the work being done by the Consultant hired to close out several recreation grants. Papers have been submitted to the State requesting reimbursement for funds in the amount of $43,000. These are monies the City expended while working on those grant projects. Once those funds are received, the Parks, Recreation & Community Resources Advisory Commission will send a recommendation to the Council on ways those funds could be expended. The City also has another $30,000 to spend before May 31, 1989. Those monies are the balances that remain in the grants we are closing out. The Commission will be returning to the City Council in January with recommendations on various projects the Council may want to consider funding. Additionally, the City has submitted a request for funding from the State for the Acquisition of the Railroad Right -of -Way. It will be several weeks before we are apprised of the outcome of that request. And lastly, the City will be submitting papers to the State for another grant in the amount of $60,000. This money is already allocated to the City, we need now to get approval for a project. There is another agenda item before you this evening which deals with this matter. As the Council can ascertain, there is much activity regarding parks and recreation activities. Because of this, staff and the Commission feel it is even more important than ever to develop that Master Plan. Concur: Kevin B." Northcraft City Manager 2 Respectfully submitted Alana Mastrian-Handman Assistant City Manager Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: The Master Plan will guide us in determining current and future facility and program needs of our citizens to maximize the utility of our expenditures for many years. It is a good "research and development" cost to maximize the benefits of our future expenses. 3 December 1, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of December 13, 1988 RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE A REPORT CONCERNING PROPOSED EMERGENCY AMBULANCE SERVICE AGREEMENTS AND FRANCHISE ZONES WITH LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council receive and file this report. BACKGROUND: In July 1979, the cities of Lomita and Huntington Park brought suit against Los Angeles County. The lawsuit requested a declaration that the County was respon- sible for providing emergency ambulance service to residents of the County at the expense of the County. In November 1983, the California Court of Appeals issued a decision determining that the County was statutorily liable to provide emergency ambulance service to all indigent residents of the County. The County then began a process of requesting all cities that provided some ambulance service of their own to enter into contracts with the County. There were initially 22 cities, Hermosa Beach being one of them, that were providing some ambulance service. All 22 of the cities have had numerous meetings to discuss the County's proposal. The California Fire Chiefs Association, the local fire associations, and the Indepedent Cities Association have been repre- senting all of the 22 cities°interests. To date, there has been no acceptable contract offered and no cities have entered into agreement with the County. The only concession that the cities have made was to send a letter to the County stating that the city would con- tinue to provide the same services to its citizens that it has in the past. We sent such a letter to the County on October 27, 1987. ANALYSIS: Hermosa Beach currently provides emergency ambulance services in life threatening and emergency situations. All other ambulance service is provided by a private contractor at no cost to the City. This is the common practice among the cities and seems to work very well. The recent correspondence from the County deals with emergency ambulance ser- vices and franchise zones for cities and areas of the County that do not provide their own service. As indicated in the County report, the City of Hermosa Beach, along with 32 other cities, is excluded from the plan. Basically this means that nothing has been affected or changed. We will continue to monitor the developments of this issue and will keep Council apprised of any matters that affect the City. tfu St e S.ri niews i bmi tted , Director of Public Safety CONCUR: evin B. Northcraft, City Manager December 7, 1988 Please note letter dated December 1, 1988 from the County, received December 5, 1988, notifying us that the ambulance service providers were objecting to our exclusion from the proposed program. (See attached.) At the hearing, the judge granted a continuance until January 13, 1989, in order that the ambulance providers could prepare their case, which is that our city and several others should not be excluded from the franchise zones set up by the County. I 2 DE WITT W. CLINTON. COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL 648 HALL OF ADMINISTRATION 500 WEST TEMPLE STREET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 DEC 0 1988 City Mgr. Ottl�e F X: 1-(213) 617-1142 (213) 974-1825P December 1, 1988 NEXT DAY MAIL Mr. Gregory T. Meyer City Manager of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: City of Lomita, et al. v. County of Los Angeles Dear Mr. Meyer: This office has previously given you notice of the County's plan to implement its emergency ambulance program, and of the hearing presently set for December 13, 1988, at 1:30 p.m., before Department 83 of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. In the County's plan, your city was excluded from the eleven proposed exclusive franchise zones that would be up for bid by ambulance service providers. I have now received notice from counsel for the existing ambulance service providers of Los Angeles County that they will be appearing ex parte in Department 83 on Monday, December 5, 1988 at 1:30 p.m., to seek leave of court to: 1) Intervene in the Lomita case as interested parties; and 2) Object to the exclusion of several cities from the County's franchise zones, including the City of Hermosa Beach. Since this action now directly affects your city, I. wanted to be sure that you recently prompt notice of this upcoming hearing. Very truly yours, DE WITT W. CLINTON County Counsel By 4Iro FRANK . DA VANZO Senior Deputy County Counsel Public Services Division 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 76T5767 (3) and (4) of the cited portion of the Court of Appeal ruling by awarding franchise contracts where appropriate. On July 27, 1987, this Court received without objection the County's first Report Regarding Implementation of New Countywide Emergency Ambulance Program. Attached to that report was the July 10, 1987 letter to the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, which the Board adopted on July 21, 1987, and which describes the countywide emergency medical transportation franchise zone program. A copy of that Board approved letter is attached to this report as Exhibit "A". On November 3, 1988, the Board approved the general franchise zone boundaries of the first phase of the new countywide ambulance program. A copy of the board documents of approval are attached hereto as Exhibit "B". Health and Safety Code Section 1797.224: The franchise zone program is authorized by Section 1797.224 of the California Health & Safety Code: "A local EMS agency may create one or more exclusive operating areas in the development of a local plan, if a competitive process is utilized to select the provider or providers of the services pursuant to the plan. No competitive process is required if the local EMS agency develops or implements a local plan that continues the use of existing providers operating within a local EMS area in the manner and scope in which the services have been provided without interruption since January 1, 1981...." The Board approved plan for the first phase of the County's countywide emergency ambulance program implementation will not affect 33 cities that either currently provide emergency ambulance services with their own employees or wish to provide the service with their own employees in the near future, or wish to have a contract operator serve as the exclusive provider of 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 76T 576T service within the boundaries of the city. Listings of the cities included in, as well as excluded from, the first phase of implementation are attached hereto as Exhibit "C". As to incorporated areas which are not included in the first phase of implementation, County staff will continue to work with the concerned city government personnel to develop contractual arrangements which are consistent with the Lomita II holding. WHEREFORE, the County asks for the court to make the following orders: 1. That pursuant to Lomita II, this Court has the jurisdiction to supervise the County in the implementation of its proposed franchise zone program to insure it meets its responsibilities under said Court of Appeal decision; and 2. That the County may proceed with its proposed first phase of countywide ambulance program implementation by receiving competitive bids to provide emergency ambulance services in Zones A through K, inclusive, as described in Exhibit B. Dated: 1` 21 g'6 Respectfully Submitted, DE WITT W. CLINTON County Counsel By FRANK J. D VANZO Senior Deputy County Counsel Public Services Division - 4 - COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES November 17, 1988 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Dan Mikesell Audrey Bahr LIST OF CITIES BY FRANCHISE ZONE Listed below are the 33 cities that will be excluded from franchise zones. Listed separately are the 52 cities that are included in zones. Excluded Alhambra Arcadia Avalon Beverly Hills Burbank Compton Covina Culver City Downey El Segundo Gardena Glendale Hawthorne Hermosa Beach Inglewood La Verne Long Beach Los Angeles Lynwood Manhatten Beach Monterey Park Pasadena Pomona San Dimas San Gabriel San Marino Santa Fe Springs Santa Monica Sierra Madre Signal Hill Includes Agoura Hills Artesia Azusa Baldwin Park Bell Bellflower Bell Garden Bradbury Carson Cerritos Commerce Claremont Cudahy Duarte El Monte Glendora Hawaiian Gardens Hidden Hills Huntington Park Industry Irwindale La Canada La Habra Heights Lakewood La Mirada Lancaster La Puenta Lawndale Lomita Maywood December 6, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council December 13, 1988 SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REVISED PLANS AND TIME EXTENSION LOCATION: 2901 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, BMW AUTO AGENCY APPLICANT: VASEK POLAK PURPOSE: REVISED PARKING LAYOUT, AND LOCATION AND HEIGHT OF RETAINING WALL Recommendation Approve attached time extension. Background The City entered into a development agreement on April 15, 1986 with Vasek Polak for the location of a 'portion of an alley abutting the subject property to the west. On April 26, 1988, during the annual review, it was noted that implementation of the agreement had not taken place because the construction plan required revision. The City Council requested that any changes to written agreement be brought for the City Council's approval. Analysis The revised plans have now been approved by Mr. Polak and staff. They are an improvement over the previous plans since they will provide 10 additional parking spaces, and reduce the -height of the retaining wall which would have risen to a height of 18 feet at the south end. The revised plans change the grade of the parking lot, and provide compact stall parking resulting in a 5 foot high retaining wall and 68 parking stalls. The required amount is 45. 40 of the required 45 spaces are standard size. The 5 foot high retaining wall is significant since it means that the telephone and electrical lines will not need to be relocated while the pilings are installed for the shoring; also the risk of damage to the foundations of dwelling units at a higher grade to the west is eliminated. Revised plans are on file in the Planning Department. 1 The time extension is necessary because of delays caused by the need to revise the original plans. Attachment 1. Time extension. CONCUR: 'Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager T/pcsrbmw 2 c 1 pectfully bmfited Michael Schubach Planning Director 7 Bill Grove Building Director Recording requested by and when recorded mail to: City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 TIME EXTENSION AGREEMENT THIS TIME EXTENSION AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is entered into on this 13th day of December, 1988, by and between VASEK POLAK ENTERPRISES, INC., a California.Corporatiori (the "Dealer- ship"), and the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a general law municipal corporation (the "City"), for the extension of construction deadlines under the development agreement dated April 15, 1986 as adopted by Ordinance No. 86-830. RECITALS This Agreement is predicated upon the following facts: A. Pursuant to the City Code of the City of Hermosa Beach and the California Government Code, the City and Dealership have entered into a binding development agreement for the development of real property as set forth under Ordinance No. 86-830; B. During the implementation of this development agreement, certain modifications to the plans and specifications have been made in order to increase the number of available parking spaces and to improve safety access to the property. These changes are a logical progression of the original conceptual plans 'and drawings and, pursuant to Council direction, have been approved by staff as meeting or exceeding all City Code requirements; C. Based on these changes, Dealership requests that a time extension of fifteen (15) months be given to allow Dealership to complete these improvements; and D. The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach has found that these extensions of time are in the best interests of the citizens of the City of Hermosa Beach in that they allow for improvements in safety and design of the project. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: Section 1. By mutual agreement, the parties agree to extend the deadline for construction and completion of the project for an additional fifteen (15) months. With said extension, the deadline for completion of the project shall be July 15, 1989. Section 2. No further extensions of construction and completion of this project shall be granted without the express approval of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach. Except as herein stated, the development agreement between the parties dated April 15, 1986 shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH VASEK POLAK ENTERPRISES, INC; By: By: PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ATTEST: Bv: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: VASEK POLAK ATTORNEY FOR DEALERSHIP November 29, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council December 13, 1988 POWER STREET GRADING PLAN Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: * 1. Approve the hydrology report. * 2. Approve the conceptual grading and 'drainage plan (last revision 5/31/88) for tentative tract 30986 (commonly known as the Power. Street Development), with the exception of relocating the easterly wall on lot 6 approximately five (5)•feet west of the property line. 3. Direct staff to review grading practice in the City and return to Council with a recommendation for an ordinance. 4. Approve or do not approve the resident/developer agreements as follows: • • Agreement No. 1 23 4 5 6 7 8 9 Brief Description Finish grade lot 8 Sump pump lot 8 6' wall height Driveway aprons Relocate sanitary sewer Trees House windows lot Right of way modification House windows lot 1 Action Do Not Approve. Do Not Approve Do Not Approve Approve Approve Approve 8 Do Not Approve Approve Do Not Approve Background: On October 11, 1988 staff presented an agenda item regarding the hydrology and grading for an eight lot subdivision, commonly known as the Power Street Development. Staff recommended that City Council: 1. Approve the hydrology report and conceptual grading plan for tentative tract 30986 (commonly known as the Power Street Development) as submitted by Kavanaugh Development Company. 2. Direct staff to review grading practice in the City and return to Council with a recommendation for an ordinance. City Council directed that this matter come back after developer and residents have discussed and agreed on their concerns and differences. * Copy and report in the City Clerk's office. 1 A copy of the October 11, 1988 agenda item is available for review in the Office of the City Clerk. Analysis: The analysis is divided as follows: a. Public Noticing b. Status of the Tentative Map, c. Chronology d. What Was Agreed to (with comments by staff) e. The December 6, 1988 Followup Meeting and On-going Resident • Concerns f. Summary. g. Conclusion a. Public Noticing The.Public Works Department delivered copies of this agenda item to the residents adjacent to (west of) the tentative tract. b. Status of the Tentative Map The land is being subdivided pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Municipal Code. A tentative map refers to a map showing the design and improvement of a proposed subdivision and • the existing conditions in and around it and need not be based upon an accurate or detailed final survey of the property. The City requirements are known as conditions of approval. The Subdivision Map Act states that an approved tentative map shall expire 24 months after its approval or after an additional period' of time not to exceed 12 months. The subdivider has until April 15, 1989 to receive City Council approval of a final map. If the subdivider is unable to obtain a final map, the expiration of the approved tentative map shall terminate all proceedings and no final map shall be filed with the City Council without first processing a new tentative map (i.e. starting all over). c. Chronology April 15, 1986: Planning Commission approves tentative map. March 24, 1987: The City Council adopted Resolution No. 87-5026 approving the conceptual grading plan for the tentative map with certain conditions. One of these conditions states "development shall be substantially in conformance with the submitted,plans"; this includes the conceptual grading plan. November 4, 1987: The subdivider's engineer proposes to raise the street elevation (i.e., grading) because it is discovered that the area cannot properly drain. Staff considers the proposal to be a substantial change of the conceptual grading plan and schedules the. matter for the Council agenda. January 26, 1988: The City Council received testimony from residents fronting on Valley Park Avenue that the proposed grading changes (and accompanying block wall construction) will cause drainage problems on their property. The City Council took action delegating the Public Works Director authority to meet with the engineers for the developer and County to approve corrections assuming that the grading plan meets all necessary engineering requirements. The plan is to be referred back to City Council for final approval after review by the City Attorney. March 3, 1988: Meeting with developer, County engineers, and staff for the purpose of discussing possible solutions. April 4, 1988: Planning Commission approves a 12 -month extension of the tentative map. May 12, 1988: June 20, 1988: engineer. Subdividers' engineer prepares'topographic survey. Hydrology calculations prepared by subdividers' September 12, 1988: After reviewing the data, Harris and Associates prepares letter stating no adverse affect to drainage. October 5, 1988: City Attorney prepares letter discussing grading. October 11, 1988: After receiving further public testimony City Council directed that this matter come back to Council after developer and residents have met, discussed and agreed on their concerns and differences. d. What was Agreed to (with comments by staff) There have been. several discussion 'meetings and telephone conversations with residents and developers. Both sides have attempted to reach an agreement on the issue. The owners of the proposed subdivision agreed to the items listed below. Following each tentative agreement is a comment from staff and a recommendation. 1. Agreement: Establish the finish grade of Lot 8 to be the same as for Lot 26 and Lot 27 on the easterly side of the subject property: Staff Comments: Specific plans have not been developed; however, it appears such an action would create an undesirable condition on Lot 8. Lot 8 would be lower than the rest of the subdivision and would be lower than the curb level at the bulb end of the cul-de-sac. If flooding occurs due to storms beyond the design capacity of the flood control facilities,, structures on Lot 8 would be at risk. Recommendation: Do not approve. 2. Agreement: Provide a "sump pump" at the rear of Lot 8. Staff Comments: If a sump pump is proposed to alleviate flooding concerns as indicated above, the water would have to be delivered to an alternate system. It appears that an alternate system location is not available. 3 Recommendation: Do not approve. 3. Agreement: Construct a six (6) foot high masonry concrete block wall along the easterly property line of the subdivision. Finish grade shall be measured from the inside side of the subdivision. Staff Comments: Section 1215 of the Zoning Ordinance indicates that a wall retaining fill contributes to the allowable 6 foot high property line wall.. The 6 foot measurement should take place from the existing grade condition. An.open railing is allowed to provide pedestrian protection where necessary. Recommendation: Do not approve. 4. Agreement: Driveway apron curb cuts shall be provided by the subdivider at locations agreed to by property owners of adjacent parcels to the east. Staff Comments: Normally curb cut permits are only issued when they lead to• a legal off street parking location. However permiting at this time has no impact. Recommendation: Approve and direct that curb cuts be drawn on the street plans and be•installed by the developer. 5. Agreement: Relocate the proposed sanitary sewer to run between Lots 7 & 8 and north along the center line of Power Street. Staff Comments: No impact. Recommendation: Approve and direct that realignment be shown on the sanitary sewer plan and installed by the developer. 6. Agreement: Trees shall be located along the planting strip at the east property line of the subdivision. Specimens shall be selected and located so as to provided a dense thickened landscaped border between the subdivision and the adjacent residences to the east. Staff Comments: Some impact. City will incur future cost for maintenance of the landscaping. However, a previous City Council action approved landscaping but was silent on maintenance. Hence; the City will incur future maintenance. Recommendation: Approve and show all landscaping on the landscaping plan. 7. Agreement: The proposed house designed for Lot 8 will be modified to provide that no windows shall look into the rear yards of Lots 26 and 27 to the east. 4 Staff Comments: Provided the revised plan complies with building code requirements, this revision would not be a concern. Recommendation: This matter needs to be formalized in a written agreement between the property owners and should not involve the City. 8. Agreement: Modify the right-of-way at the frontage of Lot 8 to allow for vehicular access to the rear of Lot 26 adjacent thereto. Staff Comments: No Impact. Recommendation: Approve and show on the final map and the street improvement plan. 9. Agreement: Modify the exterior elevation'of the proposed house on Lot 1 so as to have no windows that look downward into the rear yard of the houses to the north thereof. Staff Comments: Provided the •revised plan complies with building code requirements, this revision .would not 'be a concern. Recommendation: This matter needs to be formalized in a written agreement between the property owners and should nbt involve the City. e. The December 6, 1988 Followup Meeting & On-going Resident • Concerns At the followup meeting the staff comments to the agreements was presented. The residents voiced a continuing concern about: 1. The perimeter wall height being tootall. 2. City Council approved grading substantially in conformance with the submitted plans. The residents said that if there is any grading change, City Council should not approve the change. 3. Swale Concern: The grading and drainage plan (date 6/12/87 -last revision 5/31/88 sheet 2 of 3) shows a one foot westerly offset of the easterly retaining wall adjacent lot 8 as illustrated below. PRorE0.Ty- LINE 12" 5 Recommendation: This should not be allowed as it will result in the following: a) a 12 inch wide swale that is not of a sufficient width for a man to enter for maintain. b) Potential liability; i.e., small child becoming stuck. c) Potential drainage problems to properties downstream because of water concentration. In lieu of this, it is recommended that the easterly wall of lot 8 be setback approximately five (5) feet and the area -be landscaped. This will provide an area large enough for the owner of lot 8 to maintain and will provide a landscape buffer between properties. f. Summary •.Drainage 'The residents adjacent to the proposed subdivision have publicly expressed concern about drainage. The grading complies with UBC. - The conclusion of an independent review (Harris• and Associates), is that the proposed improvement will not adversely affect drainage of the neighboring properties. Grading Council Resolution No. 87-5026 says the project should be substantially in conformance with the submitted plan. The submitted plans showed the elevation up to four (4) feet lower•. - Because of engineering problems (i.e., drainage) the developer's engineer cannot build substantially in conformance and is requesting approval to raise grade up to four (4) feet. Rules governing grading within the City are unclear. The City Attorney has reviewed the Subdivision Map Act and notes that "an ordinance should be adopted requiring grading and erosion control as a condition of approval of the subdivision map." The Residents and the Project Most residents have agreed to most of the developer's concessions. - The City Council has approved the tentative tract and time to complete the project is running out for the developer. Conclusion The developer's engineer has attempted to design the project; however, the requirement of substantially in conformance make the design impossible without Council approval to raise the grading height up to four (4) feet. 6 All items agreed to by resident and developer with the exception of item 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9 should be approved by City Council. The above agreements do not alter staff's previous recommendation with the exception of the swale. Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. Refer the matter to the Planning Commission. Authority for this decision is found in the Government Code -Subdivision Map Act. The Planning Commission is the designated body charged with the duty of making investigations and reports.on design (Section 66415, Government Code). 'Design means, among other things, drainage and grading (Section 66418, Government Code). 2. Deny the grading based on..Municipal Code Section 29.5-9(e). 3. Do not approve any change in the grading thereby stopping this project. 4. Include the agreement with the tentative tract requirement; thereby, restarting the entire process. ,NOTE: Should City Council desire to incorporate any agreements ..into the tentative tract map conditions it requires the developer to restart the entire process. Respectfully submitted, Concur: /4 /.41 Antony Antich Director of Pub is Works Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager William Grove Director of Building & Safety - /e/Z4- / cc: James P. Lough, City Attorney Michael Schubach Director of Planning Attachment: Municipal Code Section 29.5-9(e) December 8, 1988 Letter from Betty and Gordon Evans AA:mv Power/pwadmin 29.5-9 SUBDIVISION OF LAND 3 29.5-9 e proposed subdivision will in no way be detrim to to the surrounding lot pattern or tend to r:. uce prop • ty values in the surrounding area. The size prevailing located. f the proposed lots is not sm t size in the area in The granting of t creation of lots t configuration which standards of devel ordinance for th er than the ich• .they are subdivi '.n would result in the t . uld be • •• of a size and w•, ld be in keeping :with the specified by the zoning e in which it is located. men and use zo (f) The creati• of the propose • lots would be in conformi • with the intent and .urpose of the comp ensive general plan for the ' of Hermosa Be- h:' The tentative subdivision map complies 'th the requirements for approval set forth in the Subd1 •sion Map Act of the State of California. (Ord. No. N.S. 5, § 1, 4-16-74) Sec. 29.5-9. Grounds for denial of approval of sub - .division map. The, planning commission or the city council shall deny approval of a tentative or final subdivision map if it makes any of the following findings: (a) That the proposed map is not consistent with the applicable general and specific plans. (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent. with applicable general and specific plans. (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environ - Supp. No. 12•"9 342.41 9 29.5-10 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE 3 29.5-11 mental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvement is likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of • the subdivision or the. type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In' this connection, the city council may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a couii of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the city council or planning commission to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. (Ord. No. N.S. 485, § 1, 4-16-74) Sec. 29.5-10. Reserved. Sec. 29.5-11. Subdivision agreements and bonds; im- provement security. To assure the completion of required improvements after recordation of a final map, the city engineer shall require the submission of bonds sufficient co accomplish subject improvements. Should the subdivider fail to complete the required improvements within a reasonable time or in accordance with a written subdivision agreement signed by the subdivider and the city clerk, the city engineer shall cause said bonds to be forfeited and the improvements completed. (Ord. No. N.S. 485, § 1. 4-16-74) Supp. No. 12-79 342.42 DEC 0 1988 City Mgr. Uttice December 8. 1988 Honorable Mayor and City Council; We would. like to express our concern about proposals for the drainage problems of the Power street project. 'Valley Pari ave. is one of the lowest spots in the city of Hermosa and historically has a problem of flooding. We have bRen flooded because of heavy rains. The storm drain has improved this situation, however in recent years the water has been up to our curb. If the rain had not ceased we could have.again had a flooding. problem. We have also had problems with the, city sewage coming up in our side yard. We have at considerable expense placed a valve shut offin our line to hopefully prevent this. Any change in the elevation of the land will affect all of the Valley area. This proposed change is %iost certainly a change from the original plans that were proposed. The developers also stated that they would be able to save many of the trees.We have been informed this is not the case. The trees are necessary to the wild life of tho Valley and the valley style of living. To crowd eight houses in this area is bad planning for our city. Gordon and Betty Evans 1769 Valley Park.ave.,Hermosa Beach, ca 90254 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 88-968 - AN ORDINANCE CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Submitted for adoption is above subject. December 8, 1988 City Council Meeting December 13, 1988 OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR AREA ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTING AN (AREA 4 R-3 TO R-1) Ordinance No. 88-968 relating to the At the meeting of November 22, 1988, this introduced by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Concur: Creighton, Sheldon, Williams, None None Simpson ordinance was Mayor Rosenberger Respectfully submitted, Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 88 - 968 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF'HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR AREA AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. (Area 4) WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on November 22, 1988 and made the following Findings: A. State law requires consistency between the zoning and General Plan; B. Rezoning of area 4 from R-3 to R-1 will result in maintaining the density status quo and bring the zoning into consistency; C. Rezoning of the subject area is consistent with advisory measure EE; NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain that the Zoning Map shall be amended as shown on the attached map and legally described as follows: 1. Rezone area 4 from R-3 to R-1, legally described as follows: - Portion of Lot A of Tract 1594. 2. This ordinance shall not apply to any projects that have a completed building permit package on file with the City prior to November 22, 1988. Said package must include a completed building permit application form, completed conceptual plan (plot plan, floor plans, elevation plans and similar plans) and a lot survey. Projects that have submitted a completed building permit package must pursue their application in a diligent manner and must be issued a building permit within six months of the effective date of this ordinance. 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. 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. 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 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 13tlday of December , 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: CITY CLERK PPROVED AS" TO 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' \ ATTO0 NE /ccrszon4 - 2 30 GOULD 42901' <7.„4,. o ii 7S � / anti --- scf4607•' / ss A 6 16.9 4 a 5.5/01 /p O5,5001•' c9 55 57. w AREA !$ EXISTING NUMBER OF UNIT$ 5,436• 9 5030 a' �,9 5 ra 30 9,690'=' . 63 81 6,730 °. 22 SO 6 6,570 `r0 'rs • 5,973° '0 v 4/2/' S 23 M SO. le `r0 • .5,450' r7 e 24 SO • �a 9,000? 25 /7918 • ***r..4, O 41 47501•. 40 /4,300 ,' 431 4,6601'',•, / A /tie O3/ PORTER LN • • 1. Location a. Address: b. Legal: 2. Description ALTiV11'Y lUGiV11c 11:r11'lUiV Areas 4, 5 & 6 See attached maps Rezone of areas 4, 5 & 6 to be consistent with General Plan policies 3. Sponsor a. Name: Planning Department, City of Hermosa Beach b. Mailing Address: 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Phone: 213-318-0242 NEGATIVE DECLARATION In accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City of Hermosa beach, which im plements the California Environmental quality 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 proposed 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 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE _We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this pro posed project in accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report because, provided the attached mitigation mean urea are included in the project, it would not a significant effect on the environment. Documentation supe' ngnthijfin ing is on file in the Building Department. Se0t. 2 a, i 9A? Date 'of Finding ChEman, vironental Review Committee FINDING OF THE PLANNING MMISSION We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this pro- ject in accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environ- mental Impact Report because, provided the attached mitigation measures arc included in the project, it would not have a significant effect on the en- vironment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in the Build- ing Department. Io $� l.•.i.,h,. Datle if Finding V« Cha r '-! Tannin Commission 9 L� g FINDING 0 'ECITY COUNCIL We have undertaken and completed an environmental Impact Review of this pro- posed project in accordance with Resolution 70-4309 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 mean -tires aro included in the project, it would not have a significant effect on the environment. Documentation suppor,ing this finding is on file in the Building Department. Date of Finding Mayor, Hermosa Beach City Council December 1, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of December 13, 1988 RECOMMENDATION TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TITLED "MINORS" RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council introduce the attached Ordinance for adop- tion. BACKGROUND: The County Board of Supervisors recently adopted a ordinance amending certain sections of the County Code which pertain to curfew laws for minors. This action was taken to meet the requirements recently established by the Appellate Court. ANALYSIS: This amended ordinance will conform the existing provisions of Chapter 18 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code relating to curfew for minors to the requirements recently established by the Appellate Court in a case decided June, 1988. The amended ordinance redefines the general curfew restrictions for minors while also creating specific new exceptions to those restrictions for situations when minors are accompanied or acting at the specific direction of their parents or guardian; returning directly home from legitimate evening entertainment; or, attending a lawful trade, business or occupation. Adoption of this Ordinance will place the City in compliance with current law. CONCUR: evin B. Northcraft, City Manager ifith 4111074011. Steve S. �isniewski Director of Public Safety tf 11 bmitted, 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. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTION 18-3 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 18-3, Chapter 18, of the Municipal Code of: the City of Hermosa Beach is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18-3. CURFEW RESTRICTIONS FOR MINORS. It is unlawful for any minor under the age of eighteen years to loiter, idle, wander, stroll, or aimlessly ride about in or upon any public street, avenue, road, curb area, alley, park, play- ground, or other public ground, public place or public building, place of amusement or eating place, vacant lot or unsupervised place between the hours of 10:00 P.M. on any day and sunrise of the immediately following day; provided, however, that the pro- visions of this section shall not apply when: (a) the minor is accompanied by his or her parent or parents, legal guardian or other adult person having the legal care or custody of the minor, or by his or her spouse eighteen years of age or older; (b) the minor is upon an errand directed by his or her parent or parents or legal guardian or other adult person having the legal care or custody of the minor, or by his or her spouse eighteen years of age or older; (c) the minor is returning directly home from a public meeting, or a place of public entertainment, such as a movie, play, sporting event, dance or school activity; (d) the presence of such minor in said place or places is connected with or required with respect to a business, trade, 1 profession or occupation in which said minor is lawfully engag- 2 ed. 3 4 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 5 1988. 6 PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of 7 Hermosa Beach, California 8 II ATTEST: 9 10 CITY CLERK 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- December 5, 1988 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Ladies and Gentlemen: When the Hermosa Beach City Council decided to begin enforcing a leash law on the Greenbelt, the news spread rapidly. Opposition to this change was overwhelming. A small effort to circulate a petition by concerned citizens snowballed and resulted in the attached petitions. These 522 signatures represent users of the Greenbelt including joggers, walkers, bicyclists and, of course, dog owners. Hermosa Beach residents represent 474 of the signatures. For approximately 25 years, the Greenbelt (formerly known as the Santa Fe Railroad Right of Way), has been a haven for dogs to be off leash. The Animal Control staff has encouraged citizens with dogs to use the Greenbelt as an off leash area. The increase in the use of the Greenbelt has actually diminished the misuse of our park facilities. It is our understanding that several issues were involved in the City Council's decision and we wish to briefly address some of them: It is our contention that the defecation law and dogs being off leash are two separate issues and should not be confused. We strongly agree with your decision to enforce the defecation laws. However, there is no correlation between these two issues. As parks have areas set aside for tennis, baseball, soccer, etc., we feel that the Greenbelt should continue to be designated as an off leash area. However, to achieve an amicable result, we also recommend the following: Greenbelt. 1. That trash cans be placed upon the 2. That any necessary signs be posted regarding the defecation ordinance. Page Two December 5, 1988 3. That a separate dog license be issued for those who wish to allow their dogs off the leash on the Greenbelt. A prerequisite to issuance of such license would be a signature to the following: "I release the City of Hermosa Beach and its elected representatives, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, liability or loss which may arise as a result of permitting my dog to be off leash on the Greenbelt." Alternatives: shared time use or logistically defined areas. We voted to acquire the Greenbelt so that it would remain as is. It has been previously demonstrated that you are a formidable group and your fairness and concern is reflected in your decisions. Respectfully submitted, WAr Tom Arp Mary Anne Boyle James Toomey Barbara Palmer Bob Erikson Wil Buchanan Karen Buchanan Brian F. Soden Mike Flaherty Jackie Flaherty Jack Kampmann cc: City Manager, Kevin Northcraft General Service Director, Joan Noon City Clerk, Kathleen Midstoke The Hermosa Beach City Council has voted to enforce a leash law on the Greenbelt (Hermosa Beach City Code 4-8.). This repeals the 25 year old law that has permitted dogs to be off leash in this area. When this law goes into effect on January1, 1989,t on acitationsm 6will be issued to anyone whose dog is foot leash. We, the undersigned, feel that the Greenbelt (Santa Fe Right -of -Way) should remain as an off -leash area. PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE PHONE #‘41 / /. _� ice/ L 6©t Ltt ,4-- L �a,L. Clic Go- (Ier C b(�NIL-: ,i)1111ZGa Rt•J Ia3 P12osP.c N!3 I c-6476 4 frd° 'atm 1 C sAftR P,¢ c4 / L/ 4a,21.6(,(4,A101_y i �Jc � lif4o14-0 /3 1,7&M \J >.• +r 280B MORNINOSIDE DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90284 (213) 374.4328 1'Y1 6.s. <aa•i evj 17 6vOtiha; 66 4 D4 io ,(./ y Aro.v, /. /sR , * / W/�/ /4 5 /AA) I✓ dal 1); r 44.0 fj`o 6 '-,.4t; 4 ux�ri 1 Clty d1 km ",a a kCearh /- U 4/4 r f$7/ /6 �/� 6'1a' 'i "��a.v c, q 1st "'�•�T aW 'D/4,4 i -L / 2. L1a .04 !l SSi.f /"' i1 NBA`Ar'f / y1 4 ✓G �G 6'►� L? i�G+�il J4 ! 4s gilt* '� .�4 er A,d <••• el' LLit- JMel ,v�lG.i December 6, 1988 ry o, y ry �� %®LI ' 9C e'")0,::% Ai .Oh HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Ladies and Gentlemen: I wish to add a personal note to the Greenbelt leash law issue. My family has been in Hermosa Beach since its inception and we hope to be here for many -years to come. My grandfather, Bernard Hiss, was one of the founders of Hermosa Beach and he was the first Mayor. For the last few years, part of my daily routine is to walk on the Greenbelt with my dog off leash. This occurs twice a day, morning and evening, rain or shine. Because these walks are recommended by a doctor for a minor heart condition and because I work at home, the resulting benefits are countless. My dog is never far behind or ahead of me and is trained to come when I whistle. She runs, romps, chases a stick or a ball and can stop to "smell the roses" while I walk. If the dog were required to be on a leash there would be a drastic change in the quality of my life. In our stressful day to day lives it is truly a pleasure to see the dogs and people intermingling on the Greenbelt, even if it is just a smile and "hello" to and from a passing jogger or a quick pet for a passing dog. For many of us it is the only opportunity we have to greet our neighbors. Please don't take this away from us. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly ygprs, Mary Anh4 Boyle 142 Monterey Boulevard Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dec Hermosa Perch City 6ounc'il City of Hermosa Reach Dear City Council: My two golden'ret.rievers have been walking on the Santa Fe "tracks" all their life - 12 years in May. It is the only lifestyle they know. To leash them -.in their old -age -years - and take away their freedom as they know it, would truly he unusual and cruel punishment. I got the dogs for my mother when she became home -bound. It was just they type of medicine she needed to keep herself from feeling londy. We do not have a yard. But I knewl could exercise them on the "tracks" and do for about 3-4 hours each day and have done so for the past 12 years. I would never had m nsidered having dogs not having a ya' d if it wasn't for the Sante Fe "tracks". MY dogs are old now and waiting is very difficult for Morgan. He walks on the tracks at his own pace having to make frequent rest stops. My other dog, Michael, is free to exercise at his own pace. It would be impossible to walk the dogs together on a leash and be able to call it quality time. We feel the area should remain free of restrictions as it is and has been for all of these years. We have been o--alristing with joggers, bikers, walkers, strolers, lovers and us. responsible dog owners. Fbr many years - including the years before any type of "trails' existed - the responsible dog owners of our community has been using this area.. This srea is not '!the yellow brick road" - free of all r -Stems, Joggers have .knonked down walkers,. bikers have run walkers off the trail, dogs have caused joggers to brenl, ^tri.de etc. BUT NEVER HAS A DOG ATTACKED SOMEONE ON THE ' /SDK_" . In the 30 yer t we have lived in Hermosa Beach and"h#•e used:•the area fer °walkini3, running; walU.ng 'my •dogs;._ and meditation I have never observed an incident that warrants A penalty to all dogs by enforcing a 6 foot leash law. The dog owners who use the area toe xercise their dogs are the responsible dog owners who let the'r dogs out of the. garage, back yard, apartment or home and assume the resnonsi.bility to see that their dogs get the proper exercise an. d "free" time they deserve and hve a right to as meat ers of our society. I hope you vote for some type of solution to thi sprnbl nm that will allow m me form of co -existence as it Is now. Remember dogs are people too. December 2, 1988 Dear Hermosa Beach City Council, We feel that the Greenbelt should remain as it has for many years as an off -leash area. The Greenbelt area is the only place where we are able to walk our dogs without a lease and I have never encountered any problems for years. I have lived in Hermosa Beach for 30 years and I used that area for walking with and without my dog. Please reconsider leaving the Greenbelt as an off -leash area. Sincerely, Dave & Mary Garrett 551 24th Place Hermosa Beach /-4-01---)17) /2- NlrinOS& &aca e.4, C at,cc'/ mrN,hevs, 7k sL cad 114) le a. sh taw- O'/+e+ei:bc-i . l�cc x xc %,r c Cc( &'st.Z. kot. s, aet at W IA orc.f de , 4ec ccd & .4( lute At; .,' -fit• .,Qhc, eti ILL4.4.1,- O _,a sa:pit a-4) ,,te - a4Ce1 .�6 L4, 1t%; At- ..act GA•. Qk ! Aix✓�fCk- kf O ti �� (01 ..4..c c ,tl �`l-u �� �. C a,r, . AGet .,d .,e7 .--11c.•cy�, e jr V �� .4c- cmc. . Qlt7�c.1•t s� .Q/�-c O e-44'4—fc, 1-61-V -(-ef X/4-7(24- IL gitc 4-u_d 4ez4tue-e, c�Q-46- -0-u- ✓ 4 Alwr1 t-t.vt.4, i(l ts.ano .44 dtitt-e-x-eLe-c-cc, aaely 122-0 .,lix y� syLic re l c- .r'i e4A-6 -et, �1.s lc •C ,c c, f. .�C e� . /VI/gk 42 (24 4,„_.e, zIT-,2,-,-tc.c___ /).1 p,„ ---__p-- ,4 1.4.4. .1,4,--,..v,<___ -A- --e--)-10.-c-t- A- .PC441‘. ‘e-,-,--- 0-t_ /2 -e -ii -i-ei 4-43 ,0 - / Y Le444-61i. / ..---2-e-e---y-i -C-) 04....- al, 7,4_ /2_,GC-C-C___ /1(014-- ci-(7 4.,e-r_ci . Vic J "-- t. zxL ,..c.c- 4./4---, (, G1 -44,--L--- 0 ,_0/7/40.4-- 6 �,6 _ J ,„ )/ 5,!) Ae SGC: 62, t4, „ ,VeA4--e A„, ,ateL a 4 itt„.,/r .244 ce�v 6 der cmc,.' -J(27=-3 2 r4 5-v4, 2-74 ow -/; ci, Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council December 6, 1988 Regular Meeting of December 13, 1988 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO MERGE LOTS - GROUP LM 88-9 LOCATION/ 1214 10TH STREET OWNER: WILLIAM AND MARGARET SIMAS 1233 21ST STREET JOHN AND BARBARA SEYMOUR 425 ARDMORE AVENUE ELIAS AND MARIA DEL RIO Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeals and concur with the decision of the Planning Commission to mergethe subject lots. Background The Planning Commission, at their meeting of November 1, 1988, merged the subject lots. As with the previous lot merger groups, staff has contacted all the appellants to discuss staff method of determining the percentage of lots on the "block" which are developed separately. Analysis Section 206 of the Zoning Ordinance defines "block" pertaining to lot mergers as the following: "All lots facing a common street on both sides of said street, except where residential zoned lots do not exist, or are not within the City limits, and said lots are between intersecting and/or intercepting streets, or between a street and a railroad right-of-way, terminus dead-end street or City boundary." One of the exceptions to the Lot Merger Ordinance is that less than 80% of the lots on the block have not been developed separately. In calculating the percentage of individually developed lots, the following method has been utilized: 1. Define the block pursuant to Section 206 of the Zoning Code. 2. Count the total number of lots on the block. 3. To determine the number of individually developed lots, count the total number of lots which do not meet the following criteria for merger: 1 1 a. One of the adjacent parcels is less than 4000 sq. ft. b. The main structure straddles the common lot line. c. The lots have common ownership. 4. Divide No. 3 above, (total number of individually developed lots), by No. 2 above, (total number of lots). This will equal the percentage of individually developed parcels on the block. 5. If the percentage of individually developed parcels is more than 80%, the parcel is exempt from merger. 6. Note: Lots which are split are treated as one lot, i.e., when counting the total number ot. lots, a lot which has been split in half is counted as one lot. ' 1214 10th Street - 1. There are 45 total lots on the "block". 2. 19 lots have been developed separately, or 427. 3. 12 other parcels on this block have been merged without requesting appeals. 1233 21 Street - 1. There are 30 lots on the "block". 2. 4 lots have been developed separately, or 14%. 3. 12 other parcels on this block have been merged without requesting any appeals. 425 Ardmore Avenue - 1. There one only 3 lots on the block. 2. One of the three lots has been developed separately, or 33%. 3. This is the only parcel on the block subject to merger. The subject parcel is located across the street from a M-1 zone. Manufacturing zones are exempt from the merger ordinance. It should be noted, however, that the General Plan designates the Manufacturing zone as Medium Density Residential. This parcel is unusual since there are only three lots on this block. The opportunity to derive 807 of the block to be developed separately does not exist, however, staff cannot find any provision which would exempt this parcel from merger. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt the subject properties from being subject to merger since all the conditions listed above have beem met. According to the revised lot merger ordinance, all parcels must be merged unless one of the above stated criteria is/are not met. Additional background and analysis is provided in the attached Planning Commission staff report of October 18, 1988 and November 1,1988. 2 Attached maps indicate lots subject to merger; lots with "hooks" across common property lines indicate common ownership according to tax assessor. Also the area considered a "block" is delineated. Attachments 1. P.C. staff report of 10/18/88 and 11/1/88 2. P.C. minutes of 10/18/88 and 11/1/88 3. CC minutes of 5/10/88 4. Letter of appeal 5. Background a. Notices of Intent b. Tax Assessor's Maps c. Aerials • C_ONCU G� Michael Schubach Planning Director/2' evil.' B. Northcraft City Manager a/ccsrlm 3 Resp full ,®.mi tted , An•rew Pere Associate anner 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. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ON APPEAL THE MERGER OF LOTS COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1214 10TH STREET, 1233 21ST STREET, AND 425 ARDMORE AVENUE. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on December 13, 1988 to receive oral and written testimony regarding this matter and made the following Findings: A. The Planning Commission, at their meeting. of Novewmber 1, 1988, approved, on appeal from the property owners, the merger of the subject lots; B. Section 29.5-19 through 29.5-29 of the Zoning Ordinance perscribes the procedures for the merger of parcels;. C. The City Council finds these parcels to be consistent with the criteria for merger: 1. The main structure is sited on contiguous parcels. 2. Not more than 80% of the lots have been unmergedand developed separately. 3. One of the contiguous parcels comprises less than 4000 square feet. 4. The contiguous parcel are held under common ownership. D. Legal Descriptions are as follows: 1. 1214 10th Street -- Lots 43, 44, and 45, Block 144, Redondo Villa Tract. 2. 1233 21st Street -- Lots 57 and 58, Redondo Home Tract. 3. 425 Ardmore Avenue -- Lot 61 and 62 except W' 30', Tract 451. E. The merger of these parcels will preserve the character of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 10 11 12 the existing neighborhood by maintaining current densities and preserving public on -street parking; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby approve the merger of 1214 10th Street, 1233 21st Street, and 425 Ardmore Avenue. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of ',1988. PRESIDENT of the. City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED 4TO FORM: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 October 27, 1988 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission November 1, 1988 SUBJECT: LOT MERGER HEARING ADDRESS / LEGAL DESCRIPTION / OWNER / ASSESSOR'S NO.: 1) 1026 21st Street - Lot 1, 2, and 3, Tract 1965 - Joan Brown - 4184009001 2) 1919 Hillcrest - Lots 52, 53 and 54, Tract 1965, Charles Coleman - 4184010010 3) a) 554 2nd Street - Lot 7 and W 10' of Lot 8, Tract 256 - Berta Gomez- 4188021009 b) 552 2nd Street - Lot 9 and E' 15' of Lot 8, Tract 256 - Berta Gomez - 4188021010 4) 425 Ardmore - Lot 61 and Lot 62 Except W' 30', Tract 451 - Maria and Elias Del Rio - 4188024007 • 5) 1214 10th Street - Lots 43, 44, and 45, Block 144, Redondo Villa Tract - William and Margaret Simas - 4161028006 6) 1233 21st Street - Lots 57 and 58, Redondo Home Tract - John and Barbara Seymour - 4184004015 7) 925 3rd Street - Lot 31 and 33, Mission Tract - Danny and Karen Johnson - 4186019016 Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the appellants' request for unmerger, except 552 (shown as 548 in B.P. file) 2nd Street. Background All of the above noted mergers are continued from previous meetings. Analysis 1026 21st Street The parcel is comprised of three lots; total parcel size is 6370 sq. ft. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles all three lots. Building records indicate this parcel to contain two units. Staff has determined that no lot, contained in this block has been developed separately. Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets CC CC all standards for merger. (General Plan Designation - Low Density - Zoning R-1) The appellant had requested a continuance so that a survey could be provided. 1919 Hillcrest The parcel is comprised of three lots; total parcel size is 6000 sq. ft. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a legal single family residence. Staff has determined that only 36% of the individual lots have been developed. Staff. cannot determine any reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. (General Plan Designation- Low Density- Zoning R-1) The appellant requested time to obtain survey to check what lot lines the structure straddled. No survey has been received. 554 2nd Street This parcel is comprised of one lot and ten feet of an adjacent lot; total parcel size is 3500 sq. ft. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a single family dwelling. Staff has determined that 567 of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. 554 2nd Street and the' adjacent parcel, 552 2nd Street have the same owner. (General Plan Designation - Low Density; Zoning - R-1) There was some misunderstanding as to,what was being merged since the adjacent property is also owned by the same family. 552 2nd Street This parcel should not be merged since the dwelling was demolished in 1969. The parcel is currently vacant except for a garage. 425 Ardmore Avenue This parcel is comprised of two lots except the westerly 30' thereof; total parcel area is 6420 sq. ft. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this parcel to be a single family dwelling. Staff has determined that 4370 of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. (General Plan Designation - Low Density; Zoning - R-1) The appellant has claimed that the City took the rear portion of her property for right-of-way, and that otherwise, the lots would not be substandard in size. Staff, including the City Attorney, finds this factor not relevant in regard to the merger issue. If �c c the appellant desires, she may pursue this matter of regaining the rear portion of the subject property from the City, and if 'she is successful she may request splitting the lot into two lots again. However, it appears that it would not be possible to have two lots each with 40 feet of frontage on the right-of-way. 1214 10th Street The parcel is comprised of three lots; total parcel area is 7500 sq. ft. Aerials indicate that the main structures straddles the property line. Building records indicate this to be a legal single family residence. Staff has determined that only 4270 of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger (General Plan Designation - Low Density, Zoning - R-1). NOTE: The property owner states in his appeal letter that he does not own three contiguous lots. All records available to the City indicate three lots are owned by Mr. and Mrs. Simas: At the previous meeting, the appellant claimed that the City Council dismissed this case. According to the City Council minutes of May 10, 1988 (see attached), the City .Council directed staff "...to begin a new lot merger procedure". 1233 21st Street The parcel is comprised of two lots; total parcel size is 5000 sq. ft. Aerials indicate that the rJain structure straddlesthe property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a legal single family residence. Staff has determined that only 18% of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. (General Plan Designation -Low Density, Zoning -R-1) According to the City Council minutes of May 10, attached), the City Council directed staff "...to process again". The reason for starting over was that there were some flaws in the first attempt to merger the lots. 925 3rd Street The parcel is comprised of two lots; total parcel size is 4510 sq. ft. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a legal single family residence. Staff has determined that only 43% of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. (General Plan Designation- Low Density- Zoning R-1) 1988 (see start the technical 8 The appellant representative indicated that the lots had been recently sold separately -- one to the wife and one to the husband, and therefore the lots could not be merged. However, the deeds were not yet recorded. According to the city Attorney, the lots could not be separately sold under the current moratorium, and that the notice to merge had already been sent to the County Recorder on August 19, 1988 which also would stop any separate sale of the property. i, �jy /J ? i7 A/pcsrmerg I Michael Schubach Planning Director T Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission October 13, 1988 Regular Meeting of October 18, 1988 SUBJECT: LOT MERGER HEARING ADDRESS / LEGAL DESCRIPTION / OWNER / ASSESSOR'S NO.: 1) 1214 10th Street- Lots 43, 44, and 45, Block 144, Redondo Villa Tract - William and Margaret Simas - 4161028006 2) 1233 21st Street - Lots 57 and 58, Redondo Home Tract - John and Barbara Seymour -4184004015 3) 830 18th Street - Lot 20 and 21, Block 2; Johnson and Newman's Camino Real Tract - Charles .and Rosemary Abraham - 4185002003 4) 1737 Prospect Avenue - Lots Newman's Camino Real Tract 4185003001 1 and 2, Block 2, Johnson and - Wayne and Diane Gorrell 5) 912 18th Street - Lots 13 and 14, Block 2, Johnson and Newman's Camino Real Tract - Thomas O'Brian - 418500310 6) 925 3rd Street - Lot 31 and 33, Mission Tract - Danny and 7) 940 5th Street - W' 52.5' of Lots 1 and 2, Hopkin's Tract Susan Turmes - 4186019023 8) 978 5th Street - E' 52.5' of Lots 1 and 2, Hopkin's Tract LR Baggett, 4186019026 9) 1001 4th Street - Lots 21 and 22, Hopkin's Tract - Wm. Magee - 4186020018 Karen Johnson - 4186019016 10) 1002 - 1004 4th Street - Lots 23 and 24, Hopkin's Subdivision Tract - Henry and Cecia Gomez - 4186021001 11) 1244 2nd Street - Lot 104 and E' 12.5' Lot 103, Tract 733 Clifton and Penee Warren - 4186027031 12) 1223 1st Street 4186028018 - Lot 28 and 29, Tract 1802 - Wanda Polzin 13) 1215 1st Street - - 4186028019 Lots 30 and 31, Tract 1802 - Albert Wauters 14) 1125 1st Street - Lots 38 and 39, Tract 1802 - Thomas and Janet Tootell - 4186028025 15) 1140 1st Street - Lots 58 and 59, Tract 1802 - David Locke - 4186029014 Recommendation To deny the appellants request for unmerger of the subject parcels. Background Lot Merger Group 88-9 - Notification of Intent to Merge Lots mailed on August 19, 1988 - Number of Notices of Intent to Merge. Lots mailed - 114 - Number of requests for hearing received - 15 The Planning Department has determined that the lots included in L.M. 88-9 are subject to merger pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 (LOT MERGER ORDINANCE) and State Government Code Section 66451.11-66451.21. Analysis 1214 10th Street The parcel is comprised of three lots; total parcel area is 7500 sq. ft. Aerials indicate that the main structures straddles the property line. Building records indicate this to be a legal single family residence. Staff has determined that only 42% of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger (General Plan Designation - Low Density, Zoning - R-1). NOTE: The property owner states in his appeal letter that he does not own three contiguous lots. All records available to the City indicate three lots are owned by Mr. and Mrs. Simas. 1233 21st Street The parcel is comprised of two lots; total parcel size is 5000 sq. ft. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a legal single family residence. Staff has determined that only 1870 of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. (General Plan Designation -Low Density, Zoning -R-1) 830 18th Street The parcel is comprised of two lots; total parcel size is 5515 sq. ft. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a legal �. single family residence. Staff has determined that only 45% of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. (General Plan Designation- Low Density, Zoning- R-1) 1737 Prospect Ave The parcel is comprised of two lots; total parcel size is 5570 sq. ft. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a legal single family residence. Staff has determined that only 157 of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. (General Plan Designation - Medium Density, Zoning - R -2B) . 9.12 18th Street The parcel is comprised of two lots; total parcel size is 5515 sq. ft. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles all three lots. Building records indicate this parcel to contain one unit. Staff has determined that 45% of individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. (General Plan Designation - Low Density, Zoning R-1) 925 3rd Street The parcel is comprised of two lots; total parcel size is 4510 sq. ft. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a legal single family residence. Staff has determined that only 43% of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. (General Plan Designation- Low Density- Zoning R-1) 940 5th Street The parcel is comprised of portions of two lots; total parcel size is 4870 sq. ft. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a two unit dwelling. Staff has determined that none of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger, also unmerger of this parcel will create a landlocked parcel. (General Plan Designation- Meduim Density- Zoning R -2B) 978 5th Street The parcel is comprised of portions of two lots; total parcel size is 4560 sq. ft. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a two unit dwelling. Staff has determined that none of the - f2- individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reasons exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. (General Plan Designation- Medium Density - Zoning R -2B) 1001 4th Street The parcel is comprised two lots; total parcel size is 4930 sq. ft. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a legal single family residence. Staff has determined that 4870 of the individual lot have been developed' separately. Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. (General Plan Designation - Low Density- Zoning R-1) 1002 - 1004 4th Street The parcel is comprised of two lots; total parcel size is 5000 sq. ft. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a duplex development. Staff has determined that 4870 of the individual lots have been developed separately. Staff cannot determine any reasons exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. (General Plan Designation- Low Density - Zoning R-1) 1244 2nd Street The parcel is comprised of a lot and a half; total parcel size is 3380 sq. ft. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a legal single family residence. Staff has determined that 7170 of the individual lots have been developed separately. Staff cannot determine any reasons exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. (General Plan Designation- Low Density- Zoning R-1) 1223 1st Street The parcel is comprised of two lots; total parcel size is 3130 sq. ft. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot be a legal single family residence. Staff has determined that only 4570 of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. (General Plan Designation - General Commercial- Zoning- R-1) 1215 1st Street The parcel is comprised of two lots; total parcel size is 3390 sq. ft. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a legal single family residence. Staff has determined that only 4570 of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reasons exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. (General Plan Designation- Low Density- Zoning- R-1) 1125 1st Street The parcel is comprised of two lots; total parcel size is 4430 sq. ft. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a single family dwelling. Staff has determined that only 4570 of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. (General Plan Designation- Low Density- Zoning- R-1) 1140 1st Street This parcel is comprised of two lots; 'total parcel size is 4240 sq. ft. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a single family dwelling. Staff has determined that 45% of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. (General Plan Designation - ensity, oning - R-1) Michael. Schubach' Planning Director 1. Requests for hearing 2. Intent to Merge Lots 3. Tax Assessor Maps 4. Aerials An erea Associate Plap er HEARING FOR DETERMINATION OF LOT MERGER GROUP L.M. 88-8 AND 88-9 (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF 10/4/88 AND 10/18/88) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 27, 1988. Staff recommended denial of the appellants' requests for unmerger, with the exception of 552 2nd Street. Mr. Schubach stated that all of these mergers have been continued from previous meetings. 425 Ardmore Appellants: Maria and Elias Del Rio (did not appear to address the Commission) • This parcel is comprised of two lots except the westerly. 30 feet thereof; the total parcel size is 6420 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this parcel to be a single-family dwelling. Staff has determined that 43 percent of the iridividual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the sitemeets all standards for merger. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. The appellant has claimed that the City took the rear portion of her property for right - •of -way, and that, otherwise, the lots would not be substandard in size. Staff, including the City Attorney, finds this factor not relevant in regard to the merger issue. If the appellant desires, she may pursue this matter of regaining the rear portion of the subject property from the City. If she is successful, she may request splitting of the lot into two lots again. However, it appears that it would not be possible to have two lots each with 40 feet of frontage on the right-of-way. Mr. Lough stated that this property meets the criteria for merger. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to merge the parcels at 425 Ardmore, based on the fact that they do not meet the criteria to remain unmerged. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: • Comm. Edwards 1214 10th Street Appellants: William and Margaret Simas This parcel is comprised of three lots for a total parcel size of 7500 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this to be a legal single-family residence. Staff has determined that only 42 percent of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. The property owner states in his appeal letter that he does not own three contiguous lots; . however, all records available to the City indicate that the three lots are owned by Mr. and Mrs. Simas. At the previous meeting, the appellant claimed that the City Council dismissed this case. According to the City Council minutes of May 10, 1988, the City Council directed staff "...to begin a new lot merger procedure." —/S - Pc Mr. Lough explained that he recommended that the process begin over due to technical flaws. Therefore, the previous hearing has no bearing on this new action. Even though the lots were previously unmerged, staff was directed by the City Council to begin the process over. He stated that the four criteria to allow the lots to remain unmerged are still in effect, and that there are no exceptions. Mr. Simas, 1214 10th Street, addressed the Commission and stated that his lots were previously unmerged by the Planning Commission. He opposed a merger of his lots, based on the fact that he feels his property rights would be taken away by such an action. Chmn. Peirce noted that the Commission has no choice but to merge the lots, since they meet all criteria for merger. He noted, however, that the Commission could send a recommendation to the City Council that once the lots are merged, they 'should be split into two lots of 37 1/2 feet each. Mr. Simas stated that he would not object to the creation of two •37 1/2 foot lots from his property. However, he suggested that the two lots be 35 feet and 40 feet, respectively. Therefore, he would have at least one lot which would 'be conforming. He stated that he has no plans of moving from this property. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, favored the suggestion that once the lots are merged, a recommendation be sent to the City Council to split the parcel into two lots. Mr. Compton stated that the middle parcel is owned by Mr. Simas' daughter, not Mr. Simas. He therefore questioned whether these parcels are subject to merger since they are not three contiguously owned pieces of property. Mr. Lough stated that all records available to the City indicate that Mr. Simas owns all three parcels. Barbara Seymour, 1233 21st Street, stated that if the appeal was dismissed, there was no • public hearing. If there was no public hearing, she questioned how the Council could take action to direct that this item go through the merger process again. Chmn. Peirce favored a recommendation that these lots be split into two lots, explaining that he believes the intent of the ordinance is to prevent the development of 25 -foot lots. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to merge the parcels,at 1214 10th Street into one parcel; and to send a recommendation 'to the City Council that the one lot be split into two 37 1/2 foot lots, if the appellant so desires. Mr. Lough stated that it is the responsibility of the appellant to submit a written request to the City Council within ten days to have the lot split into two lots. •• Comm. Ketz stated that all the other merged lots in this area have been two lots; this is the only instance where three lots are being merged into one: . AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Edwards 1233 21st Street Appellants: John and Barbara Seymour This parcel is comprised of two lots for a total parcel size of 5000 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a legal single-family residence. Staff has determined that only 18 percent of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. According to the City Council minutes of May 10, 1988, the City Council directed staff ...to start the process again." The reason for starting over was that there were some technical flaws in the first attempt to merge the lots. Barbara Seymour, 1233 21st Street, appellant, addressed the ComMission and stated that if the appeal was dismissed, there was no public hearing. If there was no public hearing, she questioned how the City Council could take action to direct that this parcel again be subject to the merger process. She stressed that these lots were previously unrnerged by .the Planning Commission. 18 P.C. Minutes 11/1/88 7 - ?c, RA HEARING OF DETERMINATION FOR LOT MERGER GROUP L.M. 88-9 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 13, 1988. The Planning Department has determined that the lots included in L.M. 88-9 are subject to merger pursuant to. Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 and State Government Code Section 66451.11-66451.21. • One hundred fourteen Notices of Intent to Merge Lots were mailed on August 19, 1988. Fifteen Requests for Hearings were received. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appellants' requests for unmerger of the subject parcels. Hearing opened at 10:23 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. 1214 10th Street Owners: William and Margaret Simas This parcel is comprised of three lots; total parcel area is. 7500 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this to be a legal single-family residence. Staff has determined that only 42 percent of the individual lots havebeen developed. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the.site meets all standards for merger. •The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. The property owner states in his appeal letter that he does not own three contiguous lots. All records available to the City indicate three lots are owned by Mr. and Mrs. Simas. William Simas, 1214 10th Street, property owner, stated that the City's description of his property is entirely incorrect. He stated that his house sits on all three lots, and there is no overhang of the property. He said he has the only 75 -foot house on the block. • Mr. Simas stated this is not a new hearing, but rather a continuation of the hearing started last January. He said it wasn't his fault that the City erred in its noticing procedures. Therefore, he stressed that this is a continuation. Mr. Schubach explained that the hearing in January was considered void because of noticing problems; therefore, the entire process was started over andnew notices were mailed. Mr. Simas urged the Commission not to merge his parcels. He stated that he has no plans to develop this property. He stated that last January, the Commission voted four to zero not to merge his parcels. He said that merging of these parcels would reduce his property value. . Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, noted that this parcel consists of three lots. If they are merged, he suggested that the Commission send a message to the City Council requesting that the three lots be allowed to be split into two separate parcels. He felt that this would be a reasonable compromise. Barbara Seymour, 1233 21st Street, stated that, according to the City Council minutes of May 10, 1988, the original decision of the Planning Commission not to merge these lots was not voided. The City Council appeal was dismissed; therefore, the original decision should stand. Chmn. Rue stated that no findings have been presented to not merge the lots. pc_ mtni.1.. ok MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the parcels at 1214 10th Street. Further, that the City Council address the possibility of splitting the parcel into two separate lots. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Peirce 1233 21st Street Owners: John and Barbara Seymour This parcel is comprised of two lot's; total parcel size is 5000 square feet. Aerials indicate •that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a legal single-family residence. Staff has determined that only 18. percent of the individual lots have been developed. • Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. Barbara Seymour, 1233 21st Street, addressed the Commission, and stated that her lots were legally unmerged. The decision at the May 10, 1988, Council meeting when the mayor's appeal was dismissed, should have rendered the original Planning Commission •decision to stand. She continued by discussing Code Section 29.5-28(b) which states: "All decisions of the Planning Commission are final unless appealed." She stressed that .the appeal was dismissed. Chmn. Rue asked whether the Planning Commission's action on this matter is valid. Mr. Schubach explained that the City Attorney discovered technical errors in the code; he then decided that the best way to proceed would be to renotice these properties and start the matter over, rather than fighting the issue in court. The errors involved either descriptions in the property or who received the original notices. Chmn. Rue noted, however, that there is now a new ordinance in effect. Mr. Schubach stated that this matter could be continued if so desired. Mrs. Seymour discussed the requirements for merger in place at the time the original merger hearing took place. She stated that her lots are legally unmerged at this time. She continued by discussing the emergency moratorium in effect in the City. She felt that the City is not being fair to long-term residents in the City. She stressed that her lots were legally unmerged, there was no valid appeal, and the original decision should stand according to the merger ordinance in place at the time. She also noted that the original ordinance states that the homeowner was to be sent a clearance letter; however, she has yet to receive such a letter from the City. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, suggested that this matter be continued until such time that the City Attorney can clarify the issues. Mr. Schubach cautioned that, if this matter is continued, it will run into the moratorium process. He stated that if action is taken tonight, the owner can appeal the decision to the City Council for no fee. Comm. Inge11 stated that if this matter is continued, the property at 1214 10th Street should also be continued. Chmn. Rue favored continuing this matter until such time that the City Attorney can clarify the issues. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to reconsider the vote taken on property located at 1214 10th Street. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Peirce MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to continue to the next meeting the issue of properties located at 1214 10th Street and 1233 21st Street. . /.YES: Comms..Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: ' Comms. Edwards, Peirce 425 Ardmore Avenue This parcel is comprised of two lots except the westerly 30 feet thereof, for a total size . of 6420 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this parcel to be a single-family dwelling. Staff has determined that 43% of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The parcel is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density. Maria Del Rio, owner of 425 Ardmore Avenue, addressed the Commission. She stated that she opposed the lot merger, based on the fact that she intended to give one lot to each of her daughters. She stated that these lots were purchased approximately 25 years •ago, at which time the City took the rear property under condemnation; nothing has ever been done with the land that was taken by the City, and she has been cleaning up this 30 - foot area for all of these years. She requested that the lots be left as they currently exist. Mr. Schubach stated that the 30 feet in question was at one time going to be a•street, Cochise Avenue; however, it was never developed. It is now part of the open space area. That street was not utilized; it was vacated. Chmn. Peirce suggested that this matter be continued so that staff can determine "whether the City desires to vacate Cochise; in which case that property would revert back to the property owner. He stated that if the 30 feet were added onto Ms. Del Rio' property, there would be enough area for the two lots to remain. Mr. Lough stated that he would like to study this issue further. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to continue this matter to the first meeting in November so that staff can return with additional information on the vacation of Cochise Avenue; and. to provide a staff report in regard to what action should be taken on this matter. No objections; so ordered. -21 PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. fL( 54. /{n/ t /A APPEAL OF PLANNING -COMMISSION DECISION,TO NOT MERGE LOTS LOCATED AT 1214 - 10TH STREET AND 1233 - 21ST STREET (WITH PROPOSED RESOLUTION FOR 1214 - 10TH STREET). (Con tinued from April 26, 1988 meeting.) Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dated May 2, 1988. MOTION JR/JW DROP HEARING ON 1214 - 10TH ST. AND DIRECT STAFF TO START OVER AGAIN. OK 4-1 (RC -NO) MOTION CS/JR TO. DROP HEARING ON 1233 - 21ST ST. AND DIRECT STAFF TO START OVER AGAIN. OK 4-1 (RC -NO). • MOTION TO NOTIFY COUNCIL OF ALL ACTIONS OF PLANNING COMMISSION ON LOT MERGERS. so ninFRrn_. C C November 7, 1988 City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear City Clerk: We are submitting this letter to file and request an appeal to the City Council of Hermosa Beach of the . November 1, 1988, Planning Commission decision to merge Lots 43 - 44 - 45, Redondo Villa Tract, commonly known as 1214 10th Street. If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact William Simas at (213) 372-2252. Sincerely, Mr. & Mrs. William Simas 1214 10th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 �r. C November 7, 1988 City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear City Clerk: We are submitting this letter to file and request an appeal to the City Council of Hermosa Beach of the November 1, 1988, Planning Commission decision to merge Lots 57 and 58, Redondo Home Tract, commonly known as 1233 21st Street. If you have'questions regarding this matter, please contact Barbara Seymour at (213) 318-0636 or at our home phone (213) 374-5375. Sincerel , a -r sz7 4141E Mr. & Mrs. John H. 1233 21st Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Seymour • e/rn November 8, 1988 City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear City Clerk: east • We are submitting this letter to file and request an appeal to the City Council of Hermosa Beach of the November 1, 1988, Planning Commission decision to merge Lots 61 And 62 Except W'30', Tract 451, commonly known as 425 Ardmore Avenue. If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 374-5786. Sincerely, Mr. & Mrs. Elias Del Rio 1202 Goodman Redondo Beach, CA 90278 2 DEC '5 nail 4a6 aa>.e • C -77 -;<---le 6/ yz s-626/-' • og C2 0-rda/1 j.7 ,z4a Ace 62-4-<, c_,_,cceed/ --le-4)-e 9 • • 7e7P—. •)0c -c,_/_ 6 ,_.7/- _, 6,1/ _,..„"..•_e_ (- 7:7_e/zA-e/ _.,, • --- tr-/ 7,/,-e.-. ctie_t, geel!, c--ti-ti / -%'-,'/'-7,L,-a_2--' ,i'27c-e_ .,-4-zi / -,-, Za/q 4-1-<,- /9 ,,e;),4z.; /- D 6 — ,JL e_/4 V4LP0-,/ x-74 V--: enel-a_e_44:31 CLA-e-e-e.001 )1-4) 7/ dL4t3e- ca-ktW L2)-7 a-fiC cz-e--Z1 • • • _ — . • • December 6, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council December 13, 1988 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 88-4 -- A MAXIMUM OF TWO UNITS PER LOT IN THE R-2 ZONE INITIATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL Recommendation The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the R-2 zone not have a maximum unit number per lot, and that a study of precise development review for all projects over two units be prepared by staff. Background The City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent No. 88-5167 on July 12, 1988 directing staff to study placing a maximum of 2 units per lot in the'R-2 zone. Analysis In addition to the analysis in the attached staff report, the following analysis should also be considered. Large Lots There are two large lots in the south end of the City which are designated Medium Density by the General Plan; these lots are zoned M-1 which by staffs' estimation is completely inappropriate for the area considering the abutting densely populated neighborhood, and narrow local streets. If these lots were rezoned to be consistent with the General Plan, Medium Density designation and the maximum of two units, the result would either be lots with an allowed density lower than any other lot in the City, or these lots would be subdivided into smaller lots resulting in row housing with guest parking in the driveway as it typically occurs throughout the City. Of course, the property owner will want to maximize his profit; therefore, the lots will be subdivided into minimum size lots; the resulting density will be slightly less (12 vs 15), but the building layout and amenities will be much less. Quantitative vs Qualitative Development Over the past two years, the City has reduced density considerably via lot mergers, text amendments and down zoning. However, staff has discovered that residents are still disgruntled about the kind of development being constructed. The 1 8 reason is that even though, e.g., a lot can now have only two units instead of 4 units, the developers are simply building two huge units instead of 4 smaller units, and the nearby residents cannot see any distinction, i.e., they now see a 2 or 3 story, practically lot line to lot line development, where once a 900 square feet beach cottage existed. Therefore, staff believes that more density reduction may not be the answer, but instead precise development review for all projects which would include building layout, architectural design and height, should be implemented. Also, the minimum standards for lot coverage, open space and setbacks should be improved. It should be noted that currently condominiums are given analytical review by the staff and the Planning Commission and conditions are imposed via the Conditional Use Permit process; however, apartments are not which is a significant loophole in our zoning ordinance, and should be corrected. Attachments 1. Planning Commission staff report of October 20, 1988. 2. Planning Commission minutes of November 1, 1988. CONCUR Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager T/ccsr2unt CITY MANAGER COMMENT: Respectfully submitted, 0( MichAei S uba h Planning Direcor The above point about "bulk" is certainly valid, but density seems to be an issue as well. The City can seek to improve the level of both, as they are not mutually exclusive. Also, the Council has already requested a study of architectural review requirements from Planning. 2 October 20, 1988 Honorable Cbairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission November 1, 1988 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 88-4 -- A MAXIMUM OF TWO UNITS PER LOT IN THE R-2 ZONE INITIATED BY PLANNING COMMISSION Recommendation Staff recommends that the R-2 zone not have a maximum unit number per lot. Background The City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent No. 88-5167 on July 12, 1988 directing staff to study placing a maximum of 2 units per lot in the R-2 zone. Analysis Option By having an R-2 and R -2B zone, the City has the option to place a maximum of •two units by zoning the property to. R -2B, or allowing more than two by zoning the property R-2. There are several reasons why this feature is desirable as noted below. • Equity There are many lots in the City particularly at the north end which are consistently General Planned and zoned for R-2, but they are so small, as a result of our density reduction ordinance, they can only have one unit. Therefore even though they are R-2 zoned, they would have no chance to have more than one unit if there was a cap of 2 units per lot. However, under the current ordinance, they can assemble lots, e.g., three 2,400 sq. ft. lots, which would allow for an additional unit. Conversely, there are a couple exceptionally large lots' in the City (20,000 square feet plus) which are zoned R-2 and could have only 2 units under the maximum of 2,unit standard. Of course, these large lots may be subdivided into 4,000 sq. ft. lots if they have the minimum frontage on a street, but this approach would result in a lesser quality design which is the next factor to consider. Design Larger lots generally provide greater opportunity to improve design qualities of a development; better open space, -3- landscaping, and parking layouts are available and also such as swimming pool, spas and recreation rooms can be Several small lots assembled allowing for an additional many times result in a better quality development. amenities provided. unit will Alternatives 1. Certain size lots in the City could be rezoned R -2B, thus placing a cap of 2 units per lot; the lots that are large enought to have 2 units without assembling lots could be rezoned to R -2B; exceptionally large lots, i.e., those that could be divided into several smaller (4,000 sq. ft.) lots, could remain R-2. 2. Another density reduction amendment to the R-2 zone is also possible, and could be studied as part of the revised land use element which will be prepared in the near futur. i T/pcsr2unt 4 • "Mic-hael Sch ach Planning Director SPECIAL STUDY — MAXIMUM OF TWO UNITS PER LOT IN THE R-2 ZONE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 20, 1988. The City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent No. 88-5167 on July 12, 1988, directing staff to study placing a maximum of two units per lot in the R-2 zone. P.C. Minutes 11 /1/88 c C By having an R-2 and an R -2B zone, the City has the option to place a maximum of two units by zoning the property to R -2B or allowing more than two units by zoning to R-2. There are several reasons why this feature are desirable. There are many lots in the City, particularly at the north end, which are consistently general planned and zoned for R-2; but they are so small, as a result of the density reduction ordinance, they can have only one unit. Therefore, even though they are zoned R-2, they would have no chance to have more than one unit if there were a cap of two units per lot. However, under the current ordinance, they can assemble lots, that is, three 2400 square foot lots, which would allow for an additional unit. • Conversely, there are a several exceptionally large lots in the City (20,000 square feet plus) which are zoned R-2 and could have only two units under the maximum two -unit standard. Of course, these large lots may be subdivided into 4000 square foot lots if they have the minimum frontage on a street; but this approach would result in a lesser quality design, which is another factor to consider. Larger lots generally provide greater opportunity to improve design qualities of • a development; better open space, landscaping, and parking layouts are available as are amenities such as swimming pools, spas; and recreation rooms can be provided. . Several small l,)ts assembled allowing for an additional unit will many times result in a better uality development.. There are two alternatives: (1) certain sized lots in the City could be rezoned R -2B, thus placing a cap of two units per lot. The lots that are large enough to have two units without assembling lots could be rezoned to R -2B. Exceptionally large lots, that is, lots which could be divided into several smaller (4000 square foot) lots, could remain R-2; (2) another density reduction amendment to the R-2 zone is also possible and could be studied as part of the revised land use element which will be prepared in the near future. Comm. Ketz asked about the issue of lot assembly and why lots could not be assembled if the maximum is set at two units. Mr. Schubach explained that when the lots are assembled, there could be two units; 'therefore, no matter what the lot size, there could only be two units. He continued by explaining the lot sizes necessary to accommodate two units. Mr. Schubach stated that many lots are under 3500 square feet; however, they are zoned R-2 so there can be only one unit. If two 3500 square foot lots are assembled, two units would be allowed, merely because the lots would then be large enough. However, nothing would be accomplished by assembling the lots, because there would only be one unit per lot allowed. Under the current code, three lots could be assembled, and four units would be allowed. However, if a maximum were adopted, only two units would be allowed. Comm. Ketz asked whether there was ever a time when there was a maximum of two units allowed in the R-2 zone. Mr. Schubach stated that at one time there was a maximum; however, it also allowed two units on a 2400 square foot lot, which equates to 37 units per acre, which is over the maximum of 25 units per acre. Mr. Schubach continued by discussing the square footages allowed. - 6 - P.C. Minutes 11 /1 /88 Chmn. Peirce stated that the issue is to determine whether 'it is desirable to allow multiple -family dwellings in areas which are predominantly two-family dwellings. Even though the density would be the same, the issue comes down to the bulk and mass of the larger units. Chmn. Rue felt that if a lot or combination of lots is large enough to accommodate ' different types of projects, those projects would not necessarily be any more bulky. The project may combine to give more open space and better amenities in certain instances. He did not feel this would happen that often; when it does happen, he did not feel it would be a problem. He stated that there are standards in place; if the standards are not valid, that issue should be addressed. He did not feel that the combining of lots and building to R-2 standards with the density allowed is an undesirable practice. He noted that R -2B standards are also in place. • Comm. Ingell agreed, stating that he does not feel a maximum unit number per lot is necessary. He stated that larger complexes could be more desirable developments in certain instances. Comm. Ketz stated that if the lots are very. large, multi -unit dwellings would be acceptable; however, she noted that many very large projects are being built to the yery minimum standards. Chmn. Peirce stated that he is torn on this issue, explaining that many people are concerned that condominium developments destroy the character of the neighborhoods; however, more amenities could be possible. He questioned the feasibility of imposing a conditional use permit process on each of these projects, so that they could be addressed on a project -by -project basis. Comm. Rue stated that condominiums currently require a conditional use permit. Comm. Ingell noted, however, that apartments are of real concern at this time, since they do not need any review. Mr. Schubach stated that the apartment issue will be studied by staff very soon. Jim Housley, 934 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that his impression of the City Council's reason for requesting this study was to prevent very large developments in two - unit neighborhoods. He felt that their concern also relates to parking and associated problems with apartments. Mr. Schubach stated that the main concern involves bulk, not just the number of units. He stated that the bulk problem will not be corrected merely by reducing the number of units. Mr. Housley suggested, then, that there should be a maximum square footage allowed in order to address the bulk problem. Mr. Schubach stated that staff is currently studying height, setbacks, and the review process for condominiums as well as apartments. Mr. Schubach discussed the conditional use permit issue, and stated that he would prefer to see a precise development plan review to address all new developments, especially since environmental assessments are not required on many of these developments. P.C. Minutes 11/1/88 C � MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation that the R-2 zone not have a maximum number of units per lot. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Inge11 as maker, and agreed to by Comm. Rue as second, to direct staff to return with a study on the inclusion of a precise development plan review for all multiple -unit developments of two units or more. Comm. Ketz stated that she would vote against the motion, explaining that she did not feel a precise development plan review gives the Planning Commission the authority to decrease the density. If it is a three -unit development in an area which is only duplexes or single family, someone cannot be told they can build only a duplex. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Peirce NOES: Comm. Ketz ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Edwards Chmn. Peirce stated that the study should also include a distinction between two units and less and three units and more in order to determine where the break -off point is. . P.C. Minutes 11/1/88 December 7, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of December 13, 1988 CITY MANAGER SALARY REVIEW PER AGREEMENT Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council provide direction to staff. Background: Mr. Kevin B. Northcraft was appointed as City Manager on February 22, 1988. The term of his contract is for one year and, there- fore, will expire February 21, 1988. The employment agreement includes a provision for salary review at the end of the tenth month. Analysis: Since Mr. Northcraft's appointment, the City has completed negotiations with the Police Officers' Association, the Teamster Union, and the Management Association. The negotiated salary adjustments have resulted in the Director of Public Safety's compensation being higher than that of the City Manager. Among the options that the City Council may consider are: 1. Adjust the current compensation of the City Manager for the remainder of the current contract. 2. Request that a new agreement be negotiated. 3. Receive and file this report. Respectfully submit/ted, (t -i,,i p , Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director 11a December 8, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of December 13, 1988 BILTMORE ADVISORY TASK FORCE Recommendation: That the City Council appoint 11 members of the Biltmore Advisory Task Force and its chair by motion of the City Council and approve the following recommendations for the task force: 1. Title - Biltmore Site Citizens Advisory Task Force - Biltmore Task Force for short. 2. Charge - To recommend an appropriate use of the City's surplus Biltmore site, including vacated right of way, that could become a community consensus. The intent is to have a single, desired option that is supported by all the task force optimally, or at least two-thirds otherwise. A "minority report" is discouraged but allowable. The criteria on such a decision is to be reviewed with the City Council at a joint meeting in early February. The Task Force is to meet as often as necessary and to hold public meetings but not public hearings. 3. Deadline - Final recommendation to be presented in writing no later than March 22 for March 28, 1989 Council agenda. 4. Relations with Council/Planning Commission - 1st meeting in January and February with Council; Planning Commission members to be invited to all meetings. 6. Agenda - 1st meeting - proposed for January 9, 1989 at 7 in the Council Chambers - Call to order - Roll Call - Introductions Task Force charge by Mayor/Council - History Development of Action Plan - Advisory Commission matters - application of laws, e.g., Ralph M. Brown open meeting law, conflict of interest financial disclosure - Next meeting time, date and location. Background: p.m. At your November 22, 1988 meeting, Council authorized the appointment of an 11 member committee to report back to the City Council on what they perceived to be a community consensus on the Biltmore site property. - 1 - 12a Analysis: The recommendations included above are based on the Council's motion, comments of the Council during discussion, input from the League of California Cities (see attached), and staff input. In order for the task force to accomplish its considerable objective within the time frames established, task force members will need a clear understanding of their mission, information and technical support, and high priority attention from both the City Council and staff. The recommendations noted above are designed to accomplish these aims. ----- Kevin _Kevin B. Nortthcraft City Manager KBN/ld Attachments November 26, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of December 13, 1988 RECOMMENDATION TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 19i OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLED "NOISE REGULATION" IN ITS ENTIRETY AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW CHAPTER 19+x; AND REPEALING CERTAIN PARTS OF CHAPTER 20, TITLED "NUISANCES", WHICH ARE IN CONFLICT WITH NEW CHAPTER 19i, IN THEIR ENTIRETY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Introduce the attached Ordinance for adoption. 2. Appropriate an amount, not to exceed $7,000, from Prospective Expenditures for the purchase of noise monitoring equipment necessary for enforcement of the Ordinance. BACKGROUND: In October of 1986, City Council instructed the Police Department to study upgrading the existing Noise Ordinance and to return with recommendations by January, 1987. Dr. Frank Gomez, the Environmental Management Training Coordinator for Los Angeles County was contacted in regards to this direction. Dr. Gomez reviewed the existing Ordinance, which was developed in 1971, and revised in 1974 and 1984. He also reviewed all previous Council documentation of the problem, spe- cific complaints, and other materials. Based on his review, Dr. Gomez made several findings and recommendations: 1. the existing Noise Ordinance was a "first generation" environmental mana- gement attempt and would require a major rewrite and revision after a supportive study; 2. A new Ordinance should be designed "around the problem" and should address all noise problems in the City, including traffic, construction, etc; 3. "State-of-the-art" monitoring equipment, which would be able to print out readings for Court and C.U.P. violation documentation, should be purchased for enforcement of the Ordinance; and 4. Training and certification of enforcement officers should be provided. 1 1 o In December 1986, the City entered into an agreement with Dr. Gomez and the County of Los Angeles, Department of Health Services to conduct a community noise study. The County was to conduct a City-wide noise study in order to determine what the actual noise levels of the City were, where the major problems are, make recommendations regarding revision of the existing Noise Ordinance, recommend specific, approved equipment for the enforcement, and train Officers in the use of the equipment and enforcement of the Ordinance. ANALYSIS: The study was conducted during the months of August -September 1987, and 1988 The data was then collected and Dr. Gomez submitted a preliminary report in March 1988. This report indicated that one of the major community noise problems in Hermosa Beach was traffic noise. The report also provided suggested community noise level standards for the City. Dr. Gomez provided the final report, outlining recommended revisions to the existing Noise Ordinance and specifying appropriate monitoring equipment, in the latter part of August 1988. Following meetings between Building and Safety, the City Attorney, the Planning Department, the City Manager, and the Police Department, the existing Noise Ordinance was revised and is submitted for adoption. Steve S. Wisniews i Director of Public Safety CONCUR: Kevin B. Northcrdit, City Manager Mike Schach, Diirector of Planning William Grove, Director of Building and Safety NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: Viki Copeland, Finance Administrator 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 88 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING CHAPTER 19 1/2, OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, TITLED "NOISE REGULATION," IN ITS ENTIRETY AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW CHAPTER 19 1/2, AND REPEALING CERTAIN PARTS OF CHAPTER 20, TITLED "NUISANCES," WHICH ARE IN CONFLICT WITH NEW CHAPTER 19 1/2. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Paragraphs A, B, C, D, E, F, and H of Section 20- 2 of Chapter 20, titled "Nuisances," are hereby repealed in their entirety. SECTION 2. Chapter 19 1/2 of the Municipal Code of the City of Hermosa Beach, is hereby repealed in its entirety and replaced with the following: SECTION 19 1/2-2. DEFINITIONS. As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise clearly indicates, the words and phrases used are defined as follows: "A" - weighted (dBA). "A" weighted" shall mean the total sound level of all noise as measured with a sound level meter using the "A" weighting network. Ambient noise. "Ambient Noise" shall mean the all- encompassing noise associated with a given environment, usually being a composite of sounds from many sources near and far, to exclude the alleged intruding noise source. Commercial purpose. "Commercial purpose" shall mean and in- clude the use, operation, or maintenance of any sound amplifying equipment for the purpose of advertising any business, or any goods, or any services, or for the purpose of demonstrating any such sound equipment. 1 Decibel.' "Decibel" shall mean a unit for measuring the am - 2 plitude of a sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 3 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the 4 reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals. 5 Emergency work. "Emergency work" shall mean work made neces- 6 II sary to restore property to a safe condition following a public 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 calamity or work required to protect persons or property from an imminent exposure to danger. Equivalent sound level (LEQ). "Equivalent Sound Level" shall mean the constant sound level that, in a given situation and time period, conveys the same sound energy as the actual time -varying A -weighted sound. (For the purposes of this regulation, a time period of 15 minutes shall be used, unless otherwise specified.) Impulsive sound. "Impulsive Sound" shall mean a sound of 15 short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrupt on - 16 set and rapid decay. Examples include explosions, drop forge 17 impacts, and the discharge of firearms. Intrusive noise. "Intrusive noise" shall mean that noise 18 19 which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a 20given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends 21 upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence, 22 and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing am - 23 bient noise level. 24 Motor vehicles. "Motor vehicles" shall include, but not be 25 limited to, mini -bikes, go-carts, automobiles, and trucks. Motor 26 vehicle shall include any and all self-propelled vehicles as de - 27 fined in the California Motor Vehicle Code, including all on- 28II highway type motor vehicles subject to registration under this -2- 1 Code, and all off-highway type motor vehicles subject to iden- 2 3 tification under said Code. Noise disturbance. "Noise disturbance" shall mean any sound 4II which, as judged by the Chief of Police or his designated rep - 5 resentative, violates the limits set forth in Sections 19 1/2-3 6 and 19 1/2-4 of this regulation. Compliance with this chapter 7 shall constitute elimination of a noise disturbance. 8 Noise level (Lx). "Noise Level" shall mean that noise level 9 expressed in decibels which exceeded the specified (Lax) value as 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 a percentage of total time measured. For instance, a L25 noise level means that noise level which was exceeded 25 percent of the time measured. Noncommercial purpose. "Noncommercial purpose" shall mean the use, operation, or maintenance of any sound equipment for other than a commercial purpose. "Noncommercial purpose" shall mean and include philanthropic, political, and charitable purposes. Person. "Person" shall mean a person, firm, association, copartnership, joint venture, corporation, or any entity, public or private in nature. Pure tone. "Pure tone" shall mean any sound which can be judged as audible as a single pitch or a set of single pitches by the Chief of Police or his designated representative. 24 II Sound amplifying equipment. "Sound amplifying equipment" 25 shall mean any machine or device for the amplification of the 26 human voice, music, or any other sound. "Sound amplifying equip- ment" shall not include standard automobile radios when used and 27 28 heard only by the occupants of the vehicle in which the auto- mobile radio is installed. "Sound amplifying equipment" as used -3- 1 in this chapter shall not include warning devices on authorized 2 emergency vehicles, or horns or other warning devices on any 3 vehicles used only for traffic safety purposes. 4 Sound level meter. "Sound level meter" shall mean an instru- 5 ment including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and 6 frequency weighting networks for the measurement of noise and 7 sound levels in a specified manner which meets ANSI specifica- 8 tions S1.4-1961, as amended Type II or better. 9 Sound pressure level. "Sound pressure level" in decibels, of 10 a sound shall mean twenty times the logarithm to the base ten of 11 the ratio of the pressure of this sound to the reference pres- 12 sure, which reference pressure shall be explicitly stated. The 13 sound pressure is expressed in decibels. 14Sound truck. "Sound truck" shall mean any motor vehicle, or 15 any other vehicle regardless of motive power, whether in motion 16 or stationary, having mounted thereon, or attached thereto, any 17 sound amplifying equipment. 18 SECTION 19 1/2-3 EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS 19 1. Maximum permissible sound levels by receiving land use. 20 a. The noise standards for the various categories of 21 land use presented in Table I shall, unless other - 22 wise specifically indicated, apply to all such 23 property within a designated zone. The Leg method 24 of noise measurement shall be used, unless, in the 25 opinion of the Enforcing Officer it is difficult, 26 impracticable or infeasible to differentiate the 27 ambient noise from the noise being measured. 28 b. No person shall operate or cause to be operated, -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 any source of sound at any location within the in- corporated city or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property, either incorporated or unincorporated, to exceed: 1. The noise standard for that land use as specified in Table 1, Column A, for a cumulative period of 15 minutes in any half hour (L50); or 2. The noise standard plus 5 dB for a cumulative period of more than 7.5 minutes in any half hour (L25); or 3. The noise standard plus 10 dB for a cumulative period of more than 2.5 minutes in any half hour (L8.3); or 4. The noise standard plus 15 dB for a cumulative period of more than 30 seconds in any half hour (L1.67); or 5. The noise standard plus 20 dB or the maximum mea- sured ambient level, for any period of time; or 6. The equivalent A -weighted sound level (leg) as set forth in Table I, Column B, for a period of 15 minutes or until the calculatd Leq as read on the sound level meter has not changed for a period of five minutes. c. If the measured ambient level differs from that permissible within any of the first four noise limit categories above, or exceeds the Leq standard in b(6) above, the allowable noise exposure stan- dard shall be adjusted in each category as ap- propriate to encompass or reflect said ambient noise level. d. If the measurement location is on a boundary -5- 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 between two different noise zone classifcations, the noise level limit applicable to the lower noise zone plus 5 dB, shall apply. e. If possible, the ambient noise shall be measured at the same location along the property line utilized in 1 (b), with the alleged offending noise source inoperative. If for any reason the alleged offend- ing noise source cannot be shut down, the ambient noise must be estimated by performing a measurement in the same general area of the source but at a sufficient distance such that the noise from the source is at least 10 dB below the ambient in order that only the ambient level be measured. difference between the ambient and the noise is 5 to 10 dB, then the level can be reasonably determined of the ambient by subtracting If the source itself a one decibel correction to account for the contribution of the source,. 2. Correction for character of sound: In the event the alleged offensive noise, as judged by the Enforcing Officer contains a steady audible tone such as a whine, screech, or hum; or is a repetitive noise such as hammering or riveting, or contains music or speech conveying informational content, or is an 24 animal or bird noise, the standard limits set forth in Table 25 1 shall be reduced by 5 dB. 26 27 28 -6- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE 1 EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS (Levels not to be exceeded for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any 1/2 hour.) Allowable Noise Level (dBA) Noise Zone Classification Type of Land Use Time A B Lx Leg One and Two Family Residential 10 pm - 8 am 45 50 8 am - 10 pm 50 55 Multiple Dwelling Residential; Public Space; Predominantly 10 pm - 8 am 50 Residential With other Land use 8 am - 10 pm 55 Types Also Present 55 60 Predominantly Commercial With Other Land Use 10 pm - 8 am 55 60 Types also Present 8 am - lOpm 60 65 Commercial 10 pm - 8 am 60 65 8 am - 10 pm 65 70 SECTION 19 1/2-4. Interior Noise Standards 1. Maximum permissible dwelling interior sound levels: a. The interior noise standards for the various land use districts as presented in Table 2 shall apply, unless otherwise specifically indicated zone with windows in their normal seasonal configuration. -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 TABLE 2 Noise Type of Time Allowable Interior Zone Land Use Interval Noise Level (dBA) LX All Multifamily 10 pm - 8 am 35 Residential 8 am - 10 am 45 All School 8 am - 10 am 45 (while school is in session) Hospital Designated Quiet Zones Any time 40 and Sensitive Zones b. No person shall operate or cause to be operated within the City any source of sound or allow the creation of any noise which causes the noise level when measured inside a building described in Table 2 to exceed: (1) The noise standard as specified in Table 2 for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any half hour; or (2) The noise standard plus 5 dB for a cumulative peri- od of more than one minute in any half hour; or (3) The noise standard plus 10 dB or the maximum mea- sured ambient, for any period of time. C. If the measured ambient level differs from that permis- sible within any of the noise limit categories above, the allowable noise exposure standard shall be adjusted in 5 dB increments in each category as appropriate to reflect said ambient noise level. 2. Correction for character of sound: In the event the alleged -8- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 offensive noise, as judged by the Noise Control Officer, con- tains steady, audible tone such as whine, screech, or hum, or is a repetitive noise such as hammering or riveting, or con- tains music or speech conveying informational content, the standard limits set forth in Table 2 shall be reduced by 5 dB. Section 19 1/2-5 EXEMPTIONS None of the provisions of Section 19 1/2-3 and 19 1/2-4 herein shall be applied to: (a) Public works which are authorized by the City; (b) Building construction for which a valid building permit has been issued, only between the hours of 8 am and 7 pm. 14 ARTICLE II. PROHIBITED ACTS 15 SECTION 19 1/2-6. PLACES OF PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT 16 (a) Warning required. It shall be unlawful to operate, play 17 or permit the operation or playing of any radio, television, pho- 18 nograph, drum, musical instrument, sound amplifier, or similar 19 device which produces, reproduces, or amplifies sound in any 20 place of public entertainment at a sound level greater than 95 21 dBA as read by the Clow response on a sound level meter at any 22 point that is normally occupied by a customer, unless a con - 23 spicuous and legible sign is located outside such place, near 24 each public entrance which states: "WARNING, SOUND LEVELS WITHIN 25 MAY CAUSE PERMANENT HEARING IMPAIRMENT." 26 (b) Containment required. It shall be unlawful to allow any 27 sound, caused by the operating, playing or permitting the opera - 28 tion or playing of any radio, television, phonograph, drum, musi- cal instrument, sound amplifier, or similar device, to emanate -9- 1 from the establishment, which causes the noise level, when mea - 2 sured on any other property, either incorporated or unincorpor- 3 ated, to exceed the noise standards specified in Section 19 1/2-3 4 and 19 1/2-4. 5 (c) These requirements shall be supplemental to any other 6 city requirements regarding noise level, including those found in Conditional Use Permits. In the event of a conflict between the 7 8 noise standards in this ordinance and any other city require- 9 ments, the stricter standard shall apply. 10 SECTION 19 1/2-7. ANIMALS AND FOWL 11 No person shall keep or maintain, or permit the keeping of, 12 upon any premises owned, occupied, or controlled by such person, 13 any animal or fowl otherwise permitted to be kept which, by any 14 sound, cry, or behavior, violates the limits set forth in Sec - 15 tions 19 1/2-3 and 19 1/2-4. 16 SECTION 19 1/2-8. LEAF BLOWERS. 17 It shall be unlawful to use within the Hermosa Beach city 18 limits or cause to be used electrical or gasoline powered back - 19 pack/leafblowers, such as commonly used by gardeners, landscapers 20 and other persons. 21 SECTION 19 1/2-9. LOADING AND UNLOADING 22 Loading, unloading, opening, closing, or other handling of 23 boxes, crates, containers, building materials, or similar objects 24 between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. in such a manner as 25 to cause a noise disturbance across a residential real property 26 line which violates the provisions of Sections 19 1/2-3 and 19 1/ 27 2-4. 28 ARTICLE III. CONSTRUCTION SECTION 19 1/2-10. CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND PROJECTS. -10- 1 It shall be unlawful for any person within a residential 2 zone, or within a radius of five hundred (500) feet therefrom, to 3 operate equipment or perform any outside construction or repair 4 work on buildings, structures, or projects or to operate any pile 5 driver, steam shovel, pneumatic hammer derrick, steam or electric 6 hoist, or other construction type device between the hours of 7 7:00 p.m. of one day and 8:00 a.m. of the next day in such a man - 8 ner that violates the limits set forth in Section 19 1/2-3 and 19 9 10 11 12 1/2-4, unless beforehand a permit therefor has been duly obtained from the director of building and safety. No permit shall be required to perform emergency work as defined in Article I of this chapter. 13 ARTICLE IV. VEHICLES 14 SECTION 19 1/2-11. AMPLIFIED SOUNDS - MOTOR VEHICLES 15 It shall be unlawful for the operator of any motor vehicle to 16 operate, or permit operation of, any device for the amplification 17 of the human voice, music, or other sound which makes sound 18 clearly audible to other than the occupants of such motor vehi- 19 cle. This section shall not apply to the use of horns, warning 20 devices, and other exceptions in accordance with Section 27000- 21 27007 of the California Vehicle Code. 22 SECTION 19 1/2-12. VEHICLE REPAIRS 23 It shall be unlawful for any person within any residential 24 area of the city to repair, rebuild or test any motor vehicle 25 between the hours of 10:00 p.m. of one day and 8:00 a.m. of the 26 next day in such a manner that violates the provisions of Sec - 27 tions 19 1/2-3 and 19 1/2-4. 28 SECTION 19 1/2-13. MOTOR VEHICLES OPERATING ON PUBLIC RIGHT- OF-WAY. -11- 1 Motor vehicle noise limits on a public right-of-way are regu- 2 lated by the California Vehicle Code, Sections 23130 and 23130.5. 3 Equipment violations which create noise problems are regulated by 4 Sections 27150 and 27151 of the same code. 5 ARTICLE V. AMPLIFIED SOUND 6 SECTION 19 1/2-14. PURPOSE. 7 The city council enacts the provisions of this article for 8 the sole purpose of securing and promoting the public health, 9II comfort, safety, and welfare for its citizenry. While recogniz- 10 II ing that the use of sound amplifying equipment is protected by 11 the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and assembly, the 12 council nevertheless feels obligation to regulate reasonably the 13 use of sound amplifying equipment in order to protect the cor- 14 relative constitutional rights of the citizens of this community 15 to privacy and freedom from public nuisance of loud and unneces- 16 sary noise. 17 SECTION 19 1/2-15. APPLICATION REQUIRED. 18 It shall be unlawful for any person, other than personnel of 19 law enforcement and government agencies, to install, use or oper- 20 ate within the city a loudspeaker or sound amplifying equipment 21 in a fixed or movable position or mounted upon any sound truck 22 for the purpose of giving instructions, directions, talks, ad - 23 dresses, lectures, or transmitted music to any persons or as - 24 semblages or persons in or upon any street, alley, sidewalk, 25 park, place, or public property without first filing an applica- 26 tion and obtaining a permit therefor as set forth in this 27 article. 28 SECTION 19 1/2-16. FILING APPLICATION. -12- 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 Every user of sound amplifying equipment shall file an ap- plication with the chief of police at least ten (10) days prior to each date or each consecutive number of days on which the sound amplifying equipment is intended to be used. SECTION 19 1/2-17. CONTENTS OF APPLICATION. The application shall contain the following information: (a) The name, address and telephone number of both the owner and responsible party for the property where the sound amplifying equipment shall be used; (b) The address where the sound amplifying equipment will be used; (c) The date(s) and day(s) on which the sound amplifying equipment will be used; (d)) The times when the sound amplifying equipment will be used; (e)) The type of activity and the estimated number of persons who will attend; (f) A general description of the sound amplifying equipment which is to be used; (g) Whether the sound amplifying equipment will be used for commercial or noncommercial purposes; and (h) Other information deemed necessary by the chief of police or his designee to determine the levels, location and duration of the use of sound amplifying equipment. SECTION 19 1/2-18. APPROVAL OF PERMIT. The chief of police shall approve the application unless he finds that: (a) The conditions of motor vehicle movement are such that, -13- 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 in the opinion of the chief of police, use of the equip- ment would constitute a detriment to traffic safety; or (b) The conditions of pedestrian movement are such that, in the opinion of the chief of police, use of the equipment would constitute a detriment to traffic safety; or (c) The issuance of the permit would be otherwise detrimen- tal to the public health, safety or welfare; or (d) The issuance of the permit will substantially interfere with the peace and quiet of the neighborhood or the com- munity; or (e) The applicant would violate the provisions of this Code or of any other law. SECTION 19 1/2-19. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. The chief of police may impose such conditions on the opera - 15 tion to be conducted under the permit as he may deem necessary or 16 proper to ensure that the city's noise regulations are followed 17 and that the operation of the sound equipment will not invade the 18 privacy of others. There shall be no conditions placed on any 19 permittee as to the type of message or the content of the commun- 20 cation under this chapter. 21 SECTION 19 1/2-20. APPEALS. 22 Any person aggrieved by disapproval of an application may 23 appeal to the city council within ten (10) calendar days from the 24 date of notification of decision. 25 SECTION 19 1/2-21. PERMIT FEE. 26 Prior to the issuance of the permit, a permit fee in the 27 amount of thirty dollars ($30.00) per day, or any portion there - 28 of, shall be paid to the city. No fee shall be paid by any non- profit organization. -14- 1 SECTION 19 1/2-22. REGULATIONS. 2 The commercial and noncommercial use of sound amplifying 3 equipment shall be subject to the following regulations: 4 (a) The only sounds permitted shall be either music or human 5 speech, or both. 6 (b) The operation of sound amplifying equipment shall occur 7 only between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. each 8 day. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (c) Sound amplifying equipment shall not be operated within two hundred (200) feet of churches, schools, hospitals, or city or county buildings. (d) In any event, the volume of sound shall be so controlled that it will not be unreasonably loud, raucous, jarring, disturbing, or violate the limits set forth in Sections 19 1/2-3 and 19 1/2-4. ARTICLE VI. REMEDIES SECTION 19 1/2-23. VIOLATIONS; INFRACTIONS, PENALTIES. Any person violating any provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of an infraction of the law as set forth in Section 36900 of the Government Code of the State of California and may be prosecuted in the name of the people of the State of Califor- nia, or redressed by civil action. Every violation of this sec- tion determined to be an infraction is punishable pursuant to the provisions of Section 36900 of the Government Code, as incorpo- rated in Section 1-7 of this Code, and in accordance with the current fine/bail schedule in effect and approved by the presid- ing judge of the municipal court. SECTION 19 1/2-24. SAME - ADDITIONAL REMEDY. -15- 1 As an additional remedy, the operation or maintenance of any 2 device, instrument, vehicle or machinery in violation of any pro - 3 visions of this chapter, which operation or maintenance violates 4 the limits set forth in Sections 19 1/2-3 and 19 1/2-4 or which 5 endangers the comfort, repose, health or peace of residents in 6II the area shall be deemed, and is declared to be, a public 7II nuisance and may be subject to abatement summarily by a restrain - 8 9 10 11 12 13 ing order or injunction issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. SECTION 19 1/2-25. ENFORCEMENT; ',ENFORCING OFFICER', DEFINED. For the purpose of this chapter, the term "enforcing officer" shall mean any police officer of the city and any other employee of the city whose duty it is to enforce the provisions of this 14 Code who is authorized by the city manager to use the citation 15 procedure established by this chapter in the performance of his 16 enforcement duties. 17 SECTION 19 1/2-26. SEVERABILITY. 18 If any provision, clause, sentence, or paragraph of this 19 chapter, or the application thereof to any person or circumstanc- 20 es shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the 21 other provisions or application of the provisions of this chapter 22 which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or ap- 23 plications and, to this end, the provisions of this chapter are 24 hereby declared to be severable. 25 SECTION 19 1/2-27. REPEAL. 26 Any provisions of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, or appen- 27 dices thereto, or any other ordinance of the city inconsistent 28 herewith, to the extent of such inconsistencies, and no further, are hereby repealed; providing, however, that such repeal shall -16- 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 not in any way affect any prosecution or action which may be pending in any court for the violation of any provisions or or- dinances repealed thereby. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of November, 1988. PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: A'PROVED CITY CLERK ATTOINE -17-