Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/19/88AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Monday, December 19, 1988 - Council Chambers, City Hall 6:00 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: CONVENE JOINT MEETING WITH CIVIL SERVICE BOARD 1. Roles, responsibilities, and authority of the Civil Ser- vice Board. 2. Procedures for conducting administrative hearings. 3. Discussion of the Civil Service Board's responsibility in certifying employment eligibility list. 4. Review of the development of the Employer -Employee Or- ganization Relations Resolution. RECESS RECONVENE ADJOURNED REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Items continued from December 13, 1988 meeting: 1(a) Resubmittal of minutes of City Council meeting of Novem- ber 22, 1988 with verbatim transcript of Item #14(a), Disposition of City owned property "Biltmore Site". 1(f) Agreement for contract administration and inspection services on sanitary sewer improvements, Target Area 3, CIP 87-405. Supplemental report from Public Works Di- rector Anthony Antich dated December 15, 1988. - 1 - ko HEARINGS 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. 10. RECOMMENDATION TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 19-1/2 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLED "NOISE REGULATION" AMD 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. 13. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Discussion requested by Councilmember Williams re. pos- sible moratorium in the Specific Plan Area. 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. (b) Discussion requested by Councilmember Williams re. Beach Drive street rededication in the Specific Plan Area. Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to dis- cuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or 3) resolution of matter by Council action tonight. (c) Request by Councilmember Creighton for review of status of funds from Gotanda vs. City of Hermosa Beach lawsuit. Recommended Action: 2) 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. New items presented for consideration: r • 1. Recommendation to renew coverage with Fireman's Fund for auto physical damage and property insurance. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated December 15, 1988. CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the Council on items within the Coun- cil's jurisdiction may do so at this time. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND CIVIL SERVICE BOARD DECEMBER 19, 1988 December 11, 1988 TO: Members of the City Council, and Members of the Civil Service Board Re: Roles, responsibilities, and authority of the Civil Service Board. The ordinance (N.S. 211) which created Article III. Civil Ser- vice, of the Municipal Code was approved by the voters of the City at an election held on June 7, 1960. The Article es- tablishes the competitive service of the City. Section 2-28 of Article III, established the Civil Service Board, and Section 2-31 sets forth the powers and duties of the Board. As stated in that section, the functions of the Civil Service Board are: 1. To hear appeals submitted by any person in the competitive service relative to any suspension, reduction in pay, or alleged violation of the provisions of Article III or the personnel rules and regulations. 2. When requested by the City Council or the City Manay'ger, to hold hearings and make recommendations on any matter of personnel administration of the city council or the city manager. In addition to the above, the personnel rules and regulations establish that the Civil Service Board shall be responsible for the certification of employment eligibility lists. The particular authority of the Civil Service Board when hearing an appeal is discussed as a separate item on the agenda. Respectfully submitted, 6(.< Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director Noted: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager h CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND CIVIL SERVICE BOARD DECEMBER 19, 1988 December 11, 1988 TO: Members of the City Council, and Members of the Civil Service Board Re: Procedures for conducting administrative hearings Article III of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code provides that employees in the competitive service may appeal actions taken for dismissal, demotion, suspension, reduction in pay, or alleged violation of the provisions of Article III. Actions of dismissal or demotion are appealed directly to the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission. Section 2-40 of the Municipal Code calls for the Civil Service Board to convene as a special hearing board upon the request of an employee who has had a suspension or reduction in pay action taken against him. In the conduct of a hearing, the Civil Service Board has the power to examine witnesses and compel the attendance of those witnesses, or the production of evidence, by the issuance of sub- poenas. Typically, both the employee and the City are represent- ed by an attorney at the hearing and a transcript is made of the proceedings. Following the hearing of evidence for and against the aggrieved employee, the Board certifies its findings and conclusions to the City Manager. As stated in section 2-40, "In the event the hear- ing board finds the action taken to have been taken without just cause, the action will be revoked..." Pursuant to rule "J" of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations, decisions of the Civil Service Board, sitting as a special hear- ing board, may be appealed to the Los Angeles County Civil Ser- vice Commission. Respectfully submitted, Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director Noted: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND CIVIL SERVICE BOARD DECEMBER 19, 1988 December 11, 1988 TO: Members of the City Council, and Members of the Civil Service Board RE: Discussion of the Civil Service Board's responsibility in certifying employment eligibility lists. The Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (sec. 2-33) mandates that appointments to vacant positions in the competitive service shall be made in accordance with the personnel rules and regulations. The personnel rules and regulations regire that all appointments be made from an eligible list as certified by the Civil Service Board. Once certified, a list is valid for one year unless extended by Board action. A list can be extended for a period not to exceed 12 months. Following receipt of the final results of a pre-employment examination, a list of the names of qualified candidates is submitted to the Board for certification. Prior to certification of a submitted list, the Board determines that the examination was conducted in accordance with established personnel practices and that the ranking of the individuals on the list is accurate. On several occasions, the Board, upon review of the list, has discovered arithmetical inaccuracies in determining the eligibility ranking. In some instances this discovery resulted in a reordering of the eligible candidates. In addition to the responsibility of certification of eligibility lists, the Board may abolish an existing list. The Board is authorized to do this at any time that a list contains fewer than three names. Respectfully submite obert A. Blackwoo Personnel Director Noted, Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager rab/lists CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND CIVIL SERVICE BOARD DECEMBER 19, 1988 December 11, 1988 TO: Members of the City Council, and Members of the Civil Service Board Re: Review of the development of the Employer -Employee Organization Relations Resolution In December 1986, the Civil Service Board delivered a recommended Employer -Employee Organization Relations (EEOR) Resolution to the City Council for consideration. This EEOR Resolution was developed by the Civil Service Board from a model provided by the League of California Cities. The Civil Service Board spent approximately eighteen months editing the League's model for submittal to the Council. The purpose of the Employer -Employee Organization Relations Resolution is to provide a basis for the City's labor relations process under Government Code, Sections 3500 et seq., commonly referred to as the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA). The MMBA provides that employees have the right to organize and be represented on matters concerning wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. The EEOR Resolution would set forth the conditions and procedures by which an employee or- ganization (i.e.,Union or Association) is recognized as the ex- clusive bargaining agent for a particular unit of employees. Included in the EEOR Resolution is a provision setting forth the procedure to be followed if the City and a recognized employee organization reach an impasse in contract negotiations. The EEOR Resolution submitted to the City Council by the Civil Service Board contained provisions for negotiations at impasse to be submitted to Binding Arbitration following Mandatory Media- tion. The City Council rejected the Board's recommendation regarding the impasse procedure. Staff was directed to amend the impasse procedure to include an option of mediation and, if the impasse remained unresolved, submitting the issue to the Council for determination. Currently, in the absence of a formal pro- cedure (EEOR), a negotiations impasse is submitted to the City Council for determination. In addition to being philosophically opposed to the Civil Service Board's inclusion of binding arbitration in the impasse pro- cedure, the Council relied on an opinion of the City Attorney that a City may not delegate its power to a third party arbitra- tor. This opinion was based on the City Attorney's review of a 4 California Supreme Court decision in the case of Bagley v. Man- hattan Beach. At a meeting held in March 1987, each of the employee organiza- tions was presented with a draft of the proposed EEOR Resolution. All of them expressed opposition to the Council implementation of an EEOR Resolution which did not contain arbitration (or factfinding) to resolve an impasse. Questions were raised as to whether the decision in Bagley applied to a General Law City and, if factfinding was indeed precluded as suggested in the City At- torney's memorandum. The employee organizations requested that in order to clarify the matter, a State Attorney General's opinion be solicited. To date there has been no further movement toward implementation of the EEOR Resolution. The draft EEOR Resolution and other supporting documents are available for review in the Personnel Office. Respectfully submitted, 7 Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director Noted: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager 2 • =af December 18, 1988 Adjourned City Council Meeting December 19, 1988 Mayor and Members of the City Council RESUBMITTAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOV. 22, 1988 ITEM 14(a) Disposition of "Biltmore Site" Attached is.a verbatim transcript of the above item. I feel the minutes which were prepared are correct as they are now written. If the Council should wish to amend their previous actions, I would suggest that they do it in a subsequent motion to amend. Noted: (Not available for signature) Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk r 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 sionwfor 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 RESOLUTION NO. 88-5203 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" WHEREAS, the City Council discussed the matter on November 9, and November 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 direct 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: WI' t AUA, 4 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 22nd day of November 1988 PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: 23 24 27 28 CLERK ITY ATTORNEY VERBATIM ITEM 14(a) CITY COUNCIL MEETING 11-22-88 14(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 Kevin B. Northcraft, referencing his memo dated November 17, 1988 including Interpreting the recent election; advantages of acting and not acting; decision making options; and financing the Greenbelt Acquisition Simpson: ... and I would like to ask at this time whether the City Attorney can give us a status report on the Specific Plan Area for 1984. Lough: Well, the Specific Plan Area that was adopted by the City Council in 1984 is still in full force and effect. That Specific Plan Area covers not only the Biltmore Site but Lot C and the adjacent private properties. When that plan was adopted it did not specifically repeal the C-2 zoning, it didn't say that in the Ordinance. Just to be safe, it you do act to repeal the Specific Plan somewhere down the road, I would suggest tha': you list in there what type of zoning you want just to be safe as to what your clear intentions are. But that's basically where it sits at this time. Simpson: Mr. Mayor. In follow-up. Isn't it possible that we could, the Council could, together with the Planning Commission, indicate an undesignated zone and give us the opportunity at this time to work toward a repeal of the SPA 84. This bothers a lot,of people I think. Lough: I would have a problem with an undesignated zone. Simpson: I'm talking about the Biltmore Site alone. Lough: That alone? You'de have to send it back to the Planning Commission and have them make a recommendation and bring it back to you to do that. And by undesignated, I'm not really sure how you would do that because you would have a consistency problem. You would also have to amend the General Plan, and possibly the Coastal Plan. And I'm not sure what undesignated would. I'm sure we could handle it in our General Plan, but I'm not sure how the Coastal Commission act toward that, I haven't given it a lot of thought. Williams: Excuse me, Mayor. I just think we are getting a little ahead of ourselves here. I think that all that discussion will be coming up when we have a Public Hearing to amend, repeal, rezone or whatever we're going to do. But I have here a copy of our, well the minutes of the last meeting. The action was to direct staff to come back at the next meeting with the , motion by Sheldon, methodology and intricacies of repealing the SPA. And I think that that was our action, and what we indended to do. The report by the City Manager is excellent, and really covers a lot. What I am personally interested in, I want the details right now on how we go about repealing the SPA. I have had a couple of conversations with the City Attorney about this and he feels very strongly that we should send this as a Resolution of Intent to the Planning Commission to repeal, amend or rezone the SPA. I have here a list of all the times starting Nov. 25, no it was Dec. 15, 1987 that we adopted a Resolution of Intent to study repealing the SPA and sent that to the Planning Commission. They have been over and over this. They have come back each time, their recommendation was the amended 1984 Plan that we put on the ballot. And we just got that recommendation back in July. I don't know why they would be changing. I would think that that would still, the information, the testimony would still hold true, and that I think that if the Council wants to repeal this SPA, we could go ahead a set a Public Hearing to take testimony on that. However, one more thing. If the City Attorney says absolutely that we can not do that, that we have to go to the Planning Commission, I expected that we would have a resolution in our packet tonight to send to the Planning Commit;sion. And, since we didn't, I requested that we get the last one that we sent, so in case you have to go over wording, or change wording or whatever, we have it right here to work with. Lough: Well, very quickly. As far as recommending, in my discussions with Councilmember Williams, I'm not recommending anything, and that's why I'm not part of the staff report here is because it's policy recommendations, and that's something that I don't do. The manner in which, our conversation basically revolved around how do you do something. And that something was repeal the SPA, and to do that you have to send it to the Planning Commission because the previous resolution sending it to the Planning Commission was brought back to the Council, Council acted upon it and put the matter on the ballot. The ballot measure failed. Now, the action has been taken and you have to start from scratch again. And, if you don't start from scratch, you're assuming that the Planning Commission, after that vote, has no new information upon which to make decisions, and it would put us in a strong probability of being in legal jeoparty if we were to act now without sending it to the Planning Commission. Rosenberger: Mr. Longacre, what we are going to do on this is, we are going to talk on this issue and then we'll take public testimony after we're done with our own internal discussions. Longacre: Okay, thank you. Rosenberger: That will give you a chance to sit down and make yourself confortable. Sheldon: Mr. Mayor. What's the legal impact, this question is directed to the City Attorney, of the City Manager's recommendation, which is that we don't, we don't apply for an extension. Lough: The legal impact, oh, on the coastal permit extension? Sheldon: Yes Lough: The legal impact of that would be, well the Coastal Commission would know that we're not going along with the extension. Assumming that that would have some sort of impact on their decision making processes, they might deny the coastal permit application. The developers in question would have to start from scratch, and wouldn't be allowed to amend down the permit to their own size property, or whatever, to do a similar type project on privately owned land. The reason the thing was noticed that way, buy the way, is that I did get a call last week, and that's why it was in your packet, about the notice of it, I did get a call from the developer asking whether or not the matter should be posted, and I talked to the developer and said they could go ahead and post it because I didn't feel that, if we didn't post it, there would be a due process problem because the application was going forward. But, it would probably have the affect of having the Coastal Commission deny it, and precluding the developer from proceeding with a smaller scale project with an amendment later. Rosenberger: Mr. Herriott, I'll tell you the same thing I told Mr. Longacre, we're going to talk about this after we're done discussing it , we'll allow some public testimony. Herriott: Thank You. Northcraft: Mr. Mayor, if I could clarify, my recommendation was to recommend that Council direct staff to notify the Coastal Commission that we're rescinding our request for an extension of the Coastal Permit as it applies to our land, our City owned land. Rosenberger: Well, that's a point of discussion. Sheldon: That's the right move. Creighton: That's the absolute correct words. We are taking our name, the City's name, off the application as it applies to the Biltmore Site and Lot C. Williams: Second the motion. Creighton: No, no, there's no motion, I'm trying to clarify where we are. Lough: I really don't know what the Coastal Commission would do with something like that. Obviously, they would take our names off of it, I would think, at that point. You'de lose whatever leverage you had in having that, your name on that permit as far as development standards or whatever on the other property, but it would not have the affect, in my mind, if I was on the Coastal Commission, of affecting that other property. Creighton: Right. Lough: But, the Coastal Commission, it's late at night, I can say this, does some things differently sometimes than other governmental bodies, so I don't know how they will act. Sheldon: Well I think, I think the City, Mr. Mayor if I may, I think the City Manager's recommendation is absolutely prudent, and we ought to do that right now. Simpson: Is that a motion? Creighton: I'll second the motion. Sheldon: I make a motion that we instruct staff to remove our, whatever you said Kevin. What did you say Kevin? Simpson: Say it again. Norhtcraft: To direct staff to rescind our request to the Coastal Commission for an extension of their permit as it applies to the City owned land. Rosenberger: What we are doing is removing ourselves as a party Williams: Second. Rosenberger: From that SPA, is that right? Northcraft: Yes. Rosenberger: Ok. Yes, as it applies to our land. Lough: That's correct. Longacre: Point of order. Before you make the motion and pass it, could you take some testimony, please? Rosenberger: Well, what we're doing here is minor things. When the overall thing, aspect that will affect the public, then we will definately allow testimony on that, and that is where we proceed from here. Longacre: What you would call minor, I don't call too minor, and I'de like to make some comments before you do take any minor actions, as a citizen of Hermosa Beach. Creighton: Mr. Mayor. We are removing our name from the permit as it applies to our property, are we going to remove our name from the permit as it applies to the other parties names who are on the permit, as it applies to their properties? Is the City going to continue to participate in this application? Northcraft: Councilman Creighton, it would be my interpretation that if the Council approved the recommendation that we made, that the City take no further, that we would notify them, and we would take no further action. Creighton: All right. Northcraft: It would be basically the private property owners and the Coastal Commission issue. Lough: I would assume that the Coastal Commission is like just about every other agency, and that you can't make application for property that you don't own. It would mean. We went through that with the railroad, whether or not they owned it, and I would assume they have the same kinds of rules. Sheldon: Mr. Mayor, if there is someone in the audience who has a specific on this specific question, I suggest that we hear him. Rosenberger: Ok, you mean regarding the aspect of the SPA being, our participation in it as regards to our land being withdrawn. Ok, if someone has a comment to make on that area. Longacre: Thank you, my name is Howard Longacre ... Rosenberger: Are you addressing only that particular area? Herriott: Yes, absolutely, thank you very much Mr. Mayor ... Sheldon: Call the question. Rosenberger: The question is, what's the motion on the floor? Midstokke: To rescind our request to the Coastal Commission for an extension for the permit as it applies to the city owned property. Rosenberger: Ok, roll call. Midstokke: I'm not sure who was the second, if it was councilmember Creighton or Williams. Williams: I believe it was me. Rosenberger: She's pretty quick on those, yes. Midstokke: Councilmember Sheldon (yes) Williams (yes) Creighton (yes) Simpson (yes), Mayor Rosenberger (yes). Rosenberger: Now, there is a point here. Mr. Lough. I need some advise on this. Granted our name is now, at least at our desire, off of this SPA, or it's a hearing before the Coastal Commission, and has nothing to do with an SPA as far as they are concerned. Right? Sheldon: It's an extension. Lough: That's correct. It's an extension of a permit to build a project. Rosenberger: Now does that project have, as far as the Coastal Commission is concerned, does it have a height limit, that they are concerned about, or is it simply the location and the, are we talking - Lough: I don't have it in front of me, but it's a one page permit, and I believe that it just says the number of rooms in the hotel, which was 256. Sounds like Councilmember Creighton has a better memory than me. Williams: It's right here. Five story, 260 room hotel. Rosenberger: Now would we assume that they would be motifying that request in a downward fashion to the Coastal Commission. Correct? Lough: Well, normally the way it's done is they get the, normally what you do is, is you get an extension first, and then you worry about the motification after you've gotten the extension. That's normally what is done. Rosenberger: Another point, which is: What's to stop us from, in attempts to throw out the SPA , and rezoning the private property to C-2, is there any, that wouldn't affect in any way their going ahead in front of the Coastal Commission for extending their permit and later getting approval on whatever a height limit hotel is in effect, right. Lough: You mean C-2 on the privately owned property? Rosenberger: Yes. Lough: Ok. They would have to file an amendment, and then when they file an amendment, they would have to show that they meet all zoning laws. And then if there is a question whether or not the zoning law are consistent with the Local Coastal Plan. Then they would have to look at the Coastal Plan to see whether or not it fits. Normally, the prevailing view is that you do something that is less dense or smaller than the plan, that you don't, that it's consistent with that plan, and so the zoning ordinance that has a lower height, or a zoning ordinance that has a lower density would be allowed. You don't, you have a building permit for 79 units and you can only build 40 under the zoning, that building permit can't be acted upon, you know, if it doesn't have proper vesting. So, that would be the analogy. So I don't think that they could build. The question, you know, if they came back with a hotel, it probably would be consistent, but they would have to, the shrinking down of standards would, ah - Rosenberger: Ok, now let me try to answer this question here, or try to get an answer out of you. All we have done with our motion here, then, is allow them, on their own, to go ahead with the permit request. It has nothing to do with the height of the stucture, or an SPA, or whatever you want to call it. It could very well be a C-2 zoned block. Could it not? Lough: I would think so. I'm not sure what coastal staff would think, but I would think so. Coastal staff might not like certain types of uses that we allow in C-2, of being visitor serving under the coastal - Sheldon: Mr. Mayor. With the action we just took, is it still necessary to send the Public Hearing to the Planning Commission for the repeal of the SPA. Simpson: Yes. Lough: Yes, eventually you have to do something with the property. Staff has made several policy recommendations. Sheldon: Would that be an appropriate motion at the moment, so we could get off the SPA? Lough: If you have some language in front of you to act on, yes. Williams: I have some right here. Northcraft: Mr. Mayor. Councilwoman Williams is correct that I did not include that in my oral presentation. I think I provided that by seperate memo to you last week. The appropriate steps would be to approve a Resolution of Intent, and we have done that orally by minute resolution, although if that language is acceptable, we can use that as well. I would think the zoning and the General Plan could be considered concurrently not to duplicate the process, and after that point we would apply for an amendment of our LUP to the Coastal Commission. The beginning step would be the Resolution of Intent. It could be as simple as a motion and a minute resolution to authorize the Planning Commission to consider the 84 SPA, I think we all know which one that refers to, what area that refers to. Williams: Mayor, I would just like to mention that at the last meeting I made exactly that motion, and it was suggested that we could not go ahead with that because we did not have the wording in front of us, and it would be too diffucult so -- Northcraft: I think it had to do with the problem of noticing it on the agenda as well. Lough: Also, last time around, it was the day after the election, repealing a specific plan I hadn't looked at in several months. We didn't know what it said. Last time I looked back and it and -- Williams: Excuse me, but my motion was to send a resolution of intention to the Planning Commission for their recommendation to repeal the SPA. Sheldon: If you have a motion to make Ms. Williams, why don't you make a motion? Creighton: I have a question of the attorney, if I may, prior to Williams: Didn't you make a motion? Sheldon: I did not make a motion. Rosenberger: Ok. Mr. Creighton. Creighton: Is the SPA a variance that is in place, or is it a zone? Lough: It is more like a zone than a varianie. It is it's own zone. Creighton: Ok. Thank You. Lough: I would want to make some corrections to this, also. There have been some typed in corrections here, but under Now, therefore, be is resolved, the Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby direct staff and Planning Commission, because you're not just asking staff to look at this, you want the Planning Commission to look at it, which I think was one of the problems in the past is that there was a miscommunication on that; to study repealing the 1984 Specific Plan for the Biltmore Site and surrounding properties and to recommend appropriate zoning. So you cover both, not only repealing it, you also cover the issue of whether or not appropriate zoning should be placed on it, and you would then leave it to Planning Commission in their best judgement to recommend policy. Rosenberger: Can we set a time frame on this? Lough: Well, you can set a time frame. But you could also, one other way of doing it, you could call it back. That's what you did last time. You call it back, and they have to bring it back within 45 days. Creighton: Mr. Attorney. You said surrounding lands. Would that be better if it was affected lands? Lough: That. Thank You. Rosenberger: 45. Well, I know if we had Mr. Schubach out here, he would tell us that he can't do things in 45 days, as far as getting noticing, getting staff report up, and , so I would like, if we are going to put a time frame on this, Mr. Schubach to give us his best guess as to when we will get this back. Schubach: It's hard to say. If you want to put this up as a priority, we have at least a dozen special studies right now in the process of trying to get completed. We can put this in front of them and have it done as quickly as possible. We have the land -use, the housing element, we have to do the Multi -Use Corridor, just to name a few, non -conforming uses, design review board. Rosenberger: Answer me a question. Well, our point is that we would like to be able to maybe concurrently, or whatever, hold our own set of hearings, obviously when it comes back to us, to be able to take actions ourselves. So the question is, can we move before he's acted. Before the Planning Commission has acted? Can we do anything? Can we start the parallel trail? Northcraft: Well, my recommendation was to start a concensus building process. And I guess that's why I was not in such a rush to do the SPA, because you have to rezone that. I guess if you want to get rid of the SPA right away, you can do that and revert it back to the former zoning and still recognize that another tract can turn around and rezone it again. You know, once we conclude the Council's work on what it was to decide. But we're not really doing the, unless you intent for the Planning Commission to do the whole gammit, to look at all the potential options, rather than the council to do that directly. If you're only asking for them to remove the SPA and revert it to prior :zoning, that is much more limited, and that would allow for the dual tracking. Rosenberger: My thought is, and obviously speak up where you want, my thought is that we get the private property back into the marketplace in terms of its useability, so that they can do what they want with their property in a traditinal zoning sense. And then if it takes us longer to determine what we're going to do with our own property, so be it, due to whatever hearings and methods we have to reach a decision. But, I just want to make sure that we can, he's got his rights too as a property owner to be able to do something with his property. I would hope that he could come in here with a plan, and have us basically ready to say your land is yours, yes, do what you want, it's all cleaned up technically as far as your rights and all that to proceed. That's what I want to get our first, I think that for his benefit, he ought to have that so he has an awareness of what he can do anyway. How do we get there rapidly? Sheldon: In order to accomplish what you just said, Mr. Mayor, instead of saying for the Planning Commission to recommend appropriate zoning, Ms. Williams points out here, in one of the pieces of paper she handed me, the word underlying zoning, which underlying zoning has always been C-2. So it seems to me that 9 what we do is to refer it to the Planning Commission for study of repealing the SPA and affected properties and to recommend the underlying zoning of C-2. We just say that. Recommend the underlying zoning of C-2. Rosenberger: For all property, or just the private property? Creighton: All Sheldon: For all property. Lough: Mr. Mayor. I think we could work that into what I have, cause from the point of and to recommend appropriate zoning including the study of C-2 zoning for the privately owned lands. The reason I say that, they are supposed to study, the way it is worded in the motion, it tells them what to do, and we're supposed to be asking them to give you their advise. But you're directing them where to look. Sheldon: Where to look at the privately owned lands, not to look at the city -owned lands. Rosenberger: Because that's where the dual tract comes in. Sheldon: That's right, because that's where the, exactly. Lough: Well that's the only legal concern I have with the process; is to not leave; because right now you have privately owned land in limbo that nothing can be built. And that, after spending a half hour outside talking to the Alpha Beta Attorney about the Fifth Amendment, I get a little concerned about those kinds of things sometimes. Obviously, if something happens with the property, I would be asking staff to speed it up, and also bringing that to your attention. But that is a concern that you have to think about. Shedlon: Ms. Williams. Why don't you make a motion, we'll get rid of the SPA and get on to the other one. Northcraft: Mr. Mayor, if I could comment, I'm a little confused. We've excluded the public portion of the SPA from that direction. Midstokke: No, I don't think so. I'll be glad to read the resolution at it stands, if someone makes a motion to adopt it. Creighton: Move to adopt. Simpson: Second. Midstokke: So it would be: "A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO STUDY REPEALING THE BILTMORE SITE SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED BETWEEN 15TH STREET AND 13TH STREET,.AND THE STRAND AND HERMOSA AVENUE; COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE "BILTMORE SITE". 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 approve in 1984 for the "Biltmore Site"; and Whereas, the repeal of the 1984 Specific Plan 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 direct staff and the Planning Commission to study repealing the 1984 Specific Plan 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 day. Rosenberger: I thought we had the word surrounding properties in there. Creighton: We did, but we changed it to affected. Lough: The only correction to that would be, I believe on, between line 12 and 13, 1984 Specific Plan Area. Midstokke: Would you also do it on line 8? Lough: Yes Midstokke: Would you also do it in the title? Lough: Sure Northcraft: I guess I still have the same concern that we're asking the Planning Commission to recommend appropriate zoning, and we're not giving them any direction in regards to the City owned property. Rosenberger: Well, that's part of the dual tracking, as I see it. And that is, that's our responsibility at this point. Yet, and maybe it's going to take some -- Northcraft: But you're asking in this, as it's currently reading, for the Commission to study appropriate zoning on the city -owned property. Rosenberger: I thought that wasn't part of our intention. Williams: Mr. Mayor. I believe if we were going to do anything on the city -owned land, in the way of zoning, it would have to go to the Planning Commission for their recommendation. So they can do all of that with this resolution. Simpson: Mr. Mayor. In our memorandum from the City Manager dated November 17, he explains to us, and I hope that this is what we're doing now with this resolution, that the SPA repeal process would be by initiating general plan and zoning amendment process. That's what we're doing it when we set forth this resolution. That's what we're doing, and then it goes to the Coastal Commission. Because you don't go to the Coastal Commission with zoning until we have our own house in order. We have to have our own general plan and our own zoning. The licensing, or the permit is something else. That's what we're doing. We're initiating that process by this resolution? Lough: Well, you're initiating the zoning process part of it. Planning Commission has broad powers. They can initiatiate zoning and general plan amendments. They can look at the Biltmore Site if they want to, under this, they don't have to. They can tell you they don't want to do anything with it. You've appointed those people to do a job and -- Williams: We specified Specific Plan Area, and that includes all the property. Lough: Absolutely, and if they recommend something, they are also going to recommend that the general plan be changed, and they are also going to recommend if there needs to be Coastal amendments that those be processed. Rosenberger: Can I ask a questions Mr. Lough, if you can answer this. Could this not be speed up and expedited by a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council ? Lough: Well, you would still have to have separate hearings, because the purpose of a PlanningCommission is to make recommendations to this body. It's supposed to be so that you don't have a lot of public hearinc-s, no a lot of public testimony, to help sort through the process for you, that's the purpose for a Planning Commission. So a joint meeting would probably add another meeting to the process. You can't have both at the same time. Williams: Mayor. I have one question I would like to be clarified. I have here on May 10 we had a little memo with a lot of the government code attached with it that I have here with me. And in that memo it said that, it does appear to require a hearing at both the Planning Commission and City Councl level, I'm referring to repealing the SPA, and if any substantial is proposed by the legislative body not previously considered by the Planning Commission during it's hearings, then we have to send it back to the Commission. To me, we are not asking them to do anything they have not previously considered. Rosenberger: Yes we are, we are starting with a blank field at this point. Lough: That's right. Williams: Well, ok. I just wanted it clarified. I don't see it that way. But if that's the way it has to be. Lough: If you send it back down to them, they recommend C-2, repeal the SPA, it comes up to you, and you all want an amusement park, or something they didn't consider, then you can't act on that until it goes back to them, they don't have to have a public hearing, they just have to consider it, and then send back their recommendation. Which is usually a two week turn -around. Sheldon: Mr. Mayor. If we were to add language to this resolution, at the conclusion at line 14 where is says the 1984 Specific Plan Area for the Biltmore Site and affected properties and to recommend appropriate zoning on privately owned property. The City Council specifically directs the Planning Commission to withhold zoning discussions on publically owned property. Williams: Why would you do that? Sheldon: They are to discuss only the underlying zoning on the privately owned property, and leave, at least for the moment, the discussion on the publically owned property to the City Council. Williams: •Why would you want to do that? Sheldon: Because we want to discuss, at the Council level, what to do with the Biltmore Site, and not leave those decisions to the Planning Commission. Williams: If we do anything, we have to send it to them first, before we get it. Creighton: If we send it over to the Planning Commission and ask them to go through this process in front of us, and they decide the proper thing to do is to have the parking lot, the Biltmore Site, the optioned property go to the underlying zoning of C-2, it comes back up, and we affirm that, and bang that's done. That in no way would infringe upon any of the different procedures elaborated or brought before us by Mr. Northcraft on what the Council would do to get the zoning on that property for the development thereof. But it would resolve this at this point. It's the same thing as the UUT tax. We are going to go, and if something comes in the future to change it, we will change it. But why not be clean, have the Planning Commission do the whole thing, the whole thing is done. Then we go through the public process in the construction on the Biltmore Site. Sheldon: Well, I have two comments, Roger. And help me understand what you just said. The first comment is, we want to do this concurrently, we don't want to wait until the Planning Commission has gone through their procedures to zone all the land C-2 to come back to us to begin the hearings on what we really want to do, number one. And number two, we don't want the Planning Commission to assume the role of getting a community concensus on the Biltmore Site; during this process we don't want them, either through some. public testimony or individuals to start the public hearing process on what should really be on the Biltmore Site. Rosenberger: Besides it's adding to the confusion. If they are going in one direction, and we are having public hearings, it will only add to the confusion. Sheldon: That's all I'm trying to preclude. I hear exactly what you're saying, and if that, and if it would work that way, if we send it down, they repeal the SPA, they zone the underlying C-2, they rock and roll, and 90 days from now it comes back to us C-2, and in the mean time, and during the time, we are doing something else on the Biltmore Site, if it would work that way, that would be fine. Creighton: All we have to do, I feel, is that the Council take the ball and start down the field and we work that way. I have no diffuculty with it working that way. Rosenberger: Ok, so what have we achieved here? Sheldon: All right, then I agree. Midstokke: There is a motion and a second to adopt the resolution with the further additions of area after where it references Specific Plan. Rosenberger: What about Chuck's added wording? Midstokke: I didn't pick that up by the maker or the second agreeing to it. Williams: That's not in the motion. Northcraft: Mr. Mayor, I think the current wording of the motion is adaquate if we understand that we don't want the Planning Commission to spend a lot of time to duplicate what the Council may be doing to look at the long term zoning and general plan designation on the city -owned property. Creighton: Absolutely. Rosenberger: We want them to get the privately owned land back into the marketplace. Northcraft: And I think we can make that clear. I'm not sure the wording makes it clear, but I think we can. Sheldon: Can we make that clear? Creighton: It's clear. Sheldon: Then go with the motion. Creighton: Need a roll call? Midstokke: Councilmember Creighton (yes), Simpson (yes), Williams (yes), Sheldon (yes), Mayor Rosenberger (yes). Rosenberger: Ok, now really, the thing that is in front of us centers around our own land. We we have to decide and discuss here tonight, and I have we get some direction from ourselves, is which way to proceed in getting some concensus down line to act on. Assuming that is a majority goal, that we take the ball and move it. We could do it tonight, but, I don't think that's appropriate. I think we ought to get imput, I think everyone would agree on that, imput one way or another from the community. The question is which way do we get that imupt to give us the background we need, we feel comfortable with, to proceed from there. Sheldon: Exactly. Williams: Mr. Mayor. I would like this clarified. Maybe since it's our own property, it's an exception. Maybe we don't have to send it to_the Planning Commission for the recommendation to change the zoning. Is that the truth of it? Rosenberger: No, the point is, it will go to Planning Commission. But it will not go to the Planning Commission until we have had a chance to air it with the public. Williams: Well, that seems backwards to me. Rosenberger: Well, that might well be. Williams: That's not the procedure for changing the zoning. Rosenberger: That might well be, but we have decided not to confuse the public by holding hearings at the Planning Commission level that might very well be reversed by this Council simply because we would be -getting imput different from what they would be gathering. Simply because we would be holding a wider based hearing I hope. Williams: Well, if we have public hearings on what to do with our own land, what good does it do us? It's got to go the Planning Commission to start the public hearings. Northcraft: Mr. Mayor. Can I attempt an analogy? We own some land. This corporation of 20,000 people own some land. As owners, we need to decide what we want to do with our land. To do that, we apply to the government to rezone that land. And the first step would be to go to the Planning Commission, and then it goes to the Coucil.ut, we're acting now as landowners, not necessarily asCouncil , iri terms ofzoning. Rosenberger: We just happen to be Council also. Northcraft: First we have to figure out what we want to think about doing before we ask the governmental agency to -- Rosenberger: And how we want to get there, basically at this point. So I'll open up the discussion on that point only. How do we get there? And that is really a procedural question at this point. To get the imput that we feel will qualify us to make a decision. It's open, who cares to talk to it? Williams: Well, Mayor I'll say I've got enough imput right here, on this ballot measure, it had 18,417 votes, unofficially, to not develop that site. I think that's quite a bit of imput. Creighton: Mayor. I would suggest a meeting that would be scheduled for the Council to hold, not a normal Council meeting, but the five of us sit down here and have a Special Meeting at which people would bring written comments prior to it, and we can sit and listen to the commentary of the public. A lot of people will repeat what they have been repeating and a lot of people may have some new stuff to say. But I think that's the first step. Williams: Is that a motion? Creighton: No. Williams: Well then, I'll make a motion that we have a Town Hall Forum meeting, a Public Hearing type of meeting to take testimony, comments from the public, and how they would like the Biltmore Site to be utilized. Creighton: Before I second the motion, I'de like to get imput from all of our collegues, and then maybe we can get a concensus of what people might be proving, and maybe we can amend that motion, or change it a little bit. Rosenberger: Well, for the sake of motions, I'll second it for the sake of discussion, but I will encourage everyone, as Mr. Creighton suggested, that we talk either to it, against it, around it, or whatever. So Mr. Sheldon, you had something to say. Sheldon: Well, I don't think this Council is capable of delineating community concensus whatsoever in an public hearing environment. It's crazy to think that we can do that. To have, whether it's 3, 30, or 500 people stand up before us, and tell us what they think ought to be developed on the Biltmore Site, and then to think we have learned anything, that is crazy. What has to happen, is there has to be a community discussion take place. A discussion doesn't mean five of us sitting here and watching 100 people speak for three minutes on what they think ought to be on the Biltmore Site. A discussion is cross -talk. A discussion is thoroughly looking at the alternatives in a casual mode, where you look at the pros and cons of each issue in a non formal environment. If we act as the City Council in a public hearing environment, there isn't a single solitary thing that we will hear, that will allow us to proceed in a give and take situation to forming a community concensus. Williams: Excuse me, councilmember. That is exactly why I used the words Town Hall. It would be an informal meeting, with discussion. It wouldn't be like our ordinary public hearings. Sheldon: Well June, let's think about that. We call this town hall meeting, we hold it in the Community Center Theater, 670 people show up, and you're going to have a discussion on that item, who are you going to discuss with, 670 people? Rosenberger: Well, let me throw a counter argument out, Mr. Sheldon. Let's say that we approached it in a way that you're driving at here. As you mentioned more informal, one on one. The problem I see with that in regards to your argument here, is that you won't have 670 people showing up. You'll have probably the 20 or 30 that are the normal activist in town talking about this, and I don't know how to weigh them one way or the other. I'll take more comments from you on that. Creighton: Elaborate, if you would, Chuck, on your approach to it that would be different from the town hall. Sheldon: I think that there have been, over the course of several years, several very active and dedicated people in this city who have never, in most cases, interchanged on this subject. I don't know that t"zey represent the community, but I'll bet you they're close. And I don't even know who they are, although we would all come up with the same list of 20 or 30 names, probably. And it seems to me that, initially I thought that if we were to get a group of these together and empower them to discuss this item in a series of public meetings, that might be satisfactory. I however, am persuaded by comments of the council and Kevin that perhaps we ought to be part of that discussion. I don't know which way. But I just think that, and Ms. Wiliams I apologize if I appeared to act strongly, I reacted most of all to your motion after one minute of discussion, without giving the benefit of the council a chance to talk on it, and as a consequences, it seems to me, that what we need to have is a discussion, and not a public hearing. I don't know whether we appoint a body'of 11 or 7 or 18, whether or not the council would participate in that discussion, and those meetings would be public, and it would be casual, and there would be an opportunity to look at the pros and cons of all possible developments. But they would be, my . suggestions is that it not be citizens commenting to the council about their solutions for the Biltmore Site, but rather citizenscommenting to themselves and a chance to discuss all those alternatives together. Simpson: Mr. Mayor, if I may. I like the idea of a Citizens Advisory Board. I think we should speak very carefully about what the charge would be for those people. If I make a comparison to the TV Advisory Board, I think they made a major contribution, and they worked together. The problem is to get the group of people together with the charge, and the expectation, and the circumstance that we wouldn't just go back to the same adversarial, fragmented, devisive approach. That's the big problem, and I don't know quite how to do it. Other that select people who are committed, who would willingly committ to that kind of a meeting. To bring forth some creative ideas on what they would recommend is acceptable to the community, to themselves. Williams: Mayor, I believe we have already done that several times in the past. I think the City Clerk has drawers and drawers full of meetings and discussions that people have had on the Biltmore Site. I think we sort of had a meeting of the people when they went out and voted 18,417 not to develop it. I think it's time for the council to take some action. And we should do the zoning of the Biltmore Site like you mentioned Councilmember Simpson, due process. Just like we do any zoning, and since this is bigger than most zones, that's why I think if we had an • informal town hall meeting for public imput -- Creighton: Mr. Mayor. If the Council's going to do it, what's the town hall meeting for? And if the Council's going to do it, what do you suggest the council do? Williams: I would suggest that we set a public hearing to consider the zoning of the Biltmore Site, that's what I wanted to do, I didn't really think you_needed to send it back to the Plann_i g Co imm ssion, but I would hope we—would start. Since we have been advised -we better send it to the Planning Commission, that's what I think we ought to do. Let them start the public hearings. Rosenberger: Well, let me try to get things off the dime here by calling the question. And then at least we could vote up or down the motion on the floor, and proceed on from there. Creighton: May I make one statement prior to the vote? Chuck, in understanding where you are coming from, and in quite a bit of agreement in the chaos that may be from the town hall meeting. A town hall meeting might be the place to kick off the fact that we are going to be looking for people who would want to participate in maybe a group of 10 or 11, such of which I think you're getting to, if I'm reading you right. Rosenberger: Well, Mr. Creighton. You bring up a point that I have to address, and tl.at is, if we are to do that, for example, there is a time problem. First off, we wouldn't hold a town forum until some time in January. So then, if you're going to set up some kind of Blue Ribbon Committee or whatever, it wouldn't get - going until probably late February. And then you give it 90 days to come back to you, you're into Spring, you're into April or May before you get a recommendation. And I'm wondering why we can't move a little faster than that? Williams: Then you put it on the ballot. Creighton: Mayor. In all support for speed, ok, in all support for a speedly remedy of this, we must use a great deal of caution, I believe because for the wheels of government to grind truly here, and come out with a result at the end of this effort, they must grind slowly. And if we spped anything up, or rush anything, I am afraid we will come out with the same thing we came out at this election, where at the very last day before putting something on the ballot, we put three things on the ballot and we didn't get anything resolved. Rosenberger: Right now I'm inclined to vote against the motion because I'de prefer going in some other direction, somewhere else sooner, and if we're talking about a town hall forum only to try to gleen out 20 people who seem to be properly enthused, I think that defeats the purpose. Call the question. Roll call please, on the motion to have a town hall forum. Midstokke: Regarding the Biltmore Site utilization. Councilmember Wiliams (yes), Mayor Rosenberger (no), Councilmember Sheldon (no), Councilmember Simpson (no), Councilmember Creighton (no). Rosenberger: All right, that leaves the floor open for another motion. Creighton: I would make a motion that each councilman nominate two people who are residents of the City of Hermosa Beach, the Mayor nominate three, and that that committee come back with a report as to what they preceive to be as the community's concensus. It could be a split report, six could go for one item, and five could go for another, because that's the way it's going to wind up. Sheldon: Mr. Mayor. I'll second that motion for the purposes of discussion to see if Mr. Creighton would tweak it a little bit. First of all, I think we ought to give some direction. And that direction would be: we would like them to start January 1, we would like them to come back by April 1 roughly, these are just thoughts of mine. Creighton: I would say let's start January 1, and have a preliminary February 1, and be, I wouldn't want to go two months with nothing. Maybe a month and get something, so that we can see if they are getting anywhere. Sheldon: I would like to ask if you would consider, and I guess I would like all the council to consider this, if we were to have such a group organized, would it be in the interest of this council to participate in that group in all their meetings, or would it be in the interest of this council not to participate? Creighton: It would be my opinion that I would not participate in it. My reasoning would be that if we were trying to gain a concensus of what the community would support. It is obvious that I was unable to support anything on the ballot that the community would support. So I would have to take my hands off of it. I don't have that insight on this side. Rosenberger: Two things I would say to that. One, I don't think that even necessarily you'de come out of this with anything that the community would support in terms of a majority. You might get, you know. So you're still going to be forced into a leadership roll of making a decision at some point based on additional information perhaps, but that's not going to be as easy as just ratifying some subcommittees actions. Sheldon: Your motion, Roger, was for 11 people. Also I would suggest as part of your motion, and maybe this can be worked out as part of the details, but it's important that we understand what would happen here, and that is, I would not like this group to come back with a 6/5. I think that's too easy for them. I would like to at least have a 8/3 if not an 11. It ought to be at minimum a 2/3 majority recommendation. Or stay meeting until April 1. What could come out of a group like this? They could come back and say it's absolutely impossible, there is no concensus, as much as we would like to come back with something, we can't. Creighton: I like that idea. It's like a hung jury, then you can start -- Sheldon: That says something to us. Ok. But if they come back to us with a recommendation, instead of a 6/5, it ought to be a minimum of 8/3, or don't come back. Williams: Excuse me, just a minute. You're talking about if they come back without a good concensus, and it would be a hung jury, and we'll start over again. Isn't that what he said? Well then what do you think this vote is? This was a big committee here. Were they a hung jury? Is there a concensus? I think there was a concensus. Sheldon: You think there was a concensus, Ms. Wiliams, I think you might be the only one on the council who thinks that. Williams: Well, apparently I am. Sheldon: Ok. The City Manager certainly doesn't think so. I certainly don't think so. You keep on bringing it up. I don't know how many times you're going to bring it up. We're trying to find a way to get a community concensus here. But you keep bringing up the same stuff. Creighton: I have a question of Mr. Herriott, if it's appropriate. I don't think you would be violating any laws, or anything, Mr. Herriott, if you let us know how many signatures you had on your open space petition. That might help us get some kind of an attitude of what the support is. Herriott: I have not been working like I should have been on the recall, or the open space petitions. I've gotten myself into a play and rehearsing throughout the week. You know, what we used to say before, we never really wanted to look to find out what the numbers were. I have different people working for me, and I haven't even been able to get in touch with them. I don't know where they are. Thank you. And then, before you make this motion, this little item that you have, would we be able to speak ? Rosenberger: I don't know, I'll ask my collegues. Ok. What are we doing? What direction are we going? Are we still talking? Are we pending toward a committee? An 11 member committee? Creighton: Let me lay something back on Chuck's ears. Rather than have a mandatory 8/3 and come back with nothing, let them vote, let them figure it out and come, if it's 5/6, it's 5/6; if it's 8/3, it's 8/3; so somethings resolved; we've got something to pick from, we've got some bones to sort through if nothing else to decide what to do with them. Rosenberger: Now, we gave them a 90 day charge, here, is that what we're talking about? January through March. Simpson: We wanted a February status report. Rosenberger: January through March, a three month period, now, those meetings should be public, well I mean public not just to the extent that they hold them in our conference room, but -- Sheldon: And I think that has to be very clear, if I understand Roger's motion, and I certainly would concur if this is the case, that I don't want these to be public hearings, they are not the city council. Nor should they take "public testimony". They are, they will hold public meetings of which the public is welcome to participate in the give and take with this group, as this group participates in the give and take. Creighton: As the group desires to get into it.. Sheldon: Right, exactly. But they are public meetings, not public hearings. Creighton: Correct. Rosenberger: Advertised in some way or another. Sheldon: You better believe it. And I think that we would - empower this group to pick a chairman. And I would suggest that this group be staffed by the City Manager. Midstokke: He be the City Liason, you mean. Sheldon: Right. Simpson: Mr. Mayor. We have had the Mayor act until there is a selected chairman. If this is something you would like to volunteer? I think that would be very appropriate. Rosenberger: Well, Mr. Lough is shaking his head over there. " Norhtcraft: Mr. Mayor, I had some suggestions if you are going to head towards a committee. I think, if that's your direction tonight, you don't need to make all the specific decisions tonight. You can come back with your names in three weeks, and actually charge the committee, and we could give you some suggestions. I did, because that had been a consideration, and discussed individually, I did look at some of the literature on how to make a successful Ad Hoc Task Force and I think you are really on line with what I was going to suggest. Keep it 5 to 10, and 11 is certainly within that framework. It needs a specific time table, I think we already talked about that. It need as specific mission, and I think you have some charge and we can address that when the committee is appointed. It needs strong staff support, I would be willing to devote the evenings necessary to do that. The only suggestion, and this is recent, I picked it up at the last conference I was at, at a citizens committee workshop; a feeling that the chairperson should be appointed by the council rather than by the committee itself, so that you have somebody that you have confidence in, that you feel can be objective and can represent the whole committee and understands the intent of the group. The other suggestion that you haven't dealt with. Maybe it's so obvious it doesn't need to be dealt with, and you didn't need to bring it up, but you should represent all the interests. We do have a starter list, kind of an objective list. There is 20 people, 18 people rather, that applied to submit arguments, plus 5 councilmembers, for the last options on the Biltmore Site. So you have those names available. You might want to take applications between now and December 13 in order, so that, while each one is nominating, that the total decision then, the vote of the council to appoint a committee does encompass all interests. I think everybody under ~stands that if you leave any particular viewpoint out, you're not going to have as successful of a decision. Rosenberger: Ok. Creighton: I would agree with that entirely. There is no desire to leave any viewpoint out. Rosenberger: Yes, Mr. Lough. Lough: On the suggestion that the Mayor be on the committee, whenever you have. I would recommend that you not have somebody on a committee that's making a recommendation to the same body. Simpson: Well, this wasn't permanent. This was just an interim. I would prefer now to have the Mayor designate. Lough: Well, normally how that is handled is, and this is very common, normally you would have the Mayor or the chairperson or whatever, be an ex -officio member of the committee, then they can attend when needed, or they wouldn't have to attend, but when they attend they may participate in discussions, but not vote, and then that would satisfy my, it would be an ex -officio member. Sheldon: So I, so that's it. Creighton: Do you feel enough direction from enough different councilmembers, Kevin, to . Midstokke: I do have one question. It was mentioned taking applications. Are we going to do applications, or is each councilmember coming back with their two nominations, without applications? Rosenberger: To tell you the truth, in the interest of time, I think enough of us here have contacts throughtout the community, that that would be the appropriate way, rather than take applications. Sheldon: I think, Mr. Mayor, if I may, it would also seem to me that, if I bring back two names, that I should have contacted those people, asked them if they would like to be on it, if there is any hesitation, move on to another person, make sure they have the time to devote, maybe a night a week. Several hours on this. We should screen our own appointments, so that the people we nominate are ready, willing, able and have the time and the inclination to go through what's going to obviously be an extremely interesting process. Rosenberger: I don't know how detailed you are talking about. A meeting a week, that's 12 meetings, I don't see it that intense. I see it somewhere in the 5 or 6 range. Sheldon: Call for the question. Rosenberger: Let's see, we get back from them by April 1, or sooner. Creighton: Get a report on the first of every month, it's going to be for a three month thing, so a report back on the 1st of February, the 1st of March, and April they are done. Rosenberger: Ok, or sooner. If they can resolve it sooner, we are not forcing them to stay in existance. Ok. So the motion was by Mr. Sheldon? Roger was that your motion? Creighton: My motion, refined by Chuck, added on by me. It doesn't make any difference. Midstokke: The motion I have is: Each councilmember nominating 2 residents, the Mayor 3; report as to what they perceive to be the community concensus; starting January 1; preliminary report February 1, with a 90 frame; advertised, noticed meetings; City Manager to be the City Liason. Anything else? Rosenberger: Now before we take a vote, I'm going to take public testimony. Yes, Mr. Herriott. Herriott: ... Longacre: ... Midstokke: Mayor, Rosenberger. As a further clarification of the motion. This committee would have public meetings, but not public hearings on this issue. Rosenberger: Yes, call for the question. Mistokke: Councilmember Creighton (yes), Sheldon (yes), Williams (no, and once in awhile there is something I feel strong about, please let the record show, that I vote no because I believe the council should take action now and use the normal zoning procedures to resolve the utilization of the Biltmore Site), Simpson (yes), Mayor Rosenberger (yes). Rosenberger: Ok that issue is resolved, I am going to, we're going to have to continue the rest of these items. December 15, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of Special Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council December 19, 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 December 13, 1988, City Council: 1. Awarded a sliplining contract to Colich and Sons. 2 Continued award of an inspection agreement, directed staff to interview the inspector from Harris & Associates and to return with a recommendation. Analysis: On December 15, 1988, staff interviewed Harris & Associates' inspector assigned to this project for the purpose of comparing his qualifications to James M. Montgomery's inspector. After the interview, staff made the following comparison of the two inspectors: Harris & James M. Associates Years of Working 32 years Experience General Construction Experience (incl. some sewer) Years With Firm 6 Months (last employment was job superintendent for 2 yrs) Experience with Sanitary Sewer Inspection Experience With Sliplining Construction and Inspection Graduate Education in Civil Engineering Licensed Engineer Some Experience in Last 5 Years No No No Montgomery 18 Years Sanitary Sewer In- spection Experience 10 Years 100% During the Last 10 Years Yes Yes Yes SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION if Harris & James M. Associates Montgomery % of Company's Total In- 15% 100% spection Time Devoted to Sanitary Sewer Inspection Written Company Procedures No for Inspection & Construction Management Yes The comparison shows that James M. Montgomery's inspector is more qualified•for this project. References: The references contacted for James M. Montgomery had worked with the proposed inspector for this project and rated him highly qualified. The references contacted for Harris & Associates rated the firm highly qualified but had not worked with the proposed inspector for this project. Alternatives: Another alternative available to City Council and considered by staff: 1. Award the consultant agreement to Harris & Associates. Respectfully submitted: 41 Brian Gengler Assistant Engineer Concur: evin B. ort raft City Manager sansew pwlcerk Concur: Ant ony Antic Director of P blic Works Ang '4 December 15, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of December 15, 1988 REQUEST TO APPROVE RENEWAL OF VEHICLE PHYSICAL DAMAGE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE WITH FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council award the City's vehicle physical damage insurance to Fireman's Fund Insurance Company for a premium not to exceed 520,000, and award the City's Property Insurance to Firemans Fund Insurance Company for a premium not to exceed S16,600. BACKGROUND: The City's vehicle and property insurance, provided by the Fire- man's Fund Insurance Company, expires December 18, 1988. Mr. Mark Zahoryin of Cal-Surance, Inc. the City's broker of record for vehicle and property insurance, has submitted the at- tached letters regarding the 1988-89 renewal. According to Mr. Zahoryin, premium figures were delayed from Fireman's Fund due to the recent uncertainty caused by the pas- sage of Proposition 103. ANALYSIS: Vehicle Physical Damage Insurance: The City's prior years coverage for vehicle damage insured all high value speciality vehicles (i.e. Fire Engine, Sweeper) and other 1984 or newer vehicles. This year staff is recommending coverage for the speciality vehi- cles and all 1988 or newer autos. The savings created by select- ing this option over one of the options presented in the attached correspondence will be up to S13,500 (depending upon the final premium figure obtained from Fireman's Fund). The actual premium will be available at the December 19th Council meeting. It is expected that the premium will be approximately 520,000. �i Property Insurance: The City is renewing the property insurance with no change in coverage (see attached). The quoted premium for the 1988-89 coverage is $16,341 plus CIGA fees (approx. 1%). Respectfully submitted., Robert A. Blackwood Risk Manager Concur: jt/ 404';5.0/ Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager /(- CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, INC. r � December 14, 1988 Mr. Robert Blackwood Risk Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Vehicle Physical Damage Insurance Fireman's Fund Insurance Company #MXA 8004 06 35 Dear Bob: The captioned policy will be expiring December 18, 1988. We have secured a renewal quotation through the Fireman's Fund and offer the following for your consideration: - Insuring 198g and newer vehicles in addition to the (6) high value units, would develop a composite rate of $882.05 per vehicle or $33,518. premium (plus CIGA fees) - **OPTION** - Extension of policy to 7-1-90 (to concur with fiscal year end) composite rate - $1,353.08 per vehicle or $51,417 premium (plus CIGA fees) - Insuring 198f vehicles and newer, in addition to (6) high value units, would develop a composite rate of $919.17 or $33,090. premium. (plus CIGA fees) - **OPTION** - Extension of policy to 7-1-90 Composite rate - $1,410. per vehicle or $50,760. premium (plus CIGA fees) In view of the slight premium difference, it would be my recom- mendation to insure the 1984 and newer vehicles. Coverage procedure would remain the same, automatic coverage for vehicles added in this category, with older vehicles added by endorsement after acceptance by Fireman's Fund. I am attaching a schedule of the vehicles presently insured for your review. Please advise of any changes and/or corrections which may be required. A Member of the Cal-Surance Group Mailing address P.O. Box 3459, Torrance, CA 90510 2790 Skypark Drive, Torrance, CA 90505 (213) 530-5555 L.A. (213) 772-3151 Page -2- December 14, 1988 Mr. Robert Blackwood Please do not hesitate to give me a call if you have any questions regarding our quotation. Yours truly, a Mark A. Zahoryin Vice President MAZ/slj Enclosure CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 SUBJECT: MXA80031649 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Auto Commercial YEAR MAKE 1985 1985 1986 1986 1986 1984 1986 1986 1986 1986 1986 1986 1986 1986 1986 1986 1986 1986 1976 1977 1981 1980 1966 1981 1983 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 1988 Cushman Mdl 454 Cushman Mdl 454 Nissan Stanza Subaru Brat Nissan Stanza GMC Truck Nissan Stanza Nissan Stanza Nissan Stanza Nissan Stanza Honda Civic Honda Civic Honda Civic Chevy Caprice Chevy Caprice Chevy Caprice Chevy Caprice Chevy Caprice Tennant Elgin Wayne FMC Sweeper Ford Hi -Lift Crown Crown Ford Horton Amb. Chev. Caprice Sed. Chev. Caprice Sed. Chev. Caprice Sed. Chevy Caprice Chevy Caprice Chevy Caprice Cushman Van Cushman Van Cushman Van Cushman Van Cushman Van Elgin Street Sweeper 12-14-88/128r 12-18-88 VEHICLE LIST VEHICLE ID NUMBER 577009-145934 577005-146966C JNIHTIIS8GT402747 JF3AV53B6GE501942 JN1HT11SOGT411636 IGDGC24MXE522811 JN1HT11S9GT4Q2868 JN1HT11S6GT402889 JN1HT11S4GT405158 JN1HT11SXGT400952 JHMAK7436GS035439 JHMAK7436GS029964 JHMAK7431GS031475 1G1BL6969GX196508 1G1BL6961GX196504 1G1BL6966GX196496 1G1BL6967GX196474 1G1BL6963GX196486 265514 S350D 993AH-1863-588053T F70HVHB0800 F1486 1C9GM27A6BL103111 1FDKE30L6DHA78906 1G1BLB5162JR163352 1G1BL5164JR163336 1G1BL5163JR163344 1G1BL5164JR163336 1G1BL5163JR163344 1G1BL5162JR163352 1CUMH2227HL004710 1CUMH22264L004617 1CUMH2227HL004691 1CUMH222VHL004717 1CUMH2225HL004673 P -0132-D DECEMBER 14, 1988 COST NEW 6,000 6,000 9,652 11,664 10,619 9,079 9,652 9,652 9,652 9,652 9, 538 9,538 9,538 11,746 11,746 11,746 11,746 11,746 52,000 75,000 60,000 60,000 65,000 160,000 46,875 12,171.49 12,171.49 12,171.49 12,962.11 12,962.11 12,962.11 6,850 6,850 6,850 6,850 7,888 80,334 -2 - ADDITIONAL AUTOS 1988 Ford F350 12-14-88/129r 1FDKF37G1JKB35629 31,785 (Sw CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, INC. aam December 14, 1988 Mr. Robert Blackwood Risk Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Property Insurance Fireman's Fund Insurance Company #MXX 568 1841 Dear Bob: The captioned policy, providing "all risk" (excluding Flood and Earthquake)coverage for the various city properties, will be expiring December 18, 1988. Following is a comparison of last year's limits versus the limits we are proposing for the coming year. Coverage As of 12-18-87 Proposed Real & Personal Property $ 11,301,976. $ 12,405,975. Property of Others 10,000. 10,000.. Cost of Inventory 50,000. 50,000. Equipment Floater 351,640. 402,220. Electronic Data Processing 460,506. 687,500. - Media 135,000. 135,000. - Extra Expense 25,000. 25,000. The deductibles would remain the same as expiring, namely, $1,000. for Real & Personal Property and the Equipment Floater. The Electronic Data Processing coverages would continue at a $2,500. deductible. All other terms and conditions would be the same as expiring. Fireman's Fund has once again provided us with an outstanding quotation. The total annual premium will be $16,341. (plus CIGA fees). We are increasing values by 10% with only a 5% premium increase over last year's pricing. The premium option is also presented to extend coverage through the 7-1-90 fiscal year. Premiu cost for 12-18-88/7-1-90 would be $25,067. (plus CIGA fees). A Member of the Cal-Surance Group Mailing address P.O. Box 3459, Torrance, CA 90510 2790 Skypark Drive, Torrance, CA 90505 (213) 530-5555 L.A (213) 772-3151 Page -2- December 14, 1988 Mr. Robert Blackwood The additional peril of Earthquake can be added for the Elec- tronic Data Equipment at a premium of $7,198, with an additional premium of $3,844. charged ($11,042 total) to extent coverage through your 7-1-90 fiscal year. Please review the quotation outlined above and give me a call if you have any questions. Yours truly, Mark A. Zahoryin Vice President MAZ/slj Honorable Mayor and December 12, 1988 Members of the City Council ACTIVITY REPORT DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY NOVEMBER, 1988 Attached for your information are recap sheets of department ac- tivity for the month of November. Overall permit activity remained steady during November as the department issued 73 permits of which 29 were building permits. Seven permits were issued for single family dwellings, one permit was issued for a duplex dwelling and 8 permits were issued for alterations or additions to existing dwellings. Nine dwelling units were demolished resulting in no change to the housing inventory. Building Department general fund revenue for 41.67 of the fiscal year is $160,178.41 or 45.4% of projected revenue for the fiscal year. The Business License division reports that 143 licenses were is- sued during November resulting in revenue of $21,075.40. Business License revenue to date is $176,521.64 or 35.37 of projected revenue for the fiscal year. The department logged 8 new code enforcement complaints during November of which three were for suspected illegal dwelling units. The department closed eight cases during November, includ- ing one abatement, and has 27 illegal dwelling unit cases under investigation. Noted: evin B. North ,'a t City Manager Respectfully Submitted, William Grove Director, Bldg. & Safety CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REVENUE REPORT Month Ending NOVEMBER, 1988 NUMBER OF PERMITS Building Plumbing Electric Plan Check Sewer Use Res. Bldg.Reports Comm. Inspections Parks & Recreation In lieu Park & Rec. Board of Appeals Sign Review Fire Flow Fees LAST MONTH THIS MONTH 39 20 13 23 1 42 13 1 5 29 19 25 7 3 27 13 6 1 4 9 THIS YEAR TO DATE 164 116 113 67 7 199 89 14 1 13 42 THIS MONTH LAST YEAR 29 20 22 9 3 24 20 1 4 2 4 LAST YEAR TO DATE 144 140 109 61 30 140 113 3 16 5 16 TOTALS 157 143 825 138 786 FEES Building** Plumbing Electric Plan Check Sewer Use Res. Bldg. Reports Comm. Inspections Parks & Recreation In lieu Park & Rec. Board of Appeals Sign Review Fire Flow Fees 9,925.13 1,872.00 2,544.00 12,437.02 4,609.13 1,680.00 425.00 25.00 4,150.00 17,309.68 2,240.00 6,027.00 20,186.00 1,027.60 1,080.00 325.00 19,602.00 75.00 50.00 11,758.50 61,526.92 11,025.00 17,963.00 59,028.49 6,664.35 7,960.00 2,325.00 52,272.00 75.00 275.00 41,005.00 21,265.11 2,205.00 2,101.00 7,642.85 - 3,338.53 960.00 500.00 14,000.00 26,136.00 150.00 100.00 67,971.78 13,510.50 16,159.00 49,963.01 11,954.14 5,590.00 2,825.00 21,000.00 97,010.00 375.00 400.00 TOTALS 37,667.78 79,680.78 260,119.76 78,698.49 286,758.43 VALUATIONS 918,167 1,725,079 2,643,246 2,311,942 6,448,237 **Includes State Seismic Fee $120.75 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED Month of NOVEMBER, 1988 TYPE OF STRUCTURE DWELLING UNITS PERMITS PROVIDED VALUATION 1. Single Dwellings 7 7 1,167,868 2. Duplex Dwellings 1 2 312,000 3. Triplex Dwellings 4. Four Units 5. Five Units or More 6. Commercial Buildings 7. Industrial Buildings 8. Publicly Owned Buildings 9. Garages - Residential 10. Accessory Buildings 11. Fences and Walls 3 3,350 12. Swimming Pools 13. Alterations, additions or repairs to dwellings 8 241,861 14. Alterations, additions or repairs to Commercial Bldgs. 15. Alterations, additions or repairs to indus. bldgs. 16. Alterations, additions or repairs to publicly owned bldgs. 17. Alterations, additions, repairs to garages or accessory bldgs. 18. Signs 19. Dwelling units moved 20. Dwelling units demolished 8 -9 21. All other permits not listed 2 TOTAL PERMITS 29 TOTAL VALUATION OF ALL PERMITS: 1,725,079 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS PERMI1—ri 1) : 9 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS DEMOLISHED: 9 NET CHANGE: 0 NET DWELLING UNIT CHANGE FY 88/89 -6 CUMULATIVE DWELLING UNIT TOTAL: 10,021 (INCLUDES PERMITS ISSUED) 1 BUSINESS LICENSE REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 1988 TO: Wm. Grove, Building & Safety Director FROM: Mary Fehskens, Administrative Aide DATE: December 1, 1988 NEW BUSINESS LICENSES ISSUED: Out of City Licenses Issued: Home Occupation Licenses Issued: New Business' Opened: New Owners of Existing Business': TOTAL NUMBER OF NEW LICENSES ISSUED BUSINESS LICENSE RENEWALS MAILED: DELINQUENT NOTICES MAILED: NEW & RENEWAL LICENSES ISSUED: REPORTS SOLD: BUSINESS LICENSE REVENUE: BUSINESS LICENSE REVENUE YEAR-TO-DATE: 1 40 5 6 1 52 138 157 143 0 $ 21,075.40 $176,521.64 December 6, 1988 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS of the Regular Meeting of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL December 13, 1988 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT NOVEMBER 1988 Staff reports were prepared for the following: 1. 4 4th Quarter General Plan Amendments 2. 3 Zone Changes 3. 14 Lot Merger hearings 4. 1 Extension of Emergency Moritorium in MUC 5. 1 Final Map 6. 1 C.U.P. Amendment 7. 1 Report on Smoking Vehicle Programs (AQMD) 8. 1 View blockage and height measurement Special Study 9. 1 Special Study of R-2 & R-3 setback standards for condo's and apartments 10. 1 Confirmation of a previously approved CUP 11. 1 2 unit per lot max in R-2 zone Special Study 12. 9 C.U.P.'s for condominiums The following activities were undertaken for transit projects: 1. Routine tasks. Meetings and seminars attended by the Planning Department Staff 1. 45 meetings. Budget Update Ending 10/31/88, expenditures were 8% below budget for 33% of the year. Ending 10/31/88, revenues were 120% above budget for 33% of the year. * November figures are unavailable at this time. Transit Update "WAVE" Dial -a -Ride Ridership November 1988 - 5228 passengers Hermosa Beach riders - 698 Redondo Beach riders - 4134 Satellite point riders - 396 C.U.P. Enforcement Update 1. Back Burner Cafe was inspected and notified verbally that they are illegally using the public right of way. A memorandum was sent to the Public Works Department to abate the violation. 2. Hermosa Pavillion was inspected and sent a violation for charging customers for parking. 3. Paradise Sushi was inspected and sent a notice of for the absence of two required signs. 4. Cantina Real was inspected and sent a notice of violation for the absence of a required sign. 5. Hennessey's Tavern was inspected and sent a second notice of violation. In addition, ABC has been requested to inspect Hennessey's for possible ABC violations. Staff requested police assistance in issuing a citation on Dec. 1st, however, the manager had exited out the back door. If violations persist, citations will be issued by surprise visits. notice of violation 6. Hermosa Beach Car Wash was inspected and sent a second notice of violation. Since that time, they have submitted an application for a CUP amendment. 7. Casey's Isuzu was inspected and a second notice of violation was sent. The owner has been communicating with staff. 8. Dream Cars was inspected and no violations were observed. 9. Hermosa Saloon was inspected and no violations were observed. 10. Besties was inspected and warned about their noise level. POLICE CUP INSPECTIONS: Violations were reported at Hennessey's Tavern. - No violations were reported for Besties, The Lighthouse, The Comedy and Magic Club, California Beach, End Zone, Hermosa Saloon, and Pier 52, other than apparent noise violations. * Noise enforcement is pending the Police Departments attainment of a noise measuring device. Upcoming agenda items 1. Appeal of the Planning Commissions decision for a Varinace at 1836 Palm. 2 to deny a request 2. 4th Quarter General Plan Amendments for the following areas: - Area 8a - Area 3 - 1344 & 1348 Manhattan Ave - 1346 Bayview - 1428 Monterey - Myrtle Ave (westside) - 21st Street Vacation CONCUR: Michael Sch bach Planning Directo NOTED: Kevin B. Nort►craft City Manager 3 Respectfully submitted, Alex' Heez Assist t Planne Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT NOVEMBER ACTIVITY REPORT PARKING ENFORCEMENT 11/87 Parking Cites Issued 7,107 Vehicles Impounded/Booted 41 Calls Responded To 99 Booting Revenue $10,879.00 Citations Issued Warnings Issued Complaints Responded To Total Number of Animals Picked -Up of which: Returned to Owner Taken to Shelter Injured, taken to Vet Deceased CONCUR: Joan Noon, Director General Services `Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager December 12, 1988 City Council Meeting of December 13, 1988 11/88 87/88FY 88/89FY 6,109 42,031 38,468 30 304 228 127 757 611 $1,187 $31,879.50 $22,871 ANIMAL CONTROL 57 0 78 59 25 3 1 16 53 1 26 32 10 11 1 10 293 10 366 317 105 95 16 87 Respectfully submitted, Director Joan Noon, by Michele D. Tercero, Administrative Aide 218 1 238 268 77 96 13 81 .) December 14, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City Council Meeting of December 19, 1988 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY RESOURCES NOVEMBER, 1988 ACTIVITY REPORT The Department of Community Resources has been involved in the following activities for the month of November. - Planning continues for the Sand & strand Race scheduled for Feb. 5th.; and the -Senior Citizen Cruise of Lights Excursion to Huntington Beach scheduled for Dec. 15th.; and summer beach volleyball tournaments, both professional and amateur. - One of the two Recreation Specialist positions was filled in October with his first assignment being the development of a Spring adult and youth recreation program. The planning for that has begun. - The second Recreation Specialist will be on board in late December. When that occurs, it will be the first time in three years the department will be at full staffing. - The department continues to work with the H.B. Youth Basketball League and AYSO Soccer with regard to their leagues occupying the gymnasium and Clark Field. - Staff continues to work very closely with the State Grant consultant in an effort to assist in closing out those grants and starting up the CDBG Program. - Preparation of application papers for new State Grants began this month with the first application submitted in early December. Work will continue on these for the next month as well. - Staff has been working very closely with the Stop by Center in an effort to resolve their relocation problem. Numerous sites have been suggested to them, with each one not fitting their needs exactly. However one site may have more support and that will be presented to the Commission in December with a recommend ation going to Council the first meeting in January. ADVISORY COMMISSION: - A great deal of work has been spent on planning the development of the outdoor basketball complex. - Work continues on the review of Fort Lots o' Fun Park at 6th. & Prospect in terms of what to do with the old prospect school located at that site. - The Commission did not meet in November but staff continued to do follow up work on their projects: Master Recreation Plan; feasibility of a private racquetball facility on public land; determination of expenditures for previous and future grant monies. COMMUNITY CENTER FOUNDATION: - The Foundation held it's first concert of the season with the David Benoit Concert on Nov. 12th. Two concerts were held that evening which was a first time effort for the Board. - Work continues on the marketing and advertising of the Gala and Entertainment Series. The reception for the Gala will be held at the new Pavilion. - Fundraising continues for botn the Gala & Series and the Air Conditioning Project as well. Approximately $17,000 has been raised in sponsorships for the Series, $6,000 for program ads for the Series, and $7,000 for the Air Conditioning Project for a, total fundraising effort to date of $30 000. The goal for all of tnese various projects is $55,000. The Board is at 55% of it's goal. Ticket sales are going very well with an average of 200 tickets sold so far for each of the five shows. - The Board conducted a phone-a-thon in an effort to sell more tickets. They may conduct another one in early January. Hundreds of volunteer hours have already been spent in an effort to make this season a success. And many more will follow before it is all over. RENTALS: Groups/Organizations renting City facilities for this month were: Community Center Meeting Hope Chapel AMC Theatres Pre/post Exercise Class Police Dept. Mtg. Friends of the Arts Rooms: Sister Cities Teen Advocate City Testing Little League Hope Chapel Youth B.B. Voting ( three precincts) Community Center Gymnasium: Easter Seals Andre B.B. Cooley B.B. Youth B.B. Assoc. of Retarded Citizens Community Center Theatre: Hope Chapel M & M Productions Clark Building: Senior Citizens Exercise Senior Citizens Club A.A. Meeting General Services DeMoss B.B. Colen B.B. Cascio B.B. Superkids Wohn B.B. Cohen B.B. Botelho B.B. Voting Benoit Concert H.B. School District Jazzercise Superkids Women's Club Aerobics Unity Church 1736 House rE Topnotchers Wedding Reception (1) Holiday Parties (2) Garden Club Flu Clinic Clark Field: AYSO Slo - Pitch Community Center Lessees: Easter Seals Salvation Army Assoc. for Retarded Citizens Project Touch Free Clinic Hope Chapel Historical Society MEETINGS: Staff continues to attend the regular City Council , Commission and Foundation monthly meetings. Additional sub -committee meetings of the Foundation are also attended. RENTAL REQUESTS: During the month of November the department received approximately 15 calls per week regarding rental , film and lease information. This was a slow month in that respect but it usually is for the holiday months. Respectfully Submitted, Noted* Alana Mastrian-Handman Director Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager December 15, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of December 19, 1988 PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT NOVEMBER ACTIVITY REPORT Recruitment: * Completed pre-employment testing for Police Servcies, Officer and Assistant Engineer. * Accepted applications for Police Sergeant. Labor Relations: * Attended annual conference of California Personnel and Labor Relations Association (CALPELRA). * Coordinated attendance at South Bay Employment Relations Consortium workshop "Addressing Disciplinary Situations relating to Attendance Problems and Abuse of Paid Leave." * Coordinated two employee appeals of discipline before the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission. Risk Management: * Coordinated attendance at ICRMA workshop titled "Recreation Risk Management Issues". Employee Benefits: * Completed review of City's health insurance providers and conducted annual open enrollment. Respectfully submitted, n Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director Noted: Kevin B. Nort craft City Manager December 15,1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council December 19, 1988 FINANCE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT, NOVEMBER 1988 - Checks have been received from the State for two of the grants being researched by Mark Briggs and Associates. Documentation needed has been located for reimbursement of all amounts expended. - The open purchase order process is being reviewed for improve- ments. Amended procedures will be issued during the second half of the year. STATISTICAL SECTION FISCAL FISCAL NOVEMBER 1988 NOVEMBER 1987 YEAR TO YEAR TO DATE 88 DATE 87 CITATION PAYMENTS 4,793 3,362 26,881 26,713 INVOICES 5 14 44 59 CASH RECEIPTS 1,033 1,042 6,076 6,795 WARRANTS 277 277 1,487 1,365 PURCHASE ORDERS 277 293 1,487 1,438 UUT EXEMPTIONS 591 562 FILED TO DATE PAYROLL FULL TIME 145 138 PART TIME 45 39 Noted: Kevin B. Nort craft City Manager 6iitt Viki Copland Finance Administrator HERMOSA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT NOVEMBER 1988 FIRE STATISTICS PARAMEDIC STATISTICS THIS MONTH THIS MONTH ONE YEAR AGO YEAR TO DATE LAST YEAR TO DATE 1. Total Calls 56 53 724 716 (TYPE) a. False Alarm 1 5 45 77 b. Mutual Aid 0 1 11 10 c. Paramedic Assists 29 28 397 324 d. Residence Fire 7 5 48 28 e. Commercial Fire 4 2 22 17 f. Other 15 13 202 261 PARAMEDIC STATISTICS INSPECTIONS THIS MONTH THIS MONTH ONE YEAR AGO YEAR TO DATE LAST YEAR TO DATE 1. Total Responses 68 71 934 967 (TYPE) a. No Patient/Aid 76 15 126 107 b. Mutual Aid 0 0 1 4 c. Auto Accident 65 10 149 164 d. Strand Accident 3 4 88 40 e. Medical 40 28 364 315 f. Trauma 21 28 423 319 g. Assault 8 5 94 85 h. Jail 6 5 55 * i. Transports 28 31 357 301 j. Base Hosp.Con. 26 20 285 201 k. Trauma Center 1 0 8 62 INSPECTIONS AND PREVENTION THIS MONTH THIS MONTH ONE YEAR AGO YEAR TO DATE LAST YEAR TO DATE 1. Commercial 50 59 877 461 2. Assembly 0 0 2 9 3. Apartments 44 71 341 301 4. Fumigations 17 18 149 206 5. Institutions 0 1 9 22 6. Industrial 0 0 10 17 * figures not available NOTED: evin B. Northcraft, City Manager S eve Wis iewski Director of Public Safety December 14, 1988 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL OF DECEMBER 1988 POLICE ACTIVITY REPORT FOR NOVEMBER 1988 There has been a sharp increase in the amount of auto thefts in our city. Approximately, twelve vehicles have been stolen in the month of November. Although, the number of stolen vehicles has fluctuated throughout the year this increase appears to be continued upward trend. The cars are stolen exclusively in residential areas in all parts of the city. Cars containing cellular phones are particularly targeted. Half of the cars are recovered within two or three days in the area of South Central Los Angeles. The gangs in those areas are stealing the entire car then removing the wanted items later (i.e., foreign car radios, and car phones). This reduces the possibility of capture by the police because it only takes 20 to 30 seconds to steal the entire car compared to the 15 minutes or half hour it takes to remove a Blaupunkt auto stereo. Undercover surveillances are being carried out in residential areas during high incident times. Overall patrol citation production has increased this month. Patrol and motor officers have issued 521 citations in November as compared to a total of 388 in the prior month. Traffic and municipal code violation enforcement has become a primary goal in our department. Each holiday season our department participates in the So. Bay Regional D.U.I. Task Force. There are ten nights scheduled in which the task force will be operating. Additionally, extra details are assigned for D.U.I. enforcement for Hermosa Beach. Special attention will also be paid to our shopping areas and downtown business area for holiday shoplifters, drunks and petty crimes. DISPATCH/COMPUTER SYSTEM UPDATE All the dispatchers are on board and have received basic introductory training in the use of our new C.A.D. dispatch system. Actual voice dispatching on the console will begin December 15th in order to test the consoles and the voice transmission to the police vehicles and handie talkies. Initially the system will run on a manual basis and then be integrated with the C.A.D. computer system. (1) CRIME PREVENTION A new D.A.R.E. officer joined our program in November. Officer Michelle Derks graduated from the two week L.A.P.D. training course will start teaching the D.A.R.E. program to the 5th and 6th grade classes at Our Lady of Guadalupe School in January. The robot naming contest ended November 30. The winner will be announced at the D.A.R.E. benefit show on December 5th. We are have a D.A.R.E. poster contest with the three sixth grade classes at Hermosa Valley School. Vons Market gave us 100 grocery bags and the students will use the bags to draw on. At the end of the contest the bags will be returned to Vons and will be handed out to customers to promote the D.A.R.E. program. The cable T.V. program "Beach Beat" aired two new live programs in November. One was on the U.S. Coast Guard and how they aid boaters and others in distress. The other was on gangs in the South Bay. We had a gang member from Hawthorne come on with a member of the Hawthorne gang detail. Steve Wisniewski, Director of Public Safety Kevin Northcraft City Manager (2) Respe tfull submitted, 01%;011Q40,e_ Val Straser, Commander Administrative Services HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT November .1988 OFFENSES REPORTED PERSONS ARRESTED THIS MONTH THIS MONTH ONE YEAR.AGO YEAR TO DATE LAST YEAR TO DATE 1. Murder 0 0 3 0 2. Rape 0 0 4 9 3. Robbery 3 0 15 25 4. Assault 9 5 103 86 5. Burglary 20 25 267 248 6. Larceny 31 31 397 458 7. Motor Vehicle Theft 16 - 14 153 149 8. DUI 26 34 262 492 9. All Other Offenses 211 .259 2980 3646 PERSONS ARRESTED TRAFFIC REPORT THIS MONTH THIS MONTH ONE YEAR AGO YEAR TO DATE LAST YEAR TO DATE 1. Adults 85 109 972 1330 2. Juveniles 0 0 3 5 3. Criminal Citations 23 41 814 379 4. 5-24/5-42 HBMC * * 59 * TRAFFIC REPORT CALLS FOR SERVICE THIS MONTH THIS MONTH ONE YEAR AGO YEAR TO DATE LAST YEAR TO DATE ACCIDENTS 0 0 0 0 1. Fatal 2. Injury 7 6 115 108 3. Property damage only 19 17 213 283 CITATIONS 484 231 3346 3115 1. Traffic Citations 2. Parking Citations 43 6 277 416 CALLS FOR SERVICE THIS MONTH THIS MONTH ONE YEAR AGO YEAR TO DATE LAST YEAR TO DATE 1. Total Calls 1465 1630 18297 18683 November 30, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council December 13, 1988 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - NOVEMBER 1988 The Public Works Department is divided into three (3) major functions: Administration, Engineering and Maintenance. ADMINISTRATION To coordinate and blend the efforts of all divisions of the Public Works Department in accomplishing the directives of the City Council and City Manager; includes engineering and administration of capital improvement projects. Permits Issued: Type This Last FY 88-89 FY Month Month To -date 87-88 Sewer Demolition 8 7 23 46 Sewer Lateral 1 0 5 28 Street Excavation 4 10 36 114 Utility Co's only 3 42 108 276 Dumpster/Lumber Drop 1 1 10 20 Banner Permits 0 0 4 9 ENGINEERING Status of Current Capital Improvement Projects: CIP 85-102/FAU Widen Highland: Re -submitted to Caltrans for ad- ditional review on October 15, 1988. Additional soils testing required by Caltrans is complete. Expecting Council approval for authorization to bid in January 1988. CIP 85-138/FAU Various Traffic Signal Improvements: Council awarded contracts for construction and inspection services June 14, 1988. Construction to start January 9, 1989. CIP 85-160/Concrete Street Repairs: Proposals are due on January 9, 1989 for engineering services to determine repairs for con- crete streets City-wide. CIP 87-165/Bicycle Path Repairs: Contract awarded to Neff Con- tracting Corp. Work is complete. Staff in process of determin- ing what sections are acceptable and what sections are not. CIP 87-171/Asphalt Street Repairs: Proposals are due on January 9, 1989 for engineering services to determine repairs for asphalt street repairs City-wide. CIP 85-202/Hermosa Avenue -Pier Lighting: The street light poles for Pier Avenue have been ordered. Installation is expected to begin in February 1989 and the work will be performed by the Street Lighting Division of the Public Works Department. CIP 87-405/City-Wide Sewer Replacement: Design is complete. Anticipate Council to award bid for construction and inspection services on December 13, 1988. CIP 87-406/Sanitary Sewer Improvements, Target Area 4: Antici- pate Council to award bid for design services on December 13, 1988. CIP 87-508/Park Irrigation Restoration: Proposals are due on January 9, 1989 for engineering services to determine repairs or upgrading of irrigation systems for the City's parks and medians. CIP 86-602/Electrical Improvement Upgrade -City Hall: City Council accepted as complete on November 9, 1988. CIP 87-606/Police Department Remodel: Construction started on May 2, 1988. Anticipate Council to accept as complete December 13, 1988. CIP 88-610/Air Conditioning for Community Center Theatre: Council awarded contract on October 11, 1988 to Los Angeles Air Conditioning. Work scheduled to start in January 1989. CIP 88-614/Pier Storm Damage: Contract awarded to Moffat & Nichol, Engineers on November 22, 1988 for design services. Anticipate completion in January 1989. MAINTENANCE The maintenance division of the Public Works Department is divided into the following sections: - Parks/Medians - Traffic Safety - Street Maintenance/Sanitation - Building Maintenance - Sewer and Storm Drains - Equipment Service - Street Lighting The Parks division replaced sand in the play area at Fort Lots o' Fun at 6th Street and Prospect Avenue. Irrigation repairs in the City Parks and the Greenbelt area are underway. Street Maintenance crew installed new "No Parking" signs in the 1600 block of Ardmore Avenue. A fence has been installed at the end of the fishing pier to prohibit pedestrian traffic pending pier repairs. Street Lighting crew installed the Christmas decorations in the downtown area in preparation for the holidays and the "lighting" ceremony on December 1. Lit the pilots for all furnaces (and checked thermostats) in City buildings. Traffic Safety Division - on-going miscellaneous traffic safety maintenance, including stop sign maintenance and installation of new stop signs and poles. The crew in the sewer and storm drain division performed the on-going tasks of checking and rodding sewer lines, checking the pumps and cleared the storm drains on the beach with the bulldozer. The Building Maintenance Division is continuing with the task of giving the "patio area" at City Hall a new look. We have had only positive feed -back with the color selection. By the beginning of the new year, the patio floor area should be completed. Equipment Maintenance crew completely refurbished the Elgin sweeper. Respectfully submitted, Noted: AntTfidny Antich Director of Pulic Works mon/m 'Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager