The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/14/89CITY HALL OPERATING HOURS MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY OPEN 7:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. CLOSED FRIDAYS • Where there is no vision the people perish... HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WELCOME! By your presence in the City Council Chambers you are participating in the process of representative government. Your government welcomes your interest and hopes you will attend the City Council meetings often. It is the policy of the City Council that no discussion of new items will begin after 11:30 p.m., unless this rule is waived by the Council. The agendas are developed with the intent to have all matters covered within the time allowed. CITY VISION A less dense, more family oriented pleasant low profile, financially sound community comprised of a separate and distinct business district and residential neighborhoods that are afforded full municipal services in which the maximum costs are borne by visitor/users; led by a City Council which accepts a stewardship role for community resources and displays a willingness to explore innovative alternatives, and moves toward public policy leadership in attitudes of full ethical awareness. This Council is dedicated to learning from the past, and preparing Hermosa Beach for tomorrow's challenges today. Adopted by City Council on October 23, 1986 NOTE: There is no smoking allowed in the Council Chambers r: • THE'HERMOSA BEACH FORM OF GOVERNMENT Hermosa Beach has the Council -Manager form of government, with a City Manager ap- pointed by and responsible to the City Council for carrying out Council policy. The Mayor and Council decide what is to be done.. The City Manager, operating through the entire City staff, does it. This separation of policy making and administration is considsered the most economical and efficient 'form of City government in the United States today. GLOSSARY The following explanations may help you to understand the terms found on most agen- das for meetings of the Hermosa Beach City Council. Consent Items A compilation of all routine matters to be acted upon by one vote; approval re- quires a majority affirmative vote. Any Councilmember can remove an item from this listing thereby causing that matter to be considered under the category Consent Cal- endar items Removed For Separate Discussion. Public Hearings Public Hearings are held on certain matters as required by law. The Hearings afford the public the opportunity to appear and formally express their views regarding the matter being heard. Additionally, letters may be filed with the City Clerk, prior to the Hearing. Hearings Hearings are held on other matters of public importance for which there is no legal requirement to conduct an advertised Public Hearing. Ordinances An ordinance is a law that regulates government revenues and/or public conduct. All ordinances require two "readings". The first reading introduces the ordinance into the records. At least one week later Council may adopt, reject or hold over the ordinance to a subsequent meeting. Regular ordinances take effect 30 days after the second reading. Emergency ordinances are governed by different provisions and waive the time requirements. Written Communications The public, members of advisory boards/commissions or organizations may formally communicate to or make a request of Council by letter; said letters should be filed with the City Clerk by the Wednesday preceeding the Regular City Council meeting. Miscellaneous Items and Reports City Manager The City Manager coordinates departmental reports and brings itemsto the attention of, or for action by the City Council. Verbal reports may be given by the City Manager regarding items not on the agenda, usually having arisen since. the agenda was prepared on the preceding Wednesday. Miscellaneous Items and Reports - City Council Members of the City Council may place items on .the agenda for consideration by the full Council. Other Matters - City Council These are matters that come to the attention of a Council member after publication of the Agenda. Oral Communications from the Public - Matters of an Urgency Nature Citizens wishing to address the City Council on an urgency matter not elsewhere con- sidered on the agenda may do so at this time. Parking Authority The Parking Authority is a financially separate entity, but is operated as an inte- gral part of the City government. Vehicle Parking District No. 1 The City Council also serves as the Vehicle Parking District Commission. It's pur- pose is to oversee the operation of certain downtown parking lots and otherwise pro- mote public parking in the central business district. "Be careful of your thoughts; they may become words at any moment." -Iara Gassen AGENDA • REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, February 14, 1989 - Council Chambers, City Hall Closed Session - 6:30 p.m. Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. MAYOR Jim Rosenberger MAYOR PRO TEM June Williams COUNCILMEMBERS Roger Creighton Chuck Sheldon Etta Simpson CITY CLERK Kathleen Midstokke CITY TREASURER Gary L. Brutsch CITY MANAGER Kevin B. Northcraft CITY ATTORNEY James P. Lough All Council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. Complete agenda materials are available for public inspection in the Police Department, Public Library and the Office of the City Clerk. PLEDGE.OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PRESENTATION OF $1,000 TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER FOUNDATION BY THE RIWAN S CL B T BE USED FOR C MMUN TY T EATRE I DITIONING. PRE NT T ON OF "EMPLOYEE THE QU TER" A ARD: Vern Highfield, P blic Works Superintendent CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the City Council on any items on the Consent Calendar may do so at this time. Citizens may request to speak during Public Hearings and items appearing under Municipal Matters at the time the item is called. Citizen comments on items not on the agenda but within the Council's jurisdiction will be provided time at the e d of the agenda. Please limit n�flents to three m' tes./ 0 a4-0 11U --fee, 4'o sal? ( f itiz ns with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are requested to submit those comments to the City Manager. 1. CONSCALENDAR: The following routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority con- sent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown by - 1 - (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) a member prior to the roll call vote. (Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 3.) Recommendation to approve minutes as follows: 1) Regular meeting of the City Council held on January 24, 1989. 2) Adjourned regular meeting of the City Council held on January 31,1989. Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive, and cancel certain warrants as recommended by the City Treasurer. Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. Monthly Investment Report for January, 1989. Memorandum from City Treasurer Gary L. Brutsch dated February 6, 1989. Recommendation to receive and file report on Kiwanis Christmas Tree lot at Community Center. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian dated January 31, 1989. Recommendation to adopt resolution establishing sections of 16th Street as no parking zones and creating sections as loading zones. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated January 31, 1989. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #19302 for 2 -unit condominium at 330 Culper Court. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated February 6, 1989. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #18814 for 3 -unit condominium at 610 Ninth Street. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated February 6, 1989. Recommendation to approve plans and specifications and authorization to bid for Community Center fire alarm system (CIP 88-604). Memorandum from Public Works Di- rector Anthony Antich dated February 6, 1989. Recommendation to receive and file information report about the "Wave's" new capability to transport school age children. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated February 6, 1989. Recommendation to deny claims for damages and refer to City's insurance adjusters, as follows: 1) Charles Gotanda, c/o Meghan Serwin, 1901 Ave. of the Stars, L.A., filed 1/19/89, alleged breach of - 2 - (1) (m) (q) (r) (t) (u) contract; 2) William Lafay, c/o Vernon C. Krol, 18411 Crenshaw Blvd. #421, Torrance, filed 1/25/89, alleged dan- gerous condition; 3) Robert J. Collins, 1720 Ardmore Avenue, Hermosa Beach, filed 2/6/89, alleged police brutality. Recommendation to acknowledge receipt of $200 from the Save our Coastal Community committee. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated February 6, 1989. Recommendation to approve 174 Bond Act State Grant Fund final project. Memorandum from Community Resources Di- rector Alana Mastrian-Handman dated February 1, 1989. Resolution for adoption of implementation of new CEQA regulations. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated January 23, 1989. Recommendation to receive and file traffic safety evaluation by the Institute of Transportation Studies. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated February 6, 1989. Recommendation to revise Goal No. 3 related to growth management/density reduction. Memorandum from City Man- ager Kevin B. Northcraft and Planning Director Michael Schubach dated February 6, 1989. Recommendation to receive and file results of SCAG Santa Monica Pollution symposium. Memorandum from Planning • Director Michael Schubach dated February 7, 1989. A resolution concurring with the L. A. County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated February 6, 1989. Recommendation to accept work as complete and final for Police Department remodel, first floor CIP 87-606. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated January 11, 1989. Recommendation to accept work as complete - Bicycle path repairs (CIP 87-165). Memorandum from Public Works Di- rector Anthony Antich dated February 1, 1989. Recommendation to receive and file status report on the Hermosa Beach Historical Society. Memorandum from Com- munity Resources Director Alana Mastrian-Handman dated February 7, 1989. Recommendation to approve Spring Recreation Program and appropriate the funds for this program. Memorandum from Community Resources Director Alana Mastrian-Handman dat- ed February 2, 1989. 3 (w) (x) Status report and recommendation on Employer -Employee Organization Relations Resolution. Memorandum from Per- sonnel Director Robert Blackwood dated February 7, 1989. Recommendation to receive and file: 1) Draft Audit Report for Fiscal Year '87-'88; 2) Management Letter for Fiscal Year '87-'88. Memorandum from Finance Administrator Viki Copeland dat- ed February 8, 1989. Recommendation to adopt resolution amending the General Plan and ordering vacation of 21st Street at Loma Drive. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated February 6, 1989. Recommendation to approve increase in contract amount for slurry sealing, CIP 87-170 and asphalt street re- pair, CIP 87-171, Fiscal Year '88-'89: Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated February 8, 1989.' 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. (a) ORDINANCE NO. 89-974 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, BY ADDING SECTION PERTAINING TO COST RECOVERY FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAU- SED BY PERSONS UNDER INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS. For adoption. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisni wskiskdated February 7, 1989. 3. ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISC SSION. 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 8:00 P.M. 5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A VARIANCE FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 576 - 21ST STREET. (Continued from 1/24/89 meeting.) Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated February 6, 1989. 6. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO EXCLUDE ADULT VIDEOS FROM A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VIDEO SALES AND RENTALS AT 1312 HERMOSA AVENUE, HERMOSA VIDEO. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated January 17, 1989. (Continued from 1/24/89 meeting.) 7. CONDITIONAL ZONE CHANGE FROM M-1 AND OPEN SPACE TO R-2 WITH MAXIMUM OF 13 -UNIT CONDO OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 603 FIRST STREET. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated February 6, 1989. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 1 ti 8. REVIEW OF A GRADING PLAN FOR POWER STREET SUBDIVISION, TRACT NO. 30986. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated February 7, 1989. 9. STUDY OF BUS BENCHES AND SHELTERS. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated January 11, 1989. (Continued from 1/24/89 meeting.) 10. ANNUAL REPORT OF ACTIVITIES - 1988. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated February 9, 1989 11. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE FINANCING OF RIGHT-OF-WAY January 31, 1989 meeting.) ministrator Viki Copeland CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES IN ACQUISITION. (Continued from Memorandum from Finance Ad - dated February 9, 1989. • 12. REUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF COUNCIL POLICY REGARDING APPLICATIONS FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE(S) IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated February 6, 1989. 13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER (a) (b) Recommendation to reduce costs by revising Planning Com mission minute procedures. Memorandum from City Manage Kevin B. Northcraft dated February 6, 1989. Status of audit of Public Safety Dispatch system. Memo- randum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dat- ed February 6, 1989. r 14. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL (a) (b) 15. Recommendation to approve a policy statement supporting a ban on assault rifles. (Requested by Councilmember Simpson). Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. North - craft dated February 6, 1989. Review of City Manager employment agreement including salary and consideration of housing assistance. (Con- tinued from January 24, 1989 meeting.) Memoranda from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood and City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated February 7, 1989. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL 16. CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Citizens wishing to address the Council on items not on the agenda but within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, February 21, 1989 - 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: The following matters were continued to this date from the February 14, 1989 City Council meeting: MUNICIPAL MATTERS 8. REVIEW OF A GRADING PLAN FOR POWER STREET SUBDIVISION, TRACT NO. 30986. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated February 7, 1989. 9. STUDY OF BUS BENCHES AND SHELTERS. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated January 11, 1989. 10. ANNUAL REPORT OF ACTIVITIES - 1988. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated February 9, 1989. 11. RECOMMENDTION TO APPROVE CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERAVICES IN FINANCING OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION. Memorandum from Finance Administrator Viki Copeland dated February 9, 1989. 13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER (a) Recommendation to reduce costs by revising Planning Com- mission minute procedures. Memorandum from City Manager Kevin B. Northcraft dated February 6, 1989. 1 (b) Status of audit of Public Safety Dispatch system. Memo- randum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dat- ed February 6, 1989. 15. CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Citizens wishing to address the Council on items not on the agenda but within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. ADJOURNMENT February 9, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of February 14, 1989 PRESENTATION OF OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEE AWARD Pursuant to City Council direction, the City has established an "Employee Performance Award Program" to recognize and honor outstanding employee performance. The award is presented to an employee who has either contributed sustained performance above expected levels or performed a one-time action that exceeds expectations. Employees are nominated for consideration by department directors, department supervisors, fellow -employees and/or the general public during each fiscal year quarter. The Performance Award Committe, which consists of all department directors considers the nominations and if a consensus is reached, selects an outstanding employee for the subject quarter. The recipient of the Employee Performance Award for the October 1 thru December 31, 1988 quarter is: PUBLIC WORKS AND PARKS SUPERINTENDENT, VERNON E. HIGHFIELD: Vern, who has served the City of Hermosa Beach for over thirty years has consistently performed at an outstanding level. His long and impressive track record includes a list of accomplishments that reflects his dedication and effectiveness as a Hermosa Beach City employee. Vern is particularly appreciated for his talent for anticipating Department and City needs. This is clearly a man who takes great pride in his work and we have all benefitted by his outstanding contribution. Respectfully submitted, Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director A MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California held on Tuesday, January 24, 1989 at the hour of 7:35 P.M. CLOSED SESSION pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) regarding litigation Gotanda v. Hermosa Beach, Fouce v. Hermosa Beach, Creighton v. Hermosa Beach, Creighton v. Barks; and Per- sonnel, at the hour of 6:28 P.M. Present: Creighton, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Rosenberger Absent: Sheldon PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Tim Woodhall ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Rosenberger Absent: Sheldon PROCLAMATIONS - American History Month, February, 1989 - accepted by Councilmember Williams on behalf of the El Redondo Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution. INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES - by Personnel Director Blackwood James Bouziane, Police Dispatcher Kari Ann Propeck, Police Dispatcher Larissa Sarmanian, Police Dispatcher Carol Lockhart, Administrative Aide Ingrid Rademaker, Planning Aide Jean Brian, Clerk Typist Fran O'Connor, Secretary Terri Lyn Edison, Recreation Specialist Andrew Herbold, Recreation Specialist CITIZEN COMMENTS - None At this time Kevin Petersen - District Manager of GTE addressed the council regarding recent problems with the newly installed city 911 dispatch system. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Action: To approve Consent Calendar recommendations (a) through (p). Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. So ordered, noting the absence of Sheldon. (a) Recommendation to approve minutes as follows 1) Regular meeting of the City Council held on Decem- ber 13, 1988. 2) Adjourned regular meeting of the City Council held on December 19, 1988. 3) Regular meeting of January 10, 1989. - i - 1a Minutes 1-24-89 1 (b) Recommendation to approve Demands and Warrants Nos.28547 and 28708 through 28836 inclusive, noting voided warrants 28710, 28712 through 28714 inclusive and 28762 and 28763. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) Recommendation to receive and file November, 1988 finan- cial reports: 1) Revenue and Expenditure Report 2) City Treasurer Report (e) Recommendation to authorize call for bids Traffic Signal Preemption Project (CIP 86-176). Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated January 17, 1989. (f) Recommendation to adopt resolution establishing sections of certain streets throughout the City as one-way. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated December 13, 1989. (g) (h) (i) Action: To adopt Resolution No. 89-5220, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING SECTIONS OF CERTAIN STREETS AS ONE-WAY. Recommendation to approve state grant funds projects as recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission. Memorandum from Assis-_ tant City Manager Alana Mastrian-Handman dated January 18, 1989. Action: To approve the purchase of the following items from the remaining fund balances in the miscellaneous state grants the City is in the process of closing out: $1,000 park water fountains; $1,000 park trash cans; and $20,658 playground equipment. Recommendation to deny claims for damages and refer to City's insurance adjusters, as follows: 1) Toya Jackson, 11409 Oxford Ave., Hawthorne, CA 90250, filed January 9, 1989; alleged trip and fall. 2) Paul Haase, 1600 Ardmore, #306, Hermosa Beach, 90254, filed December 29, 1988; alleged police brutality. Recommendation to adopt resolution approving Final Map #19555 for a 2 -unit condominium at 803 Loma Drive. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated January 17, 1989. - 2 - Minutes 1-24-89 (j) (k) (1) (m) (n) (o) Action: To adopt Resolution No. 89-5221, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL TRACT MAP # 19555 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 803 LOMA DRIVE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. Recommendation to approve class specification of Court Liaison Officer and Property Evidence/CAL ID Technician establishing the monthly salary range to be $1851-$2250 and revised class specification for Senior Building In- spector. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated January 15, 1989. Recommendation to approve plans and specifications and authorize to bid - Pier storm damage, (CIP 88-614). Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated January 12, 1989. Action: To approve the plans and specifications for Pier Storm Damage, CIP 88-614; authorize staff to adver- tise for construction bids for this project; authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary within budget limitations; and to adopt Resolution No. 89-5222, enti- tled " A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR FUNDING FROM THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD FOR REPAIR OF THE MUNICIPAL FISHING PIER." Recommendation to approve request of Vasek Polak for a 30 -day extension of lease (704 -1st P1.). Memorandum from City Manager Northcraft dated January 19, 1989. Recommendation to approve findings for Power Street. Memorandum from City Attorney James P. Lough dated January 18, 1989. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 89-5223, entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION INVESTIGATE AND REPORT ON THE HYDROLOGY REPORT AND CON- CEPTUAL GRADING PLAN FOR TENATIVE TRACT 30986 (COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE POWER STREET DEVELOPMENT.) Recommendation to approve plans and specifications and authorize call for bids - Highland Avenue widening, CIP 85-102. Memorandum from Public Works Director Anthony Antich dated January 12, 1989 Recommendation to receive and file status report on moratorium on the issue of building permits for struc- tures in the multi -use corridor. Memorandum from Plan- ning Director Michael Schubach dated January 17, 1989. - 3 - Minutes 1-24-89 (p) 1 Recommendation to adopt a resolution accepting the penal code requirements relating to selection and training of Public Safety Dispatchers. Memorandum from Public Safe- ty Director Steve Wisniewski dated January 19, 1989. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 89-5224, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PENAL CODE REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE SELECTION AND TRAINING STANDARDS OF PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHERS." 2. CONSENT ORDINANCES. (a) ORDINANCE NO. 89-972 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FOR WEST SIDE OF MYRTLE AVENUE BETWEEN 24TH STREET AND 25TH STREET FROM R-2 TO R-1. For adoption. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 89-972. Motion Simpson, second Creighton. So ordered, noting the absence of Sheldon. (b) ORDINANCE NO. 89-973 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20, SECTION 20 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED "NUISANCES" BY ADDING A SUBSECTION PERTAINING TO MULTI- PLE POLICE RESPONSES TO ANY LOUD OR UNRULY ASSEMBLAGE. For adoption. Action: To adopt Ordinance No. 89-973. Motion Creighton, second Williams. So ordered, noting the absence of Sheldon. 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION - None 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. PROPOSED STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES AND PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS 1989-90 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM. Memorandum from Assistant City Manager Alana Mastrian- Handman dated January 18, 1989. A staff report was presented by Director Mastrian- Handman. The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak were: Stan Smith - Exec. Director South Bay Juvenile Diversion requested monies to be awarded to local service agencies. Kevin Cody - 54 -17th Place - referred to his letter regarding downtown sidewalk cafes. The Public Hearing was closed. - 4 - Minutes 1-24-89 Action: To approve the expenditure of $122,762 CDBG Funds for the following programs: Housing Rehabilita- tion $92,072; Public Service $18,414; and Administration $12,276. Motion Williams, second Rosenberger. AYES - Simpson, Williams, Mayor Rosenberger NOES - Creighton ABSENT - Sheldon 6. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE WITHIN THE 17' SETBACK AT 1836 PALM DRIVE. (Continued from January 10, 1989 meeting. A staff report was presented by Planning Director .Schubach. The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak was Maxwell Wuthrich # 3 Malaga Cove Palos Verdes Estates - in favor The Public Hearing was :closed. Action: To adopt Resolution No. 89-5225, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ON APPEAL A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A GARAGE WITHIN THE SEVENTEEEN FOOT (17') SETBACK AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1836 PALM DRIVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE WEST HALF OF LOT 17 AND THE WEST HALF OF THE EASTERLY .84' OF LOT 18, TRACT • 1132." Motion Creighton, second Simpson. So ordered, noting the absence of Sheldon. 7. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO EXCLUDE ADULT VIDEOS FROM A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VIDEO SALES AND RENTALS AT 1312 HERMOSA AVENUE, HERMOSA VIDEO. Memoran- dum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated January 17, 1989. Supplemental letter from Mr./Mrs. Batchelor 631 -Longfellow dated January 12, 1989. Sup- plemental petition with 60 signatures of Hermosa Beach residents - oppossing adult videos. A staff report was presented by Director Schubach. The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak were: Jack Gallagher - 1600 Ardmore # 205 - on behalf of his son, Scott Gallagher, appellant. Sara Cobe - 525 Monterey Blvd - in favor of appeal David Fordice - 12053 Marshall St. Culver City - opposed Ms. Personias - 827 -14th St.- opposed Tim Personias - 827 -14th St.- opposed Victor Smith - 22636 Lupine Torrance - opposed Barry O'Brien - 5231 Maricopa Torrance - opposed Jack Miroff - 1229 -6th Street - opposed - 5 - Minutes 1-24-89 Proposed Action: To grant the appeal and approve a CUP for the business located at 1312 Hermosa Avenue and add additional conditions to the Resolution relating to: 1) No window displays of adult videos or corollary materials 2) No other adult types of materials for sale (no novelty items); and 3) Add to # 11, page 4: Staff review every 6 months and report to Planning Commission and City Council, and to adopt Resolution No. 89 - entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW VIDEO SALES AND RENTALS, ADULT VIDEOS INCLUDED, AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1312 HERMOSA AVENUE LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 8 AND 9, BLOCK 34, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT."; as amended above. Motion Rosenberger, second Creighton. AYES - Rosenberger, Creighton NOES - Simpson, Williams ABSENT - Sheldon Action: To reopen the Public Hearing and continue to the next regular meeting on February 14, 1989, for a full Council to be present. Councilmember Sheldon will need to review the recording of the meeting and staff report in order to participate. Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. So ordered, noting the absence of Sheldon. 8. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A VARIANCE FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK.AT 576 —21ST STREET. Memorandum• from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated January 17, 1989. (Recommendation to open and continue hearing to February 14, 1989.) By order of the Chair, the Public Hearing was opened, and continued until the next regular meeting of February 14, 1989. HEARINGS 9. MAXIMUM OF TWO UNITS PER LOT IN R-2 ZONE (Continued from January 10, 1989 meeting.) Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated January 3, 1989. A staff report was presented by Director Schubach. The Hearing was opened, no one coming forward to speak, the Hearing was closed. Action: To approve staff recommendation that the R-2 zone not have a maximum unit number per lot, and that a study of precise development review for all projects over two units be prepared by staff. Motion Simpson, second Rosenberger. So ordered, noting the absence of Sheldon. - 6 - Minutes 1-24-89 MUNICIPAL MATTERS 10. CONSIDERATION OF REFUSE CONTRACT ALTERNATIVES. Memoran- dum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dat- ed January 12, 1989. A staff report was presented by Director Grove. Action: To approve staff recommendation to negotiate a five year extension to the current contract for refuse removal with Browning-Ferris Industries, and to provide staff with input as desired amendments to level of re- fuse service as follows: 1) Persue the use of jeeps on the narrow streets, similar to the operation on Herondo (Creighton). 2) 3 Yard Bins i small streets (alleys), back off right-of-way, met--i-x enclosures (Williams) . '3) More often bi trash pick-up has disadvantages, especially in dense areas (Rosenberger). 4) Large bins up against buildings, often are creeping into alley, liability (Rosenberger). 5) Further examine and expand recycling, central- ized bins (Rosenberger). 6) Potential waste in catch basins, disposal; deficiency audit, fees (Simpson). Motion Creighton, second Simpson. So ordered, noting the absence of Sheldon. 11. STUDY OF BUS BENCHES AND SHELTERS. Memorandum from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated January 11., 1989. A staff report was presented by Director Schubach. Proposed Action: Not to persue obtaining new bus benches and shelters to be owned and maintained by a private company or the City; and to maintain the current City type. Motion Williams, second Creighton. No vote was taken on the above motion. Final Action: To continue to the next meeting. Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. So ordered, noting the absence of Sheldon. 12. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, BY ADDING SECTION PERTAINING TO COST RECOVERY FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAUSED BY PERSONS UNDER INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS. For waiver of full reading and introduction. Memorandum from Public Safety Director Steve Wisniewski dated December 28, 1988. A staff report was presented by Director Wisniewski. 7 Minutes 1-24-89 J _ Action: To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 89-974 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADDING THERETO SECTION 19-33.1 TO CHAPTER 19 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, PERTAINING TO EMER- GENCY RESPONSE COST RECOVERY FEES." Motion Simpson, second Rosenberger. AYES - Creignton, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Rosenberger NOES - None ABSENT - Sheldon Final Action: To introduce Ordinance No. 89-974. Motion Williams, second Rosenberger. So ordered, noting the objection of Creighton, and the absence of Sheldon. It was noted that the Legislative Counsel's Opinion and information on the costs of billing will be provided 'when this is brought back for adoption. Item number 14 was discussed at this time, but is listed in order for clarity. 13. RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUP- PLEMENTAL TO 911 MOU ESTABLISHING A TRIAL PERIOD FOR AN ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE FOR PUBLIC WORKS FIELD OPERATIONS. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dat- ed January 14, 1989. Action: To approve staff recommendation for correspond- ing 90 days as Item # 14. Motion Creighton, second Williams. So ordered, noting the absence of Sheldon. 14. RECOMMENDATION AND REPORT ON CITY HALL 4-10 SCHEDULE. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dat- ed January 14, 1989. A staff report was presented by Director Blackwood, and questions were answered by Union Representative Michael Flaherty. Action: To continue the Public Hearing scheduled munity on this issue. Motion Creighton, second the absence of Sheldon. schedule for 90 days, with a for public input from the com- Simpson. So ordered, noting 15. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS None 16. (a) MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER - CITY COUNCIL Recommendation for City Council to consider attendance at League of California Cities Employee Relations In- stitute. Memorandum from Personnel Director Robert Blackwood dated January 15, 1989. - R - Minutes 1-24-89 f ` (b) Action: To receive and file. Motion Simpson, second Creighton. So ordered, noting the absence of Sheldon. Sub -committee report on City Manager compensation and evaluation process. Memorandum from Council Subcommit- tee of Councilmembers Creighton and Sheldon dated January 15, 1989. Proposed Action: To approve the Performance Based Com- pensation Program for future compensation adjustments to the City Manager's salary. Motion Creighton - motion was withdrawn. Further Proposed Action: To approve an 8% increase in salary. Motion Williams - dies for lack of second. Action: Director Blackwood to contact the councilmem- bers for input regarding the evaluation form. Motion Creighton, second Rosenberger. So ordered, noting the absence of Sheldon. Further Action: To approve the contract language change as submitted. Motion Williams, second Rosenberger. So ordered, noting the absence of Sheldon. The compensation and future evaluation will be held. over for a full council to be present. 17. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items: (a) (b) Discussion requested by Councilmember Williams of proper name for the former Santa Fe right-of-way. Action: That the Park, Recreation, and Community Resources agendize the issue of naming the Railroad right-of-way, Greenbelt using the same procedure as they did for Edith Rodaway Park. Motion Williams, second Rosenberger. So ordered, noting the absence of Sheldon. Councilmember Simpson requested that the Council con- sider a resolution that would support legislation to control the use of automatic weapons. 9 Minutes 1-24-89 18. CITIZEN COMMENTS - NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Jim Canes - 819 -18th Street - addressed service failure of 911 system - consultant - recommended cellular phones for backup Doug Nielsen - Program Director Channel 10 MultiVision - requested parking permit for downtown while video taping for local public access channel. Matter was referred to City Manager. ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California adjourned on Wednesday, January 25, 1989 at the hour of 12:25 A.M. to an Adjourned Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, Januuary 31, 1989 at the hour of 6:30 P.M. Iczeideo-n) City Clerk Minutes 1-24-89 • • • • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION H GATES MC DONALD VND # DATE INVC CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/14/89 ACCOUNT NUMBER 'TRN # AMOUNT PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 02596 705-400-1217-4182 00081 01/25/89 $28.618.89 REIMB WORK COMP/DEC-JAN WORKERS COMP /WORKERS COMP CURRENT YR • *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** PAGE 0001 DATE 02/09/89 INV/REF PO # CHK #. AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP H HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT • • • • SAL/A. ANTICH/12-20-88 $28,618.89 00243 001-202-0000-2030 00256 $5.553.43 01/23/89 /ACCRUED PAYROLL *** VENDOR TOTAL*************************************************+r*********+r***+r**** H LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CONF REG/C. SHELDON TR234 *** VENDOR TOTAL 00317 02/01/89 001-400-1101-4317 00294 $5.553.43 $125.00 CITY COUNCIL /CONFERENCE EXPENSE H MANIACI INSURANCE SERVICES, INC JAN PREM/CITY HEALTH INS $125.00 02673 001-400-1212-4188 01286 $80.00 01/26/89 EMP BENEFITS /EMPLOYEE BENEFITS • *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $80.00 1 • • • • • • • H POSTMASTER POSTAGE/PKG PERMITS 00398 110-400-3302-4305 00514 $2.000.•00 01/31/89 PARKING ENF /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** . *2,000.00 H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT/JAN H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT/JAN H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT/JAN H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT/JAN H PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT/JAN RETIREMENT SYS. 89 RETIREMENT SYS. 89 RETIREMENT SYS. 89 RETIREMENT SYS.: ' 89 RETIREMENT SYS. 89 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00269 $74,524.72 01/25/89 RETIREMENT /RETIREMENT 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00270 01/25/89 RETIREMENT 00026 001-400-1213-4180 00271 01/25/89 RETIREMENT $79. 62CR /RETIREMENT ' *72, 314. 22CR /RETIREMENT 00026 105-400-2601-4180 00088 $556.02 01/25/89 STREET LIGHTING /RETIREMENT ' 00026 110-400-3301-4180 00089 $177.77 01/25/89 VEH PKG DIST /RETIREMENT 07073 28838 $0.00 02/08/89 28837 $0.00 02/08/89 TR234 00234 28844 $0.00 02/08/89 07347 28841 $0.00 02/08/89 07841 28843 $0.00 02/08/89 28839 $0.00 02/08/89 28839 $0.00 02/08/89 28839 $0.00 02/08/89 28839 $0.00 02/08/89 28839 *0.00 02/08/89 • • • • • 0 • • V • • • • • • • • • • • Ic.. • • S 3 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT/JAN PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT/JAN PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT/JAN PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT/JAN PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT/JAN PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT/JAN PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT/JAN PUB EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT/JAN RETIREMENT SYS. 89 RETIREMENT SYS. 89 RETIREMENT SYS. 89 RETIREMENT SYS. 89 RETIREMENT SYS. 89 RETIREMENT SYS. 89 RETIREMENT SYS. 89 RETIREMENT SYS. 89 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/14/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00026 110-400-3302-4180 00089 01/25/89 PARKING ENF 00026 145-400-3401-4180 00063 01/25/89 DIAL A RIDE 00026 145-400-3402-4180 00063 01/25/89 ESEA 00026 145-400-3403-4180 00014 01/25/89 BUS PASS SUBSDY 00026 155-400-2102-4180 00061 01/25/89 CROSSING GUARD 00026 160-400-3102-4180 00088 01/25/89 SEWER/ST DRAIN 00026 705-400-1209-4180 00014 01/25/89 LIABILITY INS 00026 705-400-1217-4180 00014. 01/25/89 WORKERS COMP $4.582.82 /RETIREMENT . $168.96 /RETIREMENT $56.60 /RETIREMENT $15.94 /RETIREMENT $226.65 /RETIREMENT $830.45 /RETIREMENT $131.45 /RETIREMENT $131.45 /RETIREMENT *** ENDOR TOTAL*******************************************+t****w**#a*************** * * * VERNON PAVING COMPANY FINAL RETENTION/CIP87171 1045 VERNON PAVING COMPANY FINAL RETENTION/CIP87171 1045 VENDOR TOTAL 00019 01/25/89 00019 01/25/89 115-202-0000-2020 00076 115-400-8171-4201 00013 CIP 85-171 • PAGE 0002 DATE 02/09/89 INV/REF PO # CHK $ AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $9.009.19 $2,432.01° /ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 28839 $0.00 02/08/89 28839 $0.00 02/08/89 28839 $0.00 02/08/89 28839 $0.00 02/08/89 28839 $0.00 02/08/89 28839 $0.00 02/08/89 28839 $0.00 02/08/89 28839 $0.00 02/08/89 1045 07665 28840 $0.00 02/08/89 $5,817,99 '1045 07665 28840 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 02/08/89 ******************************************************************** H J. S. *WARD & COMPANY REIMB LIAB/DEC 88 $8, 250. 00 02507 705-400-1209-4201 00073 $5.831.00 '01/30/89 LIABILITY INS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL**********************'********************************************** $5,831.00 *** PAY CODE TOTAL****************************************************************** $59.467.51 R AAA AUTO ELECTRIC ALTERNATOR/ENGINE 11 01328 001-400-2201-4311 2373 01/21/89 FIRE 07067 28842 $0.00 02/08/89 00260 $239.63 2373 05394 29005 /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 02/08/89 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0003 FOR 02/14/89 DATE 02/09/89 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $239.63 R ADAMSON INDUSTRIES, INC. 00138 001-400-2101-4309 00189 $215.81 00012 29006 MISC CHGS/JAN 89 01/31/89 POLICE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL ******************************************************************** *215.81 R ADIRONDACK DIRECT 01086 001-400-4601-5401 00005 $2,272.54 06591 29007 TABLES & CHAIRS/COMM RES 01/25/89 COMM RESOURCES /EQUIP—LESS THAN $500 $2,242.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $2,272.54 • R ADVANCE ELEVATOR 00003 001-400-4204-4201 00299 $80.00 21180 00003 29008 ELEVATOR MAINT/FEB 89 21180 02/01/89 BLDG MAINT /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL**********************************************************a} $80. 00 R ALLIED SUPPLY 02651 001-400-2201-4309 00626 . $72.46 L137470 05393 29009 LIQUID FILLED GAUGES 37470 01/19/89 FIRE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS • $72.46 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************************************************v************** ' $72.46 R AMERICAN STYLE FOODS 00857 001-400-2101-4306 00602 $273.00 ' 00013 29010 MISC CHGS/JAN 89 01/31/89 POLICE /PRISONER MAINTENANCE $0.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** • $273.00 R ASHTON—TATE 02519 001-400-4202-4305 00359 $342.70 611394 07204 29011 COMPUTER SOFTWARE 11394 10/28/88 PUB WKS ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $342..70 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL*******************************************************************4 . $342.70 R AUTOMOTIVE PAINT CENTER 01891 001-400-3104-4309 00162 $337.88 00014 29012 MISC CHCS/JAN 89 01/31/89 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 ' 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $337.88 R BANC ONE LEASING 99 02154 001-400-4205-6900 00024 $417.96 0000479-479 00054 29013 LEASE PMT/FEB 89 9-479 01/20/89 EQUIP SERVICE /LEASE PAYMENTS $0.00 02/08/89 v 10 4 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/14/89 PAGE 0004 DATE 02/09/89 VND Ik ACCOUNT NUMBER •TRN * AMOUNT INV/REF PO Si CHK * DATE INVC PROD # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R BANK OF AMERICA DEC EXP/S. WISNIEWSKI 00180 001-400-2101-4316 01/03/89 POLICE $417.96 00318 $56.35 /TRAINING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** * * * * * * R BEACH TRAVEL AIRFARE/V. COPELAND $56.35 00252 001-400-1202-4317 00049 $134.00 TR227 01/31/89 FINANCE ADMIN /CONFERENCE EXPENSE VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R BERIAN PRINTING SERVICE, INC. PUBLIC NOTICE POSTERS 6268 VENDOR TOTAL 02664 001-400-1208-4305 00602 01/30/89 GEN APPROP *134.00. 07902 29014 $0.00 02/08/89 TR227 00227 29015 $0.00 02/08/89 $142.71 6268 07343 29016 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES • $0.00 02/08/89 ******************************************************************** R STATE*BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MON SERV/AUG-DEC 88 9910 $142. 71 02411 001-400-1207-4251 00006 $63.25 9910 01757 29017 01/18/89 BUS LICENSE •/CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $63.25 * * * R BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS MISC CHCS/JAN 89 VENDOR TOTAL 00005 001-400-1208-4305 00598 $490.50 01/31/89 GEN APPROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES ******************************************************************** $490.50 R KAREN*BOYD-BALDERSON CITE PAYMENT REFUND 02663 110-300-0000-3302 58959 01/12/89 25575 $46.00 /COURT FINES/PARKING. *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $46.00 R BRAUN LINEN SERVICE MISC CHCS/DEC 88 R BRAUN LINEN SERVICE MISC CHGS/JAN 89 00163 001-400-2101-4306 00600 12/31/88 POLICE 00163 001-400-2101-4306 01/31/89 POLICE $181. 89 /PRISONER MAINTENANCE 00603 $218.05 • /PRISONER MAINTENANCE $0.00 02/08/89 00017 29018 $0.00 02/08/89 658959 07334 29019 $0.00 02/08/89 00128 29020 $0.00 • 02/08/89 00018 29020 $0.00 02/08/89 e- FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/14/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER YRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R MARK*BRIGGS & ASSOCIATES, INC. CDBG SERVICES/JAN 89 383/2 02478 001-400-1201-4201 00037 01/31/89 CITY MANAGER PAGE 0005 DATE 02/09/89 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $399.94 $1,859.00 383/2 07711 29021 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 02/09/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL****************************************************it*************** R R * R R R R R R R R R BROWNING & FERRIS INDUSTRIES TRASH PICKUP/FEB 89 BROWNING & FERRIS INDUSTRIES TRASH PICKUP/FEB 89 00155 001-400-1208-4201 00514 02/01/89 GEN APPROP 00155 02/01/89 110-400-3301-4201 00195 VEH PKG DIST $1. 859. 00 $574.25 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $465.98 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT **VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/JAN 89 GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/JAN 89 GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/JAN 89 GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/JAN 89 GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/JAN 89 GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/JAN 89 GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/JAN 89 GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/JAN 89 GARY*BRUTSCH. CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/JAN 89 02016 001-400-1101-4305 00222 01/31/89 CITY COUNCIL 02016 001-400-1201-4305 00121 01/31/89 CITY MANAGER 02016 001-400-1202-430.5 00199 01/31/89 FINANCE ADMIN 02016 001-400-1203-4305 00191 01/31/89 PERSONNEL 02016 001-400-1206-4309 00117 01/31/89 DATA PROCESSING 02016 001-400-1206-4317 00041 01/31/89 DATA PROCESSING 02016 001-400-2101-4201 00348 01/31/89 POLICE 02016 001-400-2101-4305 00904 01/31/89 POLICE 02016 001-400-2101-4309 00190 01/31/89 POLICE $1.040.23 $9.76 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $6.08 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $2..80 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.20 - /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $14.62 /MAINTENANCE' MATERIALS $10.00 /CONFERENCE EXPENSE • • $12.00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $5.55 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $15.92 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00005 29022 $0.00 02/08/89 00005 29022 $0.00 02/08/89 07148 29024 $0.00 02/08/89 07148 29024 $0.00 02/08/89 07148 29024 $0.00 02/08/89 07148 29024 $0.00 02/08/89 07148 29024 $0.00 02/08/89 07148 29024 $0.00 02/08/89 07148 29024 $0.00 02/08/89 07148 29024 $0.00 02/08/89 07148 29024 $0.00 02/08/89 • v 011 FINANCE-SFA340 w TIME 14:23:20 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/JAN 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH. CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/JAN 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/JAN 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH. CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/JAN 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/JAN 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/JAN 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/JAN 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH, CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/JAN 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH. CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/JAN 89 R GARY*BRUTSCH. CITY TREASURER PETTY CASH/JAN 89 VND # DATE INVC 02016 ' 01/31/89 02016 01/31/89 02016 01/31/89 02016 01/31/89 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/14/89 ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 001-400-2101-4316 POLICE 001-400-2201-4316 FIRE 001-400-2401-4309 00090 ANIMAL CONTROL 00319 00155 001-400-4101-4305 00269 PLANNING 02016 001-400-4201-4305 00391 01/31/89 BUILDING 02016 01/31/89 001-400-4601-4308 00150 COMM RESOURCES 02016 110-400-3302-4305 00521 01/31/89 PARKING 02016 01/31/89 $55. 50 /TRAINING $14.00 /TRAINING PAGE 0006 DATE 02/09/89 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $1.76 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.45 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $4.00 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $30.22 /PROGRAM MATERIALS $27.69 ENF /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 110-400-3302-4311 00444 PARKING $6.92 ENF /AUTO MAINTENANCE 02016 126-300-0000-3120 00106 $1.'13 01/31/89 ,/UTILITY USER TAX 02016 127-300-0000-3120 01/31/89 00081 $1.69 ' /UTILITY USER TAX *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R BSI CONSULTANTS, INC. CONTRACT SERV/JUL-SEP 88 00630 115-400-8302-4201 00046 01/23/89 CIP 87-302 *** VENDOR TOTAL*******************************************************************+t R BUREAU OF BUSINESS PRACTICE ' ' PUBLICATIONS/POLICE 8173U R BUREAU OF BUSINESS PRACTICE PUBLICATIONS/PARKING 00253 001-400-2101-4305 00905 12/19/88 POLICE ' *220,29 $4,652.15 $4.652.15 $166.26 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 00253 110-400-3302-4305 00522 $34.98 01/30/89 PARKING ENF /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 07148 29024 $0.00 02/08/89 07148 29024 $0.00 02/08/89 07148 29024 $0.00 02/08/89 07148 29024 $0.00 02/08/89 07148 29024 $0.00 02/08/89 07148 29024 - $0.00 02/08/89 07148 29024 $0.00 02/08/89 07148 29024 $0.00 02/08/89 07148 29024 $0.00 02/08/89 0714e 29024 $0.00 02/08/89 07672 29025 $0.00 02/08/89 9218173U 07907 . 29026 $0.00 02/08/89 07838 29026 $0.00 02/08/89 0 • • 0 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/14/89 • VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # APCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL*************************************************4***+r************** r R BUSINESS SYSTEMS SUPPLY COMPUTER PAPER/POLICE 47635 r 00034 001-400-2101-4305 01/24/89 POLICE PAGE 0007 DATE 02/09/89 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $201.24 00902 4660.30 147635 07450 29027 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $660.30 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R CA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, INC. MEDIANS MAINT/JAN 89 76901 R CA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, INC. PARKS MAINT/JAN 89 70901 • 00599 001-400-3101-4201 01/31/89 MEDIANS 00599 001-400-6101-4201 01/31/89 PARKS 4660.30 00008 43,000.00 0076901 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 00131 48,710.00 0470901 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT r *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** w 0 v r 0 • * * * $11.710.00 R CAL SURANCE ASSOCIATES, INC. 00038 705-400-1210-4201 00020 416,557.00 1015497/5383 PROPERTY INSURANCE /5383 12/29/88 AUTO/PROP/BONDS /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $16,557.00 R THE*CALIF PARK & REC. SOCIETY 00602 001-400-4601-4316 00100 410.00 PUBLICATIONS/COMM RES 01/25/89 COMM RESOURCES /TRAINING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE WATER BILLINGS/JAN 89 R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE WATER BILLINGS/JAN 89 R CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE WATER BILLINGS/JAN 89 00016 001-400-3101-4303 00026 01/31/89 MEDIANS 00016 001-400-4204-4303 00283 01/31/89 BLDG MAINT 00016 001-400-6101-4303 00235 01/31/89 PARKS $10. 00 4493.56 /UTILITIES 4377.23 /UTILITIES $1, 189. 17 - /UTILITIES • • *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** • r R CELLULAR DYNAMICS COMPANY MOBILE PHONE CHCS/DEC 88 02449 001-400-2101-4304 12/27/88 POLICE 42,059.96 00325 483.41 ' /TELEPHONE• 00061 29028 $0.00 02/09/89 00061 29028 40.00 02/09/89 07063 29029 $0.00 02/08/89 07707 29030 $0.00 02/08/89 00014 29031 $0.00 02/08/89 00019 29031 $0.00 02/08/89 00019 29031 $0.00 02/08/89 01210 • 29032 $0.00 02/08/89 • • • • 0 • • • F • • • • • • • • • • • 4 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/14/89 PAGE 0008 DATE 02/09/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER 'TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO N CHK # DATE INVC PROJ # . ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL **************************************** ►***************•w*****+r*+r*** R CENTER FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE CLASS REG/J. KEARIN 10114 *** VENDOR TOTAL * * * 02000 001-400-2101-4312 01/17/89 POLICE 483.41 00827 4124.00 /TRAVEL EXPENSE , POST R CHAMPION CHEVROLET MISC CHCS/DEC 88 R CHAMPION CHEVROLET MISC CHGS/JAN 89 R CHAMPION CHEVROLET MISC CHGS/JAN 89 R CHAMPION CHEVROLET MISC CHGS/DEC 88' R CHAMPION CHEVROLET MISC CHGS/JAN 89 VENDOR TOTAL R CLARENCE*CHENG DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND 69864 00014 001-400-2101-4311 00602 12/31/88 POLICE 00014 001-400-2101-4311 00603' 01/31/89 POLICE 4124. 00 4386.03 /AUTO MAINTENANCE 4605.12 /AUTO MAINTENANCE 00014 001-400-4201-4311 00154 01/31/89 BUILDING /AUTO 00014 12/31/88 00014 01/31/89 001-400-4204-4311 00116 BLDG MAINT $24.28 MAINTENANCE $49.97 /AUTO MAINTENANCE 110-400-3302-4311 00441 - PARKING ENF '/AUTO 02662 001-210-0000-2110 01/30/89 4127.94 MAINTENANCE 41, 193. 34 10114 07901 29033 40.00 02/08/89 01212 29034 40.00 02/08/89 00112 29034 40.00 02/08/89 00112 29034 40.00 02/08/89 01212 29034 40.00 02/08/89 00112 29034 40.00 02/08/89 02657 $100.00: 69864 0714? 29035 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE 40.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R CHIEF ADMIN OFFICE PERSONNEL SERV/OCT-DEC88 036 00587 001-400-1203-4251 00100 01/24/89 PERSONNEL 4100.00 42, 960. 67 /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************iF* R COAST GLASS COMPANY MISC CHGS/JAN 89 00325 001-400-4204-4309 01215 7255 01/31/89 BLDG MAINT *2, 960. 67 422.50 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R COAST IRRIGATION CO. SPRINKLER PARTS $22.50 00354 001-400-3101-4309 00011 4299.90 A9710 01/06/89 MEDIANS /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 036 07080 29036 40.00 02/08/89 7255 00114 29037 40.00 . 02/08/89 A9710 07620 29038 4312.68 02/08/89 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/14/89 VND k ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL*****a*************************************a******+r***************** R CONTEMPORARY INVESTIGATION R CONTEMPORARY INVESTIGATION ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT 02615 001-400-2101-5401 00005 72 01/03/89 POLICE 02615 001-400-2101-5402 00019 72 01/03/89 POLICE PAGE 0009 DATE 02/09/89 INV/REF PO k CHK ## AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $299.90 $414.29 /EQUIP -LESS THAN $500 $1.224.75 /EQUIP -MORE THAN $500 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,639.04 R VIKI.*COPELAND PER DIEM ADVANCE TR227 00041 01/31/89 001-400-1202-4317 00047 FINANCE ADMIN - $150.00 • /CONFERENCE EXPENSE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R THE*DAILY BREEZE EMPLOYEE ADS 00642 001-400-1203-4201 00425 5-100 01/31/89 PERSONNEL $150. 00 72 07461 29039 $414.29 02/08/89 72 07461 29039 $1.224.75 02/08/89 TR227 00227 29040 $0.00 02/08/89 $96.60 392205-100 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $96.60 • R OFCR MICHELE*DERKS MEALS/CHILD ABUSE SEM. 02134 01/30/89 001-400-2101-4312. 00829 POLICE $36.25 /TRAVEL EXPENSE . POST *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R DETROIT EQUIPMENT COMPANY TIRE MARKING CHALK 5967 00995 110-400-3302-4305 00520 01/09/89 PARKING ENF $36.25 $320.10 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL*************************************************************:******* R DIVE N' SURF $320.10 00604 001-400-2201-4309 00623 $28.00 MISC CHCS/JAN 89 01/31/89 FIRE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R DRACULA'S CASTLE 02661 001-210-0000-2110 SIGN DEPOSIT REFUND 64509 01/30/89 $28. 00 07050 29041 $96.60 02/08/89 07914 29042 $0.00 02/08/89 5967 07804 29043 $301.50 02/08/89 00120 29044 $0.00 02/08/89 02658 $250.00 64509 07151 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 29045 02/08/89 410 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/14/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL *************roc***************************************************** * * * R DUNN—EDWARDS PAINT CO. PAINT/COMM CTR 28983 VENDOR TOTAL PAGE 0010 DATE 02/09/89 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $250.00 00161 001-400-4204-4309 01222 $235.42 140228983 07647 01/17/89 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $242.55 • ******************************************************************** R EASTMAN, INC. DIABLO PRINTWHEELS $235.42 02514 001-400-1206-4305 00354 $53.89 14390 01/04/89 DATA PROCESSING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** * * * R OFCR TOM*ECKERT MEALS/4 OFFICERS $53.89. 01958 001-400-2101-4312 00826 $87.00 01/26/89 POLICE /TRAVEL EXPENSE . POST VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS MISC CHCS/JAN 89 R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS MISC CHCS/JAN 89 R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS MISC CHCS/JAN 89 R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS MISC CHGS/JAN 89 R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS MISC CHCS/JAN 89 R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS MISC CHCS/JAN 89 R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS MISC CHCS/JAN 89 R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS MISC CHCS/JAN 89 00165 001-400-2101-4311 00606 01/31/89 POLICE 00165 01/31/89 00165 01/31/89 00165 01/31/89 00165 01/31/89 00165 01/31/89 00165 01/31/89 00165 01/31/89 001-400-2201-4311• 00259 FIRE 001-400-2401-4311 00132 ANIMAL CONTROL 001-400-3103-4311 00431 ST MAINTENANCE 001-400-4201-4311 00155 BUILDING 001-400-4204-4309 01217 BLDG MAINT 001-400-4204-4311 00117 BLDG MAINT 001-400-4205-4309 00334 • EOUIP SERVICE *87. 00 $491.05 /AUTO MAINTENANCE $25.,37 /AUTO MAINTENANCE $15.42 /AUTO MAINTENANCE $198.56 • /AUTO MAINTENANCE $18.05 /AUTO MAINTENANCE $14.68 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $47.28 - /AUTO MAINTENANCE $87.73 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 29046 02/08/89 4314390 00682 29047 $0.00 02/08/89 07913 29048 $0.00 02/08/89 00122 29050 $0.00 02/08/89 00122 29050 $0.00 02/08/89 00122 29050 $0.00 02/08/89 00122 29050 $0.00 02/08/89 00122 29050 $0.00 02/08/89 00122 29050 $0.00 02/08/89 00122 29050 $0.00 02/08/89 00122 29050 $0.00 02/08/89 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS FUEL INJ CLEANING KIT 51852 R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS MISC CHCS/JAN 89 R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS MISC CHCS/JAN 89 R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS MISC CHCS/JAN 89 R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS MISC CHCS/JAN 89 R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS MISC CHCS/JAN 89 R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS MISC CHCS/JAN 89 R EDDINGS BROTHERS AUTO PARTS MISC CHCS/JAN 89 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/14/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # • AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00165 01/26/89 001-400-4205-4309 00336 EQUIP SERVICE 00165 001-400-4205-4311 00115 01/31/89 EQUIP SERVICE 00165 001-400-6101-4309 00634 01/31/89 PARKS 00165 001-400-6101-4311 00172 01/31/89 PARKS 00165 01/31/89 00165 01/31/89 00165 01/31/89 00165 01/31/89 105-400-2601-4311 00128 STREET LIGHTING 110-400-3302-4309 00507 PARKING ENF 110-400-3302-4311. 00442 PARKING ENF 160-400-3102-4311 00107 SEWER/ST DRAIN PAGE 0011 DATE 02/09/89 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $301.75 51852 07661 29050 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $301.75 02/08/89 $298. 46 . /AUTO MAINTENANCE $116.42 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $110. 27 /AUTO MAINTENANCE $71. 55 /AUTO MAINTENANCE • $2. 47 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS' $502.33 /AUTO MAINTENANCE $100. 52 -/AUTO MAINTENANCE *** VENDOR TOTAL ********w********** ►**+r+*a********************************a***+roc**** $2,401.41 R ELGIN SWEEPER COMPANY LEASE PMT/FEB 89 02354 001-400-3103-6900 00016 9-479 01/20/89 ST MAINTENANCE 00122 29050 $0.00 02/08/89 00122 29050 $0.00 02/08/89 00122 29050 $0.00 02/08/89 00122 29050 $0.00 02/08/89 00122 29050 $0.00 02/08/89 00122 29050 $0.00 02/08/89 00122 29050 $0.00 02/08/89 $1,736.78 _ 0000479-479 00060 /LEASE PAYMENTS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R EXECUTIVE—SUITE SERVICES INC. JANITOR SERV/JAN 89 1-028 .$1,736.78 29051 $0.00 02/08/89 01294 001-400-4204-4201 00300 $1,325.00 78-033/91-028 00062 29052 01/31/89 BLDG MAINT /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** • R FAIRMONT HOTEL 02672 001-400-1101-4317 00295 HOTEL ADVANCE/SHELDON TR234: 02/01/89 CITY COUNCIL $1.325.00 $98.00 /CONFERENCE EXPENSE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** • R FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. EXPRESS MAIL/POLICE • 01962 001-400-2101-4305 24210 01/04/89 POLICE $98,00 TR234 00234 29053 $0.00 • 02/08/89 00903 $11.00 6-658-24210 07908 29054 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 02/08/89 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 a PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. EXPRESS MAIL/PUB. WORKS 64260 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/14/89 VND M ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN M AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ M ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 01962 01/17/89 001-400-8614-4201 00014 CIP 88-614 PAGE 0012 DATE 02/09/89 INV/REF PO M CHK M AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $17.25 6-670-64260 07675 29054 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R FILARSKY & WATT LEGAL SERV/JAN 89 00055 01/31/89 • 001-400-1203-4201 00426 PERSONNEL $28. 25 $1,260.00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R RESERVE OFCR GEORGE*GARRETT GANG SEMINAR REG *1,260.00 02665 001-400-2101-4316 00317 $30.00 01/23/89 POLICE /TRAINING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R GATES MC DONALD' CONT SERV/JAN-MAR 89 20559 R GATES MC DONALD TAIL CLAIM BILLING 00402 02538 705-400-1217-4201 00037 01/11/89 WORKERS COMP 02538 705-400-1217-4201 00038 01/12/89 WORKERS COMP $30. 00 $2,485.00 02-020559 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $5,695.00 137320000402 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT . *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************i************* $Q,180.00 R GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY MISC CHCS/JAN 89 R GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY STREET LIGHT SUPPLIES 9/205 *** VENDOR TOTAL 00058 001-400-4204-4309 01219 01/31/89 BLDG MAINT 00058 105-400-8202-4201 00024 02/01/89 CIP 85-202 $32. 50 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 07081 29055 $0.00 02/08/89 07905 29056 $0.00 02/08/89 00044 29057 $0.00 02/08/89 07074 29057 $0.00 02/08/89 00124 29058 $0.00 02/08/89 $645.55 •261206/209/205 07664 29058 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHGS/JAN 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/JAN 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/JAN 89 00015 01/31/89 00015 01/31/89 00015 01/31/89 001-400-1101-4304 00198 CITY COUNCIL 001-400-1121-4304 00188 CITY CLERK 001-400-1131-4304 00121 $678. 05 $12. 66 /TELEPHONE' $34. 33 /TELEPHONE $625.58 02/08/89 00125 29060 $0.00 02/08/89 00125 29060 $0.00 02/08/89 $244.30 00125 29060 • CITY ATTORNEY /TELEPHONE $0.00 02/08/89 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/JAN 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/JAN 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/JAN 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/JAN 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/JAN 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/JAN 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/JAN 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/JAN 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/JAN 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/JAN 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/JAN 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/JAN 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHGS/JAN 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHGS/JAN 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHGS/JAN 89 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/14/89 • VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # • ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00015 001-400-1141-4304 00191 $27.11 01/31/89 CITY TREASURER /TELEPHONE 00015 01/31/89 00015 01/31/89 001-400-1201-4304 00206 $30.92 CITY MANAGER /TELEPHONE 001-400-1202-4304 00211 $113.12 FINANCE ADMIN /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-1203-4304 00207 $45.49 01/31/89 PERSONNEL /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-1206-4304 00139 $230.50 01/31/89 DATA PROCESSING /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-1207-4304 00109 $42.23 01/31/89 BUS LICENSE /TELEPHONE • 00015 001-400-2101-4304 00326 $963.65 01/31/89 POLICE /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-2201-4304 00146 • $196.19 01/31/89 FIRE /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-2401-4304 • 00196 $25.80 01/31/89 ANIMAL CONTROL /TELEPHONE 00015 01/31/89 00015 01/31/89 00015 01/31/89 001-400-4101-4304 00210 $96.88 PLANNING /TELEPHONE 001-400-4201-4304 00207 $146.89 BUILDING /TELEPHONE 001-400-4202-4304 00212 *295.89 PUB WKS ADMIN /TELEPHONE . PAGE 0013 DATE 02/09/89 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 00015 001-400-4204-4321 00418 $17.05 • 01/31/89 BLDG MAINT /BUILDING SAFETY/SECURIT 00015 01/31/89 001-400-4601-4304 00241 $202.60 COMM RESOURCES /TELEPHONE 00015 001-400-6101-4304 00123 $16.33 01/31/89 . PARKS /TELEPHONE • 00125 29060 $0.00 02/08/89 00125 29060 $0.00 02/08/89 00125 29060 $0.00 02/08/89 00125 29060 $0.00 02/08/89 00125 29060 $0.00 02/08/89 00125 29060 $0.00 02/08/89 00125 29060 $0.00 02/08/89 00125 29060 $0.00 02/08/89 00125 29060 $0.00 02/08/89 00125. 29060 $0.00 02/08/89 00125 29060 $0.00 02/08/89 00125 29060 $0.00 02/08/89 00125 29060 $0.00 02/08/89 00125 29060 $0.00 02/08/89 00125 29060 $0.00 02/08/89 • FINANCE-SFA340 a TIME 14:23:20 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHGS/JAN 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHCS/JAN 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHGS/JAN 89 R GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY TELE CHGS/JAN 89 CITY OF HERMOSA DEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/14/89 VND q ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ M • ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00015 01/31/89 00015 01/31/89 00015 01/31/89 001-400-8606-4201 00064 CIP 87-606 110-400-3301-4304 00099 VEH PKG DIST • 110-400-3302-4304 00209 PARKING ENF PAGE 0014 DATE 02/09/89 INV/REF PO M CHK M AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $1,040.00 /CONTRACT SERVICE PRIVATE $10.13 /TELEPHONE $222.97 /TELEPHONE 00015 145-400-3401-4304 00020 $4.16 01/31/89 DIAL A RIDE /TELEPHONE *** VENDOR TOTAL*►*********************************************************+******** R GUILD PRINTING COMPANY, INC. BUS CARDS/L. DUKE 66-01 R GUILD PRINTING COMPANY, INC. BUS CARDS/M. TERCERO 66-01 R GUILD PRINTING COMPANY, INC. BUS CARDS/M. FEHSKENS 66-01 R GUILD PRINTING COMPANY, INC. BUS CARDS/L. JAAKOLA 66-01 R GUILD PRINTING COMPANY, INC. BUS CARDS/P. CORNEAL 66-01 R GUILD PRINTING COMPANY, INC. BUS CARDS/C. MORROW 66-01 R GUILD PRINTING COMPANY, INC. BUS CARDS/W. GROVE 66-01 R GUILD PRINTING COMPANY, INC. BUS CARDS/H. ANSCHEL 66-01 R GUILD PRINTING COMPANY, INC. BUS CARDS/KOWATSCHITSCH 66-01 R GUILD PRINTING COMPANY, INC. BUS CARDS/R. DAVIDSON 66-01 00202 001-400-1101-4305 00221 12/30/88 CITY COUNCIL 00202 001-400-1205-4305 00052 12/30/88 CABLE TV 00202 001-400-1207-4305 00145 12/30/88 BUS LICENSE 00202 001-400-2101-4305 • 00901 12/30/88 POLICE 00202 001-400-4201-4305 00385 12/30/88 BUILDING 00202 001-400-4201-4305 00386 12/30/88 BUILDING 00202 12/30/88 00202 12/30/88 001-400-4201-4305 00387 BUILDING 001-400-4201-4305 00388 BUILDING 00202 001-400-4201-4305 00389 12/30/88 BUILDING 00202 001-400-4201-4305 00390 12/30/88 • BUILDING $4,019.20 $45.80 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $45.79 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $45.79 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES /OFFICE /OFFICE /OFFICE /OFFICE $45_79 OPER SUPPLIES $45.80 OPER SUPPLIES $45.110 • OPER SUPPLIES $45.80 OPER SUPPLIES• $45.80 • /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $45.79 • /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $45. 79 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 121366-01 121366-01 121366-01 121366-01 121366-01 121366-01 121366-01 121366-01 121366-01 121366-01 00125 29060 $0.00 02/08/89 00125 29060 $0.00 02/08/89 00125 29060 $0.00 02/08/89 00125 29060 $0.00 02/08/89 07705 29061 $0.00 02/08/89 07705 29061 $0.00 02/08/89 07705 29061 $0.00 02/08/89 07705 29061 $0.00 02/08/89 07705 29061 $0.00 02/08/89 07705 29061 $0.00 02/08/89 07705 29061 $0.00 02/08/89 07705 29061 $0.00 02/08/89 07705 • 29061 $0.00 02/08/89 07705 29061 $0.00 02/08/89 • r N Y J FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0015 FOR 02/14/89 DATE 02/09/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DATE INVC PROJ # • ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** * * * R R R R R R R R HARRIS & ASSOCIATES CONTRACT SERV/DEC 88 90102 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES PROF SERV/NOV-DEC 88 05302 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES POWER ST SERV/SEP-OCT 88 05701 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES PROF SERV/NOV-DEC 88 05502 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES PROF SERV/NOV 88 05201 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES PROF SERV/DEC 88 05202 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES PROF SERV/NOV 88 05201 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES PROF SERV/DEC 88 05202 VENDOR TOTAL 02102 001-210-0000-2110 01/13/89 $457. 95 02659 $1,196.92 880590102 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE • 02102 001-400-3104-4201 00023 $530.40 8805302 01/16/89 TRAFFIC SAFETY /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 02102 11/08/88 02102 01/16/89 001-400-3104-4201 00024 $3,539.93 8805701 TRAFFIC SAFETY /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 001-400-8176-4201 00006 CIP 86-176 $618.80 8805502 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 02102 115-400-8170-4201 00006 $95.00 ' 8805201 12/16/88 CIP 87-170 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 02102 115-400-8170-4201 00007 $645.00 8805202 01/16/89 CIP 87-170 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 02102 12/16/89 02102 01/16/89 115-400-8171-4201 00014 • $47.00 8805201 CIP 85-171 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 115-400-8171-4201 • 00015 CIP 85-171 $323.00 8805202 /CONTRACT SEIRVICE/PRIVAT ******************************************************************** R HAWTHONE POLICE DEPARTMENT PD COMP/OCT-DEC 88 HB19 *** VENDOR TOTAL 00172 001-400.-2101-4251 00247 01/03/89 POLICE $6.996.05 $6,306.00 . /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT R HERMOSA ANIMAL HOSPITAL MISC CHGS/JAN 89 $6,300.00 00322 001-400-2401-4201 00192 $35.00 • 01/31/89 ANIMAL CONTROL '/CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $35.00 R INGLEWOOD TRANSMISSION POLICE TRANSMISSION 02095 001-400-2101-4311 2400 12/30/88 . POLICE 07679 29062 $0.00 02/08/89 07671 29062 $0.00 02/08/89 07648 29062 $0.00 02/08/89 07670 29062 $0.00 02/08/89 07667 29062 $0.00 02/08/89 07669 29062 $0.00 02/08/89 07667 29062 $0.00 02/08/89 07669 29062 $0.00 02/08/89 HB19 00042 29063 $0.00 02/08/89 • 00127 29064 $0.00 02/08/89 00608 $834.57 2400 07487 29065 /AUTO MAINTENANCE $842.00 02/08/89 I go.. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE—SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0016 • TIME 14:23:20 FOR 02/14/89 DATE 02/09/89 ed PAY VENDOR NAME VND 8 ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN it AMOUNT INV/REF PO M CHK 8 .. DESCRIPTION. DATE INVC PROJ it • ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP r, .. *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************e************************************************** $834. 57 •., R INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 00567 001-400-2101-4315 00114 $100.00 00419256010000 07904 29066 DUES/A. ALTFELD 10000 11/17/88 POLICE /MEMBERSHIP $0.00 02/08/89 R INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 00567 001-400-2101-4315 00115 $100.00 00418355010000 07460 29066 DUES/S. WISNIEWSKI 10000 11/17/88 POLICE /MEMBERSHIP $0.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** *** $200. 00 R INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE 00068 001-400-1208-4201 00512 $253.00 19X2902 07342 29067 MAINT/FED 89 X2902 01/13/89 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 02/08/89 R INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE 00068 001-400-1208-4201 00513 $716.49 ' 19X2902 07342 29067 METER USE/AUG—OCT 88 X2902 01/13/89 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 02/08/89 R INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE 00068 001-400-1208-4305 00600 $170.40 LTZ8319 07338 29067 COPIER TONER Z8319 01/23/89 GEN APPROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 02/08/89 VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1, 139.89 R INTERNATIONAL CITY MANAGEMENT 01259 001-400-1203-4305 00190 $25.70 87974-01 07046 29068 PUBLICATIONS/PERSONNEL 74-01 01/19/89 PERSONNEL /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $25.70 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $25.70 R JONCICH, STURM & ASSOCIATES 02159 001-400-8602-4201 00027 81,419.70 1048 07668 29069 ELEC UPGRADE/FEB—OCT 1048 01/19/89 CIP 86-602 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,419.70 R GEORGE HAMILTON*JONES, INC. 00379 001-400-1101-4201 00037 $11,463.30 06665 29070 APPRAISAL/RROW 10/10/88 CITY COUNCIL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL*********************4**• ******************************************** $11,463.30 R KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN 00130 001-400-1131-4201 00456 $3,580.10 06666 29071 LEGAL SERV/DEC 88 01/10/88 • CITY ATTORNEY /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 02/08/89 • .11 FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/14/89 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER •TRN M AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ N ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R KIWANIS CLUB OF HERMOSA BEACH JAN 89 DUES/M. SCHUBACH PAGE 0017 DATE 02/09/89 INV/REF PO B CHK $ AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $3,580.10 00380 001-400-4101-4315 00083 440.00• 01/09/89 PLANNING /MEMBERSHIP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R LA BELLE MARVIN SOIL TEST *** VENDOR TOTAL 02525 150-400-8102-4201 00019 1415 09/13/88 CIP 85-102 $40.00 06072 29072 30.00 02/08/89 $2,500.00 1415 06480 29073 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $2,500.00 02/08/89 ******************************************************************** R CITY OF*LAWNDALE CRIME ANALYSIS CONTRACT $2.500.00 01979 001-400-2101-4251 00249 $2,056.46 01/17/89 POLICE /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************************************************it************** R LAWNDALE CONCRETE MISC CHCS/DEC 88 R LAWNDALE CONCRETE MISC CHCS/DEC 88 R LAWNDALE CONCRETE MISC CHCS/DEC 88 PRODUCTS INC PRODUCTS INC PRODUCTS INC $2,056.46 00166 001-400-3101-4309 00010 $38.61 12/31/88 MEDIANS '/MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00166 001-400-3103-4309 00791 $45.65 12/31/88 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00166 105-400-8202-4309 00055 $32.22 . 12/31/88 CIP 85-202 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DUES/1989 9162 $116.48 00842 001-400-1101-4315 00073 $2,318.00 01/01/89 CITY COUNCIL /MEMBERSHIP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R LEGAL BOOKSTORE, INC. PENAL CODE COPIES 00738 001-400-2101-4305 01/17/89 POLICE $2,318.00 00900 $300.00 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL*********************************************************i********** R LIEBERT, CASSIDY & FRIERSON $300. 00 07921 29074 $0.00 02/08/89 01230 29075 $0.00 02/08/89 01230 29075 $0.00 02/08/89 01230 29075 $0.00 02/08/89 9162 06669 29076 $0.00 02/08/89 07464 29077 $314.55 • 02/08/89 02175 001-400-1203-4316 00146 $1,400.00 07064 29078 CONT SERV/FEB89—FEB90 01/26/89 PERSONNEL /TRAINING $0.00 02/08/89 On, FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0018 FOR 02/14/89 DATE 02/09/89 VND 4* ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN M AMOUNT INV/REF PO N CHK 0 • DATE INVC PROJ 4* • ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $1,400.00 R LOMITA BLUEPRINT SERVICE, INC. 00077 160-400-8406-4201 00010 $34.40 00133 29079 MISC CHGS/JAN 89 01/31/89 CIP 86-405 /CONTRACT- SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $34.40 R COUNTY OF *LOS ANGELES 00287 001-400-4101-4305 00268 $13.65 903 06075 29080 MAP REVISIONS/DEC 88 903 . 01/05/89 PLANNING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $13.65' R LOS ANGELES TIMES 00213 001-400-1203-4201 00424 $882.12 04-010661 07052 29081 EMPLOYEE ADS - 10661 01/29/89 PERSONNEL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 4882.12 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $882.12 R JAMES P.*LOUGH 00938 001-400-1131-4201 00457 ' $3,700.00 06668 29082 LEGAL RETAINER/JAN 89 01/31/89 CITY ATTORNEY /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $3, 700. 00 R MAIN ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. 00426 001-400-4204-4309 01220 $185.52 01235 29083 MISC CHCS/DEC 88 12/31/88 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $185.52 R MANHATTAN CAR WASH 01146 001-400-2101-4311 00605 $149.20 01236 29084 MISC CHGS/NOV-DEC 88 01/12/89 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $149.20 • R ALANA*MASTRIAN-HANDMAN 00219 001-400-4601-4315 00043 $87.50 . ROTARY DUES/JAN89-JUN 89 01/24/89 COMM RESOURCES /MEMBERSHIP ******************************************************************** *** VENDOR TOTAL $e7.50 07708 - 29085 $0.00 02/08/89 R MAYOR'S OFF FOR THE DISABLED 02068 001-400-4201-4316 00137 $75.00 07507 29086 SEM REG/W. GROVE 02/01/89 BUILDING /TRAINING $0.00 '02/08/89 1 b a 41.6 • • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION VND * DATE INVC CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/14/89 ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN K AMOUNT PROJ N 1 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL********************************************+r*********************** PAGE 0019 DATE 02/09/89 INV/REF PO * CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $75.00 R MCI MAIL 02153 001-400-1206-4304 00140 $10.00 ELEC MAIL/DEC 88 05765 01/10/89 DATA PROCESSING /TELEPHONE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R MERCURY AIR GROUP UNLEADED GAS 61437 *10. 00 02537 001-141-0000-1401 00025 $2.221.87 01/23/89 /GASOLINE INVENTORY *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R MICRO PUBLICATION SYSTEMS MISC CHGS/JAN 89 *** VENDOR TOTAL ********* $2.221.87 07805765 00058 29087 $0.00 02/08/89 02457 001-400-4201-4201 00130 $354.36 • 01/31/89 BUILDING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT R MOBIL OIL CREDIT CORPORATION CONF EXP/M. TERCERO 07835 R MOBIL OIL CREDIT CORPORATION MISC CHGS/NOV 88 07850 $354.36 00388 001-400-1205-4317 00034 ; $22.83 12/09/88 CABLE TV 00388 001-400-2201-4310 00081 01/12/89 FIRE /CONFERENCE EXPENSE 61437 07656 29088 $0.00 02/08/89 00161 29089 $0.00 02/08/89 8839307835 07837 29090 $0.00 02/08/89 $15.37 8839307850 /MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R MOFFATT & NICHOL ENGINEERS. INC ENG SERV/DEC 88 1096 *** VENDOR TOTAL $38. 20 02666 001-400-8614-4201 00013 $16.104.94 . 01/23/88 CIP 88-614 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT ******************************************************************** $16.101.94 R MOHLE, GROVER & ASSOCIATES SERV/FAU/OCT-NOV 88 8-260 *** VENDOR TOTAL R NATIONAL PARK & REC ASSOC. PUBLICATIONS/COMM RES 01499 150-400-8138-4201 00037 12/02/88 CIP 85-138 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 07344 29090 $0.00 02/08/89 1096 07674 29091 $0.00 02/08/89 $4,385.50 88-231/88-260 07673 29092 $4.385.50 00880 001-400-4601-4316 00099 $57.82 01/31/89 • COMM RESOURCES /TRAINING $0.00 02/08/89 06578 29093 $0.00 02/08/89 • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0020 TIME 14:23:20 FOR 02/14/89 DATE 02/09/89 PAY VENDOR NAME VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER .TRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # •"i/ DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL********************************************************+t*****air**** $57.82 R NEFF CONTRACTING 02674 115-400-8165-4201 00011 $13,383.00 551 07694 29094 BIKEPATH WALL REPAIR 551 09/29/88 CIP 87-165 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 02/08/89 • *** VENDOR TOTAL******+*************a*********************************+r************* $13,383.00 R NPELRA 02669 001-400-1203-4315 00030 $115.00 07060 29095 MEMBERSHIP DUES 01/18/89 PERSONNEL /MEMBERSHIP $0.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $115.00 R OLYMPIC AUTO CENTER 00093 001-400-2101-4311 00607 $164.42 11235 07486 29096 REPAIR VEHICLE/POLICE 11235 01/23/89 POLICE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $164.12 02/08/89 R OLYMPIC AUTO CENTER 00093 001-400-3101-4311 00006 $227.80 11236 07246 29096 ST SWEEPER REPAIR 11236 01/23/89 MEDIANS /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL***************************************************************#.**** $392.22 R OLYMPIC CREATIONS 02580 001-400-2101-4305 00899 $755.97 5597 07442 29097 D. A.R.E. T-SHIRTS 5597 12/02/88 210004 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $755.98 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL *755.97 R MARIA*ORDAZ 02668 001-210-0000-2110 02656 390.00 . 69994 07150 29098 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND 69994 01/30/89 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE $0.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL $90. 00 02583 001-400-3104-4311 00015 $127.80 0151 07281 29099 LENS/PAINT TRUCK 0151 12/09/88 TRAFFIC SAFETY /AUTO MAINTENANCE $127.80 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL***********************F******************************************** $127. 80 R PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE 00321 001-400-2101-4304 00323 $172.28 00036 29100 COMP HOOKUP/DEC 88 12/31/88 POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 02/08/89 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FINANCE-SFA340 DEMAND LIST PAGE 0021 TIME 14:23:20 FOR 02/14/89 DATE 02/09/89 PAY VENDOR NAME VND 8 ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN * AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ # • ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP R PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE 00321 001-400-2101-4304 00324 $152.94 00036 29100 COMP HOOKUP/JAN 89 01/31/89 POLICE /TELEPHONE $0.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $325.22 • R PACIFIC EQUIP & IRRIGATION 00406 110-400-3302-4311 00443 $3,865.95 53437 07812 29101 HEATERS/CUSHMANS 53437 01/24/89 PARKING ENF /AUTO MAINTENANCE $3,865.95 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $3,865.95 R PACIFIC SALES 01649 001-400-2101-5402 00018 $2,212.70 85407 07434 29102 REFRIG/MICROWAVES/POLICE 85407 01/19/89 POLICE /EQUIP -MORE THAN $500 $2,287.62 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $2,212.70 R PADGETT-THOMPSON• 01658 001-400-2201-4316 00154 $99.00 05395 29103 SEMINAR REG/E. CHESSON 01/24/89 FIRE /TRAINING $0.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL $99.00 R PAGENET 02487 001-400-1201-4201 00036 $11.50 00059 .29104 PAGING SRV/FEB 89 02/01/89 CITY MANAGER /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 02/08/89 R PAGENET 02487 001-400-2101-4307 00157 $103.50 • 00059. 29104 PAGING SRV/FED 89 02/01/89 POLICE /RADIO MAINTENANCE $0.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL W115.00 R PAK WEST 00519 001-400-4204-4309 01221 $3,252.17 07622 29105 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 02/02/89 BLDG MAINT /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $3,252.15 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL $3,252.17 R DONALD L.*PAUL 02660 110-300-0000-3302 25576 $46.00 • 103063 07843 • 29106 CITE PAYMENT REFUND 03063 01/31/89 /COURT FINES/PARKING $0.00 '02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL $46:00 R OFCR J0SEPH*PELKA 00950 110-300-0000-3902 00011 $96.90 71818 07348 29107 REIMS BURGLARY LOSS 71818 01/31/89 /REFUNDS/REIMB PREV YR $0.00 02/08/89 • • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/14/89 PAGE 0022 DATE 02/09/89 PAY VENDOR NAME VND M ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN M AMOUNT INV/REF PO M CHK M DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ M ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL*********************************►*****a**********+r***************** $96.90 R PHYLLIS*PENNINGS 02667 110-300-0000-3302 25574 $20.00 CITE PMT REFUND 69766 01/19/89 /COURT FINES/PARKING *** VENDOR TOTAL ***************************************************** r************** *20. 00 769766 07828 29108 $0.00 02/08/89 R PEP BOYS 00608 001-400-2201-4311 00258 $9.94 00142 29109 MISC CHCS/JAN 89 01/31/89 FIRE /AUTO MAINTENANCE $0.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $9.94 R PHOENIX GROUP 02530 001-400-1206-4201 00502 $435.00 • 4143-00 07836 29110 SOFTWARE SUPPORT/JAN-MAR 43-00 01/01/89 DATA PROCESSING /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 8435.00 R PITNEY BOWES 00222 001-400-1208-4201 00516 $161.35 224784 07070 29111 POSTAGE SERV/FEB-MAY 89 24784 01/16/89 GEN APPROP /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************************************************4************** $161.35 R POM INCORPORATED 00223 110-400-3302-4309 00508 $244.52 . 812131 06979; 29112 PARKING METER PARTS 12131 12/19/88 PARKING ENF /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $241.97 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL $244.52 R PRENTIC HALL, INC. 02371 001-400-1202-4316 00222 $30.68 810671 07345 29113 PUBLICATIONS/FINANCE 10671 12/30/88 FINANCE ADMIN /TRAINING : $0.00 02/08/89 • *** VENDOR TOTAL *30. 68 R RADIO SHACK 01429 001-400-2201-4305 00254 $40.91 : 223938 00143 : 29114 MISC CHCS/JAN 89 23938 01/31/89 FIRE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES '$0.00 02/08/89 r *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $40.91 • R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO 00173 001-400-2101-4305 00897 $132.73 01244 29115 MISC CHCS/DEC 88 12/31/88 POLICE /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 02/08/89 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC CHCS/DEC 88 R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC CHGS/DEC 88 R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC CHGS/DEC 88 R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC CHGS/DEC 88 R RAINBOW CAMERA & VIDEO MISC CHGS/DEC 88 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/14/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00173 001-400-2101-4306 00604 $85.28 12/31/88 POLICE 00173 12/31/88 00173 12/31/88 00173 12/31/88 00173 12/31/88 001-400-4101-4305 00267 PAGE 0023 DATE 02/09/89 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP /PRISONER MAINTENANCE $21.32 PLANNING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 001-400-4601-4305 00608 $19.83 COMM RESOURCES /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 110-400-3302-4305 00515 $42.64 PARKING ENF /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 115-400-8170-4201 00005 $95.95 CIP 87-170 •/CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************•r**************w•********************************** R RED LION/SONOMA COUNTY HOTEL ADV/V. COPELAND TR227 $397.75 02659 001-400-1202-4317 00048 $231.00 01/31/89 FINANCE ADMIN /CONFERENCE EXPENSE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R CITY OF*REDONDO BEACH DIAL-A-RIDE/JUL-DEC 88 R CITY OF*REDONDO BEACH DIAL-A-RIDE/JUL-DEC 88 R CITY OF*REDONDO BEACH DIAL-A-RIDE/JUL-DEC 88 $231.00 01763 145-300-0000-3121 00013 $42,870.000R 01/18/89 SUBREGNL INCENTIVE FUNDS 01763 145-300-0000-3854 00038 $5,012.74CR 01/18/89 01763 01/18/89 145-400-3401-4201 00167 /FARES. DIAL A RIDE $71,83.7.34 • SHUTTLE/DIAL /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R REGENTS OF UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SEMINAR REG/M. SCHUBACH $23,954.60 02456 001-400-4101-4316 00139 $165.00 01/09/89 PLANNING /TRAINING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R RMRS SYSTEMS POSTAGE METER MONIES $165.00 00300 001-400-1208-4305 00601 $2,000.00 • 02/06/89 • GEN APPROP /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 01244 29115 $0.00 02/08/89 01244 29115 $0.00 02/08/89 01244 29115 $0.00 02/08/89 01244 29115 $0.00 02/08/89 01244 29115 $0.00 02/08/89 TR227 00227 29116 $0.00 02/08/89 06076 29117 $0.00 02/08/89 06076• 29117 $0.d0 02/08/89 06076 29117 $0.00 02/08/89 06073 29118 $0.00 02/08/89 08001 29119 $0.00 02/08/89 ■ V 4! i FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/14/89 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN S AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ 4 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** PAGE 0024 DATE 02/09/89 INV/REF PO M CHK * AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP 52, 000. 00 R ROTARY CLUB OF HERMOSA BEACH 02079 001-400-2101-4315 00113 *287.50 DUES/VAL STRASER 01/23/89 POLICE /MEMBERSHIP *** VENDOR TOTAL ***************************************************** r************** R SAFEGUARD INDUSTRIAL DOOR, INC FIRE DEPT DOOR REPAIR /2126 *** VENDOR TOTAL 02671 001-400-2201-4309 01/03/89 FIRE $287. 50 00625 $1,297.00 1485/1474/2126 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS ******************************************************************** R SUSAN*SAXE—CLIFFORD,PH D PSYCH EVAL/FIREFIGHTER 117-2 *** VENDOR TOTAL $1,297.00 00839 001-400-1203-4320 00232 $275.00 :9-0117-2 01/17/89 PERSONNEL /PRE—EMPLOYMENT EXAMS ******************************************************************** R SHELL OIL CO. MISC CHCS/DEC 88 $275. 00 00320 001-400-2101-4310 00164 ' 037.70 0123359 23359 01/16/89 POLICE /MOTOR FUELS AND LUBES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $37.70 R SINCLAIR PAINT CO. MISC CHCS/JAN 89 R SINCLAIR PAINT CO. MISC CHGS/JAN 89 01399 01/31/89 001-400-4204-4309 01218 BLDG MAINT 01399 001-400-6101-4309 00636 01/31/89 PARKS $64.06 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $115.23 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R SIR SPEEDY SIGNATURE CARDS/PKG PERM 08102 $179. 29 00361 110-400-3302-4305 00516 $212.06 01/30/89 PARKING ENF /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL***********************4******************************************** R SMART & FINAL IRIS COMPANY 00114 001-400-2101-4306 MISC CHGS/JAN 89 01/31/89 • POLICE $212. 06 00601 $98.91 • /PRISONER MAINTENANCE 07906 29120 $0.00 02/08/89 05388 29121 $0.00 02/08/89 07062 29122 $0.00 02/08/89 07346 29123 $0.00 02/08/89 00146• 29124 40.00 02/08/89 00146 29124 $0.00 02/08/89 008102 07813 29125 $212.06 02/08/89 00147 29126 $0.00 02/08/89 'J w+ ver Alm W • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/14/89 VND M ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN M AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ M ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R SO BAY CITY MANAGERS' ASSOC. DUES/K. B. NORTHCRAFT PAGE 0025 DATE 02/09/89 INV/REF PO M CHK M AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $98.91 00570 001-400-1201-4315 00048 $50.00 01/31/89 CITY MANAGER /MEMBERSHIP *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************************************************,*************** * * * R SOFTWARE GALERIA COMPUTER FLOPPY DISKS 10287 R SOFTWARE GALERIA SOFTWARE/PUB WORKS 10282 VENDOR TOTAL $50.00 02652 001-400-4202-4305 00360 $51.12 01/18/89 PUB WKS ADMIN /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 02652 001-400-4202-5401 00007 01/18/89 *420.78 PUB WKS ADMIN /EQUIPMENT -LESS THAN $50 ******************************************************************** R SOURISSEAU SECURITY SYS, INC. BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION 82/83 02075 001-400-2101-4201 01/23/89 POLICE $471.90 06667 29127 $0.00 02/08/89 10287 07659 29128 $0.00 02/08/89 10282 07638 29128 $420.78 02/08/89 00347 $1.305.00 1180/81/82/83 07903 29129 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R SOUTH DAY COALITION ALIVE CONTRACT PMT/FY 88-89 $1,305.00 01288 001-400-4601-4201 00271 $2.000.00 01/24/89 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** * * * R SOUTH BAY FREE CLINIC CONTRACT PMT/FY 88-89 VENDOR TOTAL $2,000.00 00779 001-400-4601-4201 00273 $3.00Q.00 02/02/89 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICEIPRIVAT ******************************************************************** R SOUTH BAY HOSPITAL PRISONER SERV/POLICE 00107 001-400-2101-4201 01/30/89 POLICE $3,000.00 00346 - $453.65 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R SOUTH BAY JUVENILE DIVERSION CONTRACT PMT/FY 88-89 $453.65 01731 001-400-4601-4201 00272 $3,000.00 • 01/18/89 COMM RESOURCES /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT 07709 29130 $0.00 02/08/89 07710 29131 $0.00 02/08/89 07916 29132 $0.00 02/08/89 07706 29133 $0.00 02/08/89 _y • 1 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/14/89 VND * ACCOUNT NUMBER fRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL ********************iris♦rpt***************s*************************** R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT CITE SURCHARGE/JAN. 89 00118 110-300-0000-3302 25577 02/01/89 PAGE 0026 DATE 02/09/89 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *3.000.00 $12.366.00 /COURT FINES/PARKING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL COURT CITATION COURT BAIL 00400 110-300-0000-3302 25578 02/02/89 *12.366.00 $158.00 /COURT FINES/PARKING *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R SOUTH BAY WELDERS MISC CHCS/JAN 89 R SOUTH BAY WELDERS MISC CHCS/JAN 89 R SOUTH BAY WELDERS MISC CHCS/JAN 89 R SOUTH BAY WELDERS MISC CHCS/JAN 89 00018 01/31/89 00018 01/31/89 00018 01/31/89 00018 01/31/89 001-400-2201-4309 00624 FIRE • 001-400-3103-4309 00789 ST MAINTENANCE 001-400-4205-4309 00335 EQUIP SERVICE 105-400-2601-4309 00438 STREET LIGHTING $158.00 $48.46 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $13.18 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $61.50 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $13.17 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $136.31 R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. 00170 001-400-4204-4303 00284 $2.466.32 GAS BILLSINGS/JAN 89 01/31/89 BLDG MAINT /UTILITIES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R SOUTHWEST REGIONAL TRNG CENTER CLASS REG/V. MOHLER R SOUTHWEST REGIONAL TRNG CENTER CLASS REG/J. SILVER R SOUTHWEST REGIONAL TRNG CENTER REG/SHEEHAN/MORGAN 00884 001-400-1202-4316 00223 02/01/89 FINANCE ADMIN 00884 001-400-1203-4316 00145 02/01/89 PERSONNEL• 00884 001-400-1206-4316 00068 02/01/89 DATA PROCESSING $2.466.32 ' $100.00 /TRAINING $100.00 /TRAINING $200.00 ' /TRAINING 07316 29134 $0.00 02/08/89 07844 29135 $0.00 02/09/89 00151 29136 $0.00 02/08/89 00151 29136 $0.00 02/08/89 00151 29136 $0.00 02/08/89 00151 29136 $0.00 02/08/89 00153 29137 $0.00 02/08/89 07349 29138 $0.00 02/08/89 07349 29138 $0.00 '02/08/89 07349 29138 $0.00 02/08/89 • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION R SOUTHWEST REGIONAL TRNG CENTER CLASS REG/M. ERNST • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/14/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER %RN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00884 001-400-4601-4316 00098 $100.00 02/01/89 COMM RESOURCES /TRAINING *** VENDOR TOTAL ************************************** .***************************** R SPARKLETTS DRINKING WATER CORP WATER COOLER RENT/DEC 88 45778 PAGE 0027 DATE 02/09/89 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $500.00 07349 29138 $0.00 02/08/89 00146 001-400-4601-4305 00609 $54.67 1245778 00033 29139 12/31/88 COMM RESOURCES /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R SPECIALTY MAINTENANCE CO SWEEP SERV/JAN 89 2332 R SPECIALTY MAINTENANCE CO SWEEP SERV/JAN 89 2332 00115 01/31/89 00115 01/31/89 001-400-3103-4201 00203 ST MAINTENANCE 110-400-3301-4201 00194 VEH PKG DIST $54.67 $0.00 02/08/89 $2,375.10 2332 00029 29140 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $0.00 02/08/89 $2.902.90 2332 00029 29140 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL**********************************************************i► $5,278.00 R STATE OF CALIFORNIA FINGERPRINT SERV/NOV-DEC 5630/ 00364 001-400-2101-4251 12/22/88 POLICE $0.00 02/08/89 00248 $204.75 864451/5630/ 00023 29141 /CONTRACT SERVICE/GOVT $0.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** 5204.75 R SUN BADGE COMPANY MISC CHGS/DEC 88 *** VENDOR TOTAL 00806 001-400-2201-4187 12/31/88 FIRE 00121 $48.67 - /UNIFORM ALLOWANCE R SWIFT LABORATORIES VINYL EXAM GLOVES 42818 02308 001-400-2101-4306 00605 12/05/88 POLICE .$48..67 01254 29142 $0.00 02/08/89 $158.95 42818 07439 29143 /PRISONER MAINTENANCE' *** VENDOR TOTAL*******************************************************************wt $158.95 R PRASIT*TANNIRAT SIGN DEPOSIT REFUND 7797 • • 02670 001-210-0000-2110 01/30/89 02655 $250.00 /DEPOSITS/WORK GUARANTEE *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $250:00 R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY MISC CHCS/JAN 89 00124 001-400-3103-4309 00790 $5.86 01/31/89 ST MAINTENANCE /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $0.00 02/08/89 7797 07152 29144 $0.00 ' 02/08/89 00157 29145 $0.00 02/08/89 • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 PAY VENDOR NAME • DESCRIPTION R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY MISC CHCS/JAN 89 • R TODD PIPE & SUPPLY MISC CHCS/JAN 89 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/14/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # • ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 00124 001-400-6101-4309 00635 01/31/89 PARKS 00124 01/31/89 160-400-3102-4309 00337 SEWER/ST DRAIN PAGE 0028 DATE 02/09/89 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $100.95 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $129.57 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS • *** VENDOR TOTAL **+r********** .****+r*+r*******►*********************+r*+r***********+r**+t • R TOMARCO $236.38 00775 001-400-4601-5401 00006 $488.57 LADDER/COMM RES. 38575 01/12/89 COMM RESOURCES /EQUIP -LESS THAN $500 • it** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $488.57• • R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHGS/JAN 89 • • • • • • • R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHGS/JAN 89 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHCS/JAN 89 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHCS/JAN 89 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHGS/JAN 89 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHCS/JAN 89 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHGS/JAN 89 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHGS/JAN 89 R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHCS/JAN 89 • R TRIANGLE HARDWARE MISC CHCS/JAN 89 • • 00123 01/31/89 00123 01/31/89 00123 01/31/89 00123 01/31/89 001-400-2101-4305 POLICE. 001-400-2101-4311 POLICE 001-400-2201-4309 FIRE 00896 $18.19. /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES 00604 $1.84 /AUTO MAINTENANCE 00622 • $3.83 . /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $51.37 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 001-400-3104-430 00161 TRAFFIC SAFETY 00123 001-400-4204-4309 01216 01/31/89 BLDG MAINT 00123 001-400-4204-4321 00417 01/31/89 BLDG MAINT . 00123 001-400-4601-4305 00607 01/31/89 COMM RESOURCES Q0123 001-400-6101-4309 00633 01/31/89 PARKS 00123 01/31/89 105-400-2601-4309 00437 STREET LIGHTING 00123 160-400-3102-4309 00336 01/31/89 . SEWER/ST DRAIN $358.65 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $9. 85 /BUILDING SAFETY/SECURIT $51.76 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $52.99 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $3.28 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS $21.13 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 00157 29145 $0.00 02/08/89 00157 29145 $0.00 02/08/89 138575 06589 29146 $0.00 02/08/89 00158 29147 $0.00 02/08/89 00158 29147 $0.00 02/08/89 00158 29147 $0.00 02/08/89 00158 29147 $0.00 02/08/89 0015a 29147 $0.00 02/08/89 00158 29147 $0.00 02/08/89 00158 29147 $0.00 02/08/89 00158 29147 $0.00 02/08/89 00158 . 29147 $0.00 02/08/89 00158 29147 $0.00 02/08/89 FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/14/89 PAGE 0029 DATE 02/09/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER tRN # AMOUNT INV/REF PO # CHK # DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIF. CLASS REG/M. DERKS 02202 001-400-2101-4312 00828 01/30/89 POLICE *572.89 $233.00 /TRAVEL EXPENSE POST *** VENDOR TOTAL*****************************************************#************** R VANIER GRAPHICS CORPORATION PKG PERMIT RENEWAL FORMS 30-11 $233.00 07915 29148 $0.00 02/08/89 00309 110-400-3302-4305 00517 $563.48 32130-11 07807 29149 01/19/89 PARKING ENF /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $530.26 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R VISIBLE COMPUTER SUPPLY COMPUTER CLEANING SUPP 6-010 $563.48 02260 001-400-1206-4305 00353 $137.93 P70526-010 07802 29150 01/20/89 DATA PROCESSING /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $137.93 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R WELDON WILLIAMS & LICK PARKING PERMITS 24657 $137.93 00311 110-400-3302-4305 00518 $2.283.20 101922/24657 06963 29151 01/13/89 PARKING ENF /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $0.00 02/08/89 *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $2.283.20 R WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS STREET SIGN SUPPLIES 49046 00131 01/30/89 001-400-3104-4309 00163 TRAFFIC SAFETY $474.57 • 149046 07658 29152 /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R SALLY A. *WHITE SEC SERV/1-17-89 R SALLY A. *WHITE SEC SERV/1-3-89 00140 001-400-4102-4201 00185 01/19/89 PLANNING COMM 00140 001-400-4102-4201 00186 01/04/89 PLANNING COMM . $474.57 $348.50 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PR IVAT • $340.00 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** $688.50 R WRAY PRINTING 00132 001-400-2101-4305 POLICE FORMS /3148 01/24/89 POLICE $474.56 02/08/89 06079 29153 $0.00 02/08/89 06077 29153 $0.00 02/08/89 00898 $256.67 3164/3148 07500 29154 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $256.67 02/08/89 1 PA d • 11 • FINANCE-SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 PAY VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST FOR 02/14/89 VND # ACCOUNT NUMBER fRN # AMOUNT DATE INVC PROJ # ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** R XEROX CORPORATION EXCESS METER USE/DEC 88 07745 R XEROX CORPORATION COPIER SUPPLIES R XEROX CORPORATION LEASE PMT/FEB 89 R XEROX CORPORATION LEASE PMT/FEB 89 • R XEROX CORPORATION COPIER SUPPLIES R XEROX CORPORATION LEASE PMT/FEB 89 R XEROX CORPORATION COPIER SUPPLIES R XEROX CORPORATION LEASE PMT/FEB 89 R XEROX CORPORATION COPIER SUPPLIES v.R XEROX CORPORATION LEASE PMT/FEB 89 R XEROX CORPORATION COPIER SUPPLIES R XEROX CORPORATION LEASE PMT/FEB 89 57783 36072 36073 57783 36069 57783 36070 57783 36071 57783 36070 00135 001-400-1208-4201 00515 01/11/89 GEN APPROP 00135 001-400-1208-430$ 00599 01/18/89 GEN APPROP 00135 001-400-1208-6900 00135 02/02/89 GEN APPROP 00135 001-400-1208-6900 00136 02/02/89 GEN APPROP 00135 001-400-2201-4305 00255 01/18/89 FIRE 00135 001-400-2201-6900 00063 02/02/89 FIRE 00135 001-400-2401-4305 00099 01/18/89 ANIMAL CONTROL 00135 001-400-2401-6900 • 00029 02/02/89 ANIMAL CONTROL 00135 01/18/89 001-400-4601-4305 00610 COMM RESOURCES 00135 001-400-4601-6900 00029 02/02/89 COMM RESOURCES 00135 01/18/89 110-400-3302-4305 00519 PARKING ENF 00135 110-400-3302-6900 00111 02/02/89 PARKING ENF PAGE 0030 DATE 02/09/89 INV/REF PO # CHK # AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP $256. 67 $89.54 19407745 /CONTRACT SERVICE/PRIVAT $267. 31 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $238. 16 /LEASE PAYMENTS $321. 08 /LEASE PAYMENTS $537.83. /OFFICE OPER SPPLIES $47. 62 /LEASE PAYMENTS $66. 83 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $56.15 /LEASE PAYMENTS $267.32 - /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES $189.21 /LEASE PAYMENTS 07341 29155 $0.00 02/08/89 137157783 07337 29155 $0.00 02/08/89 521236072 00050 29155 $0.00 02/08/89' 521236073 00049 29155 $0.00 02/08/89 137157783 07337 29155 $0.00 02/08/89 521236069 00053 29155 $0.00 02/08/89 137157783 07337 29155 $0.00 02/08/89 521236070 00051 29155 $0.00 02/08/89 137157783 07337 29155 $0.00 02/08/89 52136071 00052 29155 $0.00 02/08/89 $200.48 137157783 /OFFICE OPER SUPPLIES' $114.00 /LEASE PAYMENTS • *** VENDOR TOTAL******************************************************************** ✓ R ZUMAR INDUSTRIES STOP SIGNS 1. $2.395.53 01206 001-400-3104-4309 00164 43,993.75 ' 8678 01/26/89 TRAFFIC SAFETY /MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 07337 29155 $0. 00 02/08/89 521236070 00051 29155 $0.00 02/08/89 8678 07635 29156 $3.993.75 02/08/89 • s FINANCE—SFA340 TIME 14:23:20 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEMAND LIST PAGE 0031 FOR 02/14/89 DATE 02/09/89 PAY VENDOR NAME VND 0 ACCOUNT NUMBER TRN N AMOUNT INV/REF PO * CHK * DESCRIPTION DATE INVC PROJ * ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT UNENC DATE EXP *** VENDOR TOTAL*************************+F****+Fir****a***+F*******+r****a************** *** PAY CODE TOTAL****************************************************************** *** TOTAL WARRANTS**************************************************a-IF************** 33, 993. 75 $240.654.32 $300.121.83 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE DEMANDS CLAIMS COVERED BY: THE WARRANTS LISTED ON PACES TTOItZINCLUSIVE OF THE WARRANT REGISTER FCR /[{L j ARE ACCURATE AND FUNDSAtj E Abnilt<LE TOR I'AYL:I in' 1 Ili I2:0F: FINANCE ADM) :!15 I RAI OR DATE January 26, 1989 Honorable Mayor and For the Meeting of Members of the City Council February 14, 1989 CANCELLATION OF WARRANTS Please consider the following request for cancellation of the warrants listed below. #028255 - 11/22/88 - Tom Eckert - Account Number 001-400-2101 4312. Officer did not attend class. #028238 - 11/22/88 - Calif. Gang Investigators Assoc. - $243.00 - Account Number 001-400-2101-4316 - $30.00, 110-400-3302-4316 - $213.00. Two vendors assigned same number in error on warrant which was never mailed. #028259 - 11/22/88 - Steve Endom - $29.00. Account Number 001-400-2101-4312. Officer did not attend classes. #028796 - 1/24/89 - Pacific Bell Telephone - $354.17. Account Number 001-400-2101-4304 - $172.28, 001-400-2101-4306 - $181.89. Two vendors combined in error on warrant which was never mailed. #028744 - 1/24/89 - Champion Chevrolet - $458.50. Account Number 001-400-2101-4311 - $386.03, 001-400-4204-4309 - $22.50, 001-400-4304-4311 - $49.97. Two vendors combined in error on warrant which was never mailed. #28685 - 1/10/89 - Southern Calif. Edison Co. - $1,221.27. Account Number 001-400-4204-4303. Issued to wrong vendor. Warrant was never mailed Concur: 'Kevin 'Nor'thcr'aft City Manager Gary Brutsc City Treas er Viki Copeland Noted for fiscal impact pact t MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, January 31, 1989 at the hour of 6:35 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor Rosenberger ROLL CALL Present: Creighton, Sheldon, Simpson, Williams, Mayor Rosenberger Absent: None RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION FINANCING. Memorandum from Finance Administrator Viki Copeland dated January 24, 1989. 1. PRESENTATION BY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INSTITUTE OF OPTIONS FOR FINANCING OF GREENBELT ACQUISITION - DOUG AYERS, PRESIDENT. Memorandums from Douglas W. Ayres Management -Services Institute, Inc. dated January 20, 1989 and De- cember 7, 1987. Mr. Douglas Ayres introduced himself and also present were Fritz Stradling of Stradling, Yocca, Carlson, and Rauth; and Ken Ough of Seidler -Fitzgerald. Mr. Ayres explained many aspects of acquisition financ- ing referring to his memorandum; types of financing; and answered numerous questions from the council. He stated that basically there are 2 types of financing methods: General Obligation Bonds with an election of 2/ 3 majority going on the property taxes; and Certificates of Participation with a lease of the property to a non- profit corporation (which is the City Council). He men- tioned the opportunity for arbitrage. Prior to the vote on the motion, addressing the Council was: Wilma Burt - 1152- 7th Street - questions regarding Council being the non-profit organization - would it bind future Council's, and who pays the costs. Action: To continue to work with Mr. Ayres and associ- ates toward acquisition documents and costs, procedures, step by step basis, information on influx of cash in threee (3) years, and an estimate of costs and a pro- posed contract for the consultants. Motion Rosenberger, second Sheldon. So ordered. A recess was called at 7:40 P.M; the meeting reconvened at 7:48 P.M. 1 1a 12 Minutes 1-31-89 CALL TO ORDER JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION ROLL CALL - PLANNING COMMISSION Present: Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chairman Peirce Absent: Edwards Memorandums from Planning Director Michael Schubach dated January 31, 1989 addressing General Plan Update and Density Reduction. 1. Apartment vs. condominium standards. (Discussion requested by Planning Commission) A staff report was presented by Director Schubach and there was general discussion regarding precise development/architectural review with professionals; and bulk. 2. Non -conforming uses and standards. (Discussion requested by Planning Commission) A staff report was presented by Director Schubach and there was general discussion including preservation of neighborhoods; horizontal/vertical planes; and the expansion of non -conforming buildings without meeting current parking standards. 3. Parking standards. (Discussion requested by Planning Commission) There was general discussion including how to encourage less cars by walking, bikes and flexibility in zoning ordinance for commercial uses which have a lot of foot traffic. 4. Zoning standards review. (Discussion requested by City Council) There was general discussion including using this method to control density by increasing sideyard setbacks, not allowing decks for open space; and increasing open space requirements. It was agreed that another workshop will be scheduled in late May or early June. CITIZEN COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adjourned at the hour of 9:15 P.M. to a Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, February 14, 1989, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. ',Y;M16.14,_) City Clerk 2 Minutes 1-31-89 c January 31, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 14, 1989 16TH STREET CURB PARKING EVALUATION Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 89- , a resolution of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach establishing sections of 16th Street as no parking zones and creating sections as loading zones. Background: Mr. Arthur Frederich, Manager of the Commodore Condominium Owner's Association wrote a letter to the city about curb parking on 16th Street. His concern is for the safety of residents emerging from these driveways onto 16th Street. The curb parking on the north side of the street blocks the vision of emerging motorists. Mr. Frederich was notified by letter of the City's intention to study the situation and respond to his concern in a timely manner. Analysis: This analysis is divided as follows: a) Improving Sight Distances b) Moving the Existing Red Curb to the North Side. c) Create a Loading Zone a) Improving Sight Distances The City Traffic Engineer reviewed the conditions in the field and agrees with Mr. Frederich. Present curb parking on the north side, while convenient to the residents, is also used by movie and restaurant patrons. The sight distance for vehicles emerging from the condominium driveways is less than the recommended guideline for a 25 mph speed limit street. Curb parking should be removed from the north side of the Street from Ardmore Avenue to the Hermosa Plaza easternmost driveway. This would provide more than enough sight line for emerging resident traffic. b) Moving the Existing Red Curb to the North Side Stopping nor parking is currently not allowed on the south side of 16th Street. Curb parking should be allowed on this side if the parking is removed from the north side. The loss of curb parking spaces on the north side amounts to six (6) spaces. - 1 - 1f Seven (7) spaces can be provided on the south side. This improvement provides a net gain of one parking space. c) Create a Loading Zone The area directly in front of the condominium entrance on the north side is a convenient place for residents and guest to load and unload. It is proposed that this area, approximately two spaces long be designated as a loading zone for the convenience of the condominium users. The net effect of moving the red curb and creating a loading zone is a gain of one curb parking space, plus a two space loading zone. Fiscal Impact: No additional appropriation to the City budget is necessary to do this work. Alternatives: 1. Retain status quo; thereby, continuing the difficulty in emerging from the private driveways. Respectfully submitted, I.1l Lik 4 l "06 Ant ony Antich Director of lic Works Concur: evin B. Northcraft City Manager Joarnnoon Director of General Services Attachments: Resolution No. 89 - Letter from Commodore Condominium Owner's Association Letter to Mr. Frederich from Public Works Director Map of area cpe pwadmin 1 RESOLUTION NO. 89- 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, 3 CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. N.S. 2435, AS AMENDED BY ADDING THERETO A NO STOPPING ZONE AND A LOADING ZONE ON A CERTAIN 4 SECTION OF SIXTEENTH STREET AS HEREIN SET FORTH. 5 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 6 SECTION 1. Resolution No. N.S. 2435, as amended shall be and 7 is hereby further amended by rescinding Resolution No. 87-5019; a 8 No Stopping Zone on Sixteenth Street south side from Ardmore 9 Avenue to a point approximately 170 feet east of Ardmore Avenue. SECTION 2. That Resolution No. N.S. 2435, as amended shall be and is hereby further amended by adding the following subsection 12 to Section 5, No Stopping Zones, and by adding the following subsection to Section 9, Loading Zones. SECTION 3. 5.103 SIXTEENTH STREET. North side from 15 Ardmore to a point approximately 45 feet east of Ardmore Avenue 16 to 250 feet east of Ardmore Avenue. 17 SECTION 2. 9.103 SIXTEENTH STREET. On the south side of 10 11 13 14 18 II Sixteenth Street between a point 15 feet to 45 feet east of 19 Ardmore Avenue. 20 21 II PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of February, 1989 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City Co cil of The City of Hermosa Beach ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS T FORM: Y ATTORNEY Yen/reel/V CONDOMINIUM OWNER'S ASSOCIATION 1600 ARDMORE AVENUE • HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254 • (213) 379-1600 //2e (67 fit ton..1„) a1 j.tZe.4 t, . 1, t..„2",.s c ; . c- 4.14' ). . -"it.4.. (0.1.44.,...--6,71.-eze.- e-6/2-e_cA ce--e.e_ „de., ----1444 t xi G' 16- i+t-7 a/2 -4r r e/i- c /2.4:7-,..)-1-.-:4-e---774- 42-4- ...‹..„ .L( { eu .,_ ..2--Z ,,,,,,,v(:_ az.„.. Imo - // avi...... A.7.1>Lce-t fezr-t-� �% Q � 6 i-71 ,,v-646. Co-,-�4, ---: � .� RECEIVED. JM ri 2 31989 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT, ??L'§'(/ i; ' CA' 1.5.2 • . l..1- t A.. y‘2.7 Z.4 '7 e" al2 -1,.? L‘ Z/1 i1-1__c,K--) 4 igy rg zezie . LLi !t t aCtIrc 1t .4:4444 fLr •f /24,:k.:/ y _,j- Ip - /2/xL.EG-t.,,6•77 City o f2-lermosarl3each..) • Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254.3885 February 2, 1989 Mr. Art Frederich Commodore Condominium Owner's Association 1600 Ardmore Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Subject: Your January 20, 1989 Letter re. 16th Street Dear Mr. Frederich: Thank you for your January 20, 1989 letter about the parking and sight distance concerns along 16th Street in the vicinity of'the Commodore Condominiums. The City Traffic Engineer has investigated the site and is in agreement that a change is needed in the location of the curb parking. It is our intent to request that the City Council at their February 14, 1989 meeting, approve a resolution that would prohibit curb parking on the north side of 16th Street and install curb parking on the south side in the vicinity of your condominium complex. In addition, for the convenience of your residents and guests, we are further recommending the installation of a loading zone in front of the 16th Street entrance. We appreciate your concern for safety in the City. Please feel free to contact us if you have any additional concerns regarding this matter. Anthony Antich Director of Public Works AA:mv DRIVEWAY COAM0_DOREP7:51 DR ► VEW .DRIVE WAY 1A1ORE t}`/F Ri V< ,t/A COMA O;%ORE Pry. LoAr7A'G Ar77F R -1 1 DR 1 VE!,r-�Y VON'5 MARKET STD!�F �f i x• 11 ' t '.: G� f M D4410 Rt V� February 6, 1989 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the Regular Meeting of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL February 14, 1989 SUBJECT: FINAL MAP #19302 (C.U.P. CON NO. 87-15) LOCATION: 330 CULPER COURT APPLICANT: GWC DESIGN REQUEST: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP FOR 2 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Tract Map #19302 which is con- sistent with the approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and recommends the City Clerk be directed to endorse the certificate for said map. Background The Planning Commission approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #19302 at their January 5, 1988 meeting. Analysis The staff has reviewed the Final Map and found it substantially consistent with the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map approved by the Planning Commission and in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act. CONCUR: Michael Schubach Planning Director Kevin E. Ndrthcra'ft City Manager T/srfinmap Res 6C mitted, And 'er Associate P anner lg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL TRACT MAP #19302 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 330 CULPER COURT, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on February 14, 1989 and made the following Findings: A. This project will not violate any of the provisions of Sections 66427.1, 66474, 66474.1, and 66474.6 of the Subdivi- sion Map Act; B. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan required by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code, or any specific plan adopted pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code; C. The development of the property in the manner set forth on the subject division of land will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity and/ or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the subject division of land; D. The approval of said map is subject to all conditions out- lined in Planning Commission Resolution P.C. No. 88-3, adop- ted after public hearing January 5, 1988; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 1. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to the recommendation of the County Engineer, the City Council does hereby grant final approval of Tract Map #19302 - 1 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 in the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, being a Subdivision of Lot 3, Block "L", Tract No. 2002, as recorded in Book 22, Pages 154 and 155 of Maps, in the Office of the Recorder of Los Angeles, for a two -unit condominium project on land commonly known as 330 Culper Court, Hermosa Beach, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1989. f PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermo- sa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FO T/rsfinmap CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 2 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: FINAL MAP #18814 (C.U.P. CON NO. LOCATION: 610 9TH STREET APPLICANT: RAY ESCANO C/0 GUY HOCKER REALTY REQUEST: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP FOR 3 -UNIT February 6, 1989 Regular Meeting of February 14, 1989 87-9) CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Tract Map #18814 which is con- sistent with the approved Tentative Parcel Map, and recommends the City Clerk be directed to endorse the certificate for said map. Background The Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map #18814 at their August 18, 1987 meeting. Analysis The staff has reviewed the Final Map and found it substantially consistent with the Tentative Parcel Map approved by the Planning Commission and in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act. Michael Schubach Planning Director 'Kevin B. NorthFraft City Manager T/srfinmap Resp= tfu submitted, And - Per Associate • ,,anner lh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL TRACT MAP #18814 FOR A THREE -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 610 9TH STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on February 14, 1989 and made the following Findings: A. This project will not violate any of the provisions of Sections 66427.1, 66474, 66474.1, and 66474.6 of the Subdivi- sion Map Act; B. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan required by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code, or any specific plan adopted pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code; C. The development of the property in the manner set forth on the subject division of land will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity and/ or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the subject division of land; D. The approval of said map is subject to all conditions out- lined in Planning Commission Resolution P.C. No. 87-50, adop- ted after public hearing August 18, 1987; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 1. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to the recommendation of the County Engineer, the City Council does hereby grant final approval of Tract Map #18814 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 in the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, being a Subdivision of westerly 50' of Lot 7, Block 78, Second Addi- tion to the Hermosa Beach Tract, as recorded in Book 3, Pages 11 and 12 of Maps, in the Office of the Recorder of Los An- geles, for a three -unit condominium project on land commonly known as 610 9th Street, Hermosa Beach, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermo- sa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS1,0 FORM: J ' T/rsfinmap CITY CLERK /CITY ATTORNEY Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 6, 1989 Regular Meeting of February 14, 1989 APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CIP 88-604, COMMUNITY CENTER FIRE ALARM SYSTEM Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Approve the plans and specifications for Community Center Fire Alarm System, CIP 88-604. 2. Authorize staff to advertise for construction bids for this project. 3. Authorize staff to issue addenda as necessary. Background: This project is included in the FY 88-89 budget. The current fire alarm system in the Community Center is inadequate; added partitions from remodeling the interior have isolated rooms which have no fire detectors. This project will require the contractor to design and build a new fire alarm system with added heat detectors throughout the Community Center buildings. The new system will automatically contact the Hermosa Beach Police Department dispatch center if the system detects high heat levels. Analysis: The Public Works Department and the Fire Department have reviewed the plans and specifications prepared by Joncich, Sturm & Associates. The plans and specifications are complete, and available for review in the City Clerk's office and are ready to go out for bid. Fiscal Impact: Currently $15,000 is funded for this project in FY 88-89 from the General fund. The architect's estimate for this project is $25,000. Actual funds needed will be determined after construction bids have been received. Alternatives: Alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. Drop the project. This would result in leaving the Community Center in a 1 ii less safe condition and not complying with current code requirements. 2. Modify the scope of work. This would delay the project, since the project would have to be re -designed. Respectfully Submitted: Brian Gengler Assistant Engineer Concur: City Manager Concur: 'Yw Anthony Antich Director of lic Works Concur: Attachment: Construction schedule pwclerk ccfas Steve Wisniewski Public Safety Director CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE PROJECT NAME : Community CenterFire Alarm System, CIP 88-6U4 ACCOUNT NUMBER : 001-401-8604-4201 TASKS JAN FEB Final design approval before advertising for construction Prepare date 11 advertisement & set bid opening 111f11I1 Advertising period (issue addendums as necessary) Accept_ sealed bids & public bid opening Review bids Award contract Sign contract (bonds,insurance & workers comp. cert.) Preconstruction meeting procedure Issue "Notice to Proceed" Construction Period Monitor progress & maintain records Progress payment and change order procedure Acceptance of work as complete Issusing and recording a "Notice of Completion" Retention Payment Project close out MAR APR 111 11 11 • LEGEND TENTATIVE SCHEDULE ACTUAL SCHEDULE X : — NMI MI MI mommmimmoinima : 100% COMPLETE MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 111111 11 11111111 111111111111111x1111111 1111111111111111111111 11 11111111111111)111 February 6, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council February 14, 1989 SUBJECT: NEW CAPABILITY OF WAVE DIAL -A -RIDE TO TRANSPORT SCHOOLAGE CHILDREN RECOMMENDATION Receive and File. Background Prior to the passage of AB 1586, the WAVE had been unable to transport children to and from school or operate school related programs. Requiring stricter driver licensing and vehicle equipment inspections, AB 1586 permits school children to ride general public paratransit vehicles to and from school after the public transit operator obtains driver and vehicle inspection certificates. Drivers must be tested and vehicles inspected before June 30, 1989. The CHP has informed staff that the City may begin transporting school age children during the transitional period while our drivers are being tested and before the WAVE vehicles are inspected. After July 1, 1989,,it will be unlawful to operate general public paratransit vehicles without driver and vehicle inspection certificates. New Policy School trips will be handled between 7:00 and 8:00 AM and between 2:30 and 3:30 PM only. Since this time coincides with the system's current morning and afternoon peak periods, students will be required to call for each trip. Subscription service will not be available for school trips. Children under five (5) years of age must be accompanied by an adult. To remain consistent with the regular one way fare for all general public users, the one dollar ($1) one way fare will be charged for school service. Analysis Staff believes the new school transportation policy will be the least disruptive to current senior and disabled riders, as well as, enhancing the WAVE's service. C_ONCUR,: icha.1 Schubac Planning Director Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Respectfully A ex Hernan'• ez Assistant Planner ubmitted, Mayor and Members of the City Council CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES February 7, 1989 City Council Meeting February 14, 1989 The following claim(s) have been submitted to the City Clerk's office: Charles Gotanda- c/o Meghan K. Serwin 1901 Ave. of the Stars, L.A. filed Jan. 19, 1989; alleged breach of agreement. William Lafay - c/o Vernon Krol 18411 Crenshaw Blvd. # 421, Torrance, CA filed Jan. 25, 1989; alleged dangerous condition, trip and fall. Robert J. Collins - 1720 Ardmore Avenue, Hermosa Beach filed Feb. 6, 1989; alleged police brutality. Recommendation: To deny claim(s) and refer to City's Claims Administrator. Note: The above claim(s) are available for review in the office of the City Clerk. QW� � <_ ' ) KA HLEEN MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk Concur: EVIN B. NORTHC,RAFT, City Manager LIABILITY rp N►)A• LuDE. / 400 CITY CLAIM REPORTING FORM FOR ALL PERSONS OR PROPERTY MAIL TO: City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 COPIES TO: L/rr ;%i9 //i i//-7 i %IJP - /%i 1. Claims for death, injury to persons, or to personal property, must be filed not lat (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2). 2. Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later than one (1) yr 3. Read entire claim before filing. 4. Attach separate sheets, if necessary, to give full details. ; Q7 hs after the occurrence Code, Sec.911.2). Name of Claimant (First. Last, Middle) CHARLES GOTANDA — • • i J' ,,6' r ti e ' �� Herm ;erg, h, ' ! , Telephone ( Age No. ) Home Address of Claimant (Street, City, State, Zip) 5012 Kelly Court, Los Angeles, California '\2 �o°�h \0 -CS Business Address of Claimant (Street, City, State, Zip) c/o Dimensions IV, 8416 Pershing Drive, Ste. E, �. Playa Del Rey, . '1 •3 r9lephone No. (213)821-7442 Address to which you desire notices or communications to be sent regarding this claim: c/o Fried, King, Holmes & August, 1901 Ave. of the Stars, L.A., CA 90067 Attn: Meg an Serwin) Date of Damage/Loss/Injury See attached Exhibit "A". A.M. Tiers Place of Damage/toss/lnjury See attached Exhibit "B". P.M. How did damage/loss/injury occur? (Be specific) See attached Exhibit "C". Were Police at scene? Yes O Non Were Paramedics at scene? Yez O No: What particular act or omission do you claim caused the damage/loss/il:jvey? _ See attached Exhibit "D". Irt -:xi ' No. None Name of City empioyee(s) causing the damage/loss/injury: See attached Exhibit "E". Is the total amount of your claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage, or loss: O less than $10,000.00 If so, state the amount t more than $25,000.00 (Superior Court Jurisdiction) O more than $10,000.00 but less than $25,000.00 (Municipal Court Jurisdi•:tion) How was amount of claim computed? (Be specific. List doctor hill% :Payr rate, repah• festinates, eta.). Please attach two (2) estimates. See attached Exhibit "F". Expenditures made beca:ise of damage/lots/injury (aerie and Item). See attached Exhibit "G". Tkt 'a Ad li (k4 iREVEr-sir. SIDE. EXHIBIT A (a) Date of injury due to breach of paragraph 11 of that certain written agreement dated December 21, 1987, by and among the City of Hermosa Beach (hereinafter "the City"), Coast Mortgage and Realty Investors (hereinafter "CMRI"), and Charles Gotanda (hereinafter "Gotanda"), entitled "Agreement of Settlement and Mutual Release" (hereinafter the "Settlement Agreement"): continuing injury beginning in or about January 1988 (b) Date of injury due to breach of paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement: continuing injury beginning on or about August 26, 1988 (c) Date of injury due to breach of paragraph 7(b) of the Settlement Agreement: continuing injury beginning on or about September 15, 1988 (d) Date of injury due to interference with contractual relations between Gotanda and Michael A. Lacey (hereinafter "Lacey"): continuing injury beginning on or about September 15, 1988 (e) Date of injury due to breach of written escrow instructions (hereinafter the "Excess Reserve Disbursal Instruction") directing that Beverly Hills Escrow disburse to and among the City, CMRI, and Gotanda $49,685.60 from the sum of $100,000.00 held in escrow to pay for the removal of gasoline tanks from that certain real property (hereinafter the "Property") described as Lot 2 of Tract No. 33744 as per map filed in Book 907, Pages 65 and 66, of Maps of the records of the County of Los Angeles, California: continuing injury beginning on or about August 26, 1988 EXHIBIT B (a) Place of injury due to breach of paragraph 11 of the Settlement Agreement: Los Angeles, California (b) Place of injury due to breach of paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement: Los Angeles, California (c) Place of injury due to breach of paragraph 7(b) of the Settlement Agreement: Los Angeles, California (d) Place of injury due to interference with contractual relations between Gotanda and Lacey: Los Angeles, California (e) Place of injury due to breach of the Excess Reserve Disbursal Instruction: Los Angeles, California EXHIBIT C (a) Paragraph 11 of the Settlement Agreement provides that the terms and provisions of that Agreement shall be kept confidential. In or about January 1988, then City Counselmen Jim Rosenberger and Chuck Sheldon, along with Bruce Tepper, Special Legal Counsel for the City, breached paragraph 11 by disclosing, in direct violation of such paragraph, certain terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement to a reporter forpurposesof publication in a local newspaper, the Easy Reader. As a result of such breach, Gotanda has been damaged in that he has been deprived of his contractual right to keep the Settlement Agreement confidential. (b) Paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement provides that in the event that the Property is sold and the proceeds distributed to and among the City, CMRI, and Gotanda in accordance with the terms and conditions of that Agreement, then any funds previously received by the City from the rental of all or any portion of the Property shall be distributed to and among the City, CMRI and Gotanda in accordance with a certain specified formula. On or about August 26, 1988, the Property was sold and the proceeds distributed to and among the City, CMRI and Gotanda in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement. At that time, however, and at all times thereafter, the City has breached Paragraph 8 of the Agreement by failing and refusing to disburse some $19,500.00 which it had previously received from the rental of the Property. As a result of such breach, Gotanda has been damaged in an amount not less than his rightful share of such rental income plus interest accruing thereon, attorneys' fees, and costs. (c) Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Property was to be offered for sale at an auction and sold to the highest bidder. Paragraph 7(b) of the Settlement Agreement provides that in the event that the highest bidder failed to complete the purchase of the Property, such bidder's deposit on the Property was to be deemed liquidated damages and distributed to and among the City, CMRI, and Gotanda in accordance with a certain specified formula. In or around April 1988 and in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the City, CMRI and Gotanda issued a written Request for Bid Proposals relating to the sale of the Property. The Request for Bid Proposals included a Bid Form upon which prospective purchasers were to submit their bids for the purchase of the Property. Both the Request for Bid Proposals and the Bid Form, like the Settlement Agreement, expressly provided that the highest bidder's deposit would be retained as liquidated damages in the event that the highest bidder failed to complete the purchase of the Property. The highest bid submitted pursuant to the Request for Bid Proposals was a bid of $2,450,000.00 submitted by Michael A. Lacey ("Lacey") On or about April 28, 1988, the City, CMRI, and Gotanda accepted Lacey's bid and agreed to sell the Property to him. In accordance with the Request for Bid Proposals and the Bid Form (collectively, the "Lacey purchase agreement"), Lacey deposited the sum of $122,500.00 (the "Lacey deposit") into escrow as a guarantee that he would complete the purchase. On or about May 27, 1988, Lacey repudiated the Lacey purchase agreement and failed to complete the purchase of the Property. On or about September 15, 1988, the City, by and through its Special Legal Counsel, Murray O. Kane, issued a written escrow instruction entitled "Instructions to Cancel Escrow" (hereinafter the "Cancellation Instructions") which purported, in direct contravention of Paragraph 7(b) of the Settlement Agreement, the Request for Bid Proposals, and the Bid Form, to direct Beverly Hills Escrow (hereinafter the "escrow company") to refund the Lacey deposit to Lacey. Despite Gotanda's repeated demands that the escrow funds be retained and disbursed to and among the City, CMRI and Gotanda as required by Paragraph 7(b), the City has failed%and refused to rescind the Cancellation Instruction. Gotanda is informed and believes that the escrow company has since returned the Lacey deposit to Lacey. As a result, Gotanda has been damaged in an amount not less than his rightful share of the 2 Lacey deposit plus interest accruing thereon, attorneys' fees, and costs. (d) See (c) (e) Subsequent to Lacey's repudiation of the Lacey purchase agreement, the City, CMRI, and Gotanda agreed to sell the Property to another buyer. In connection with that sale and in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, an escrow account was opened and escrow instructions were prepared. Among such escrow instructions was a provision (hereinafter the "Reserve Instruction") that One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) be withheld from the proceeds of the sale of the Property to be applied as needed to pay for the removal of certain hazardous and contaminated materials resulting from the presence of underground gasoline tanks on the Property. Subsequent to the preparation of the Reserve Instruction, the Excess Reserve Disbursal Instruction was prepared. As set forth in paragraph (e) of Exhibit "A" above, the Excess Reserve Disbursal Instruction directed that Beverly Hills Escrow release $49,685.60 (hereinafter the "excess reserve funds") from the $100,000.00 reserved pursuant to the Reserve Instruction and that such funds be disbursed to and among the City, CMRI, and Gotanda in accordance with a certain specified formula. Notwithstanding the Excess Reserve Disbursal Instruction, however, the City has failed and refused to release and disburse the excess reserve funds in accordance with that instruction. As a result, Gotanda has been damaged in the amount of his rightful share of the excess reserve funds plus interest accruing thereon, attorneys' fees, and costs. 3 EXHIBIT D (a) The City's disclosure of the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement in violation of paragraph 11 of that Agreement (see Exhibit C, ¶ (a)) (b) The City's failure and refusal to disburse rental income as required by paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement (see Exhibit C, q (b)) (c) The City's failure and refusal to disburse the Lacey deposit as required by paragraph 7(b) of the Settlement Agreement (see Exhibit C, ¶ (c)) (d) The City's interference with Gotanda's right to retain his share of the Lacey deposit as liquidated damages following Lacey's failure to complete the purchase of the Property (see Exhibit C, q (c)) (e) The City's failure and refusal to disburse the excess reserve funds as required by the Excess Reserve Disbursal Instruction (see Exhibit C, q (d)) EXHIBIT E (a) City employees: Jim Rosenberger, Chuck Shelton City special legal counsel: Bruce Tepper (b) City special legal counsel: Murray 0. Kane (c) City special legal counsel: Murray 0. Kane (d) City special legal counsel: Murray 0. Kane (e) City special legal counsel: Murray 0. Kane (a) (b) (c) (d) Gotanda's deposit = (e) Gotanda's EXHIBIT F Amount not yet determined Gotanda's 50% share income = $9,750.00 Gotanda's deposit = of $19,500.00 total rental 50% share of $122,500.00 total Lacey $61,250.00 50% share of $122,500.00 total Lacey $61,250.00 50% share of $49,685.60 total excess reserve funds = $24,842.80 EXHIBIT G The same expenditures apply to (a) through (e): Attorneys' fees expended: Court costs expended: Other expenditures (photocopying, courier services, etc.) $ $ EXHIBIT H Witness: Howard E. King, Esq. 108573c1.aim 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERNON C. KROL, INC. VERNON C. KROL 18411 Crenshaw Boulevard, #421 Torrance, California 90504 (213) 327-3591; 770-0400 Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY TO: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 WILLIAM T. LAFAY makes [i 1 JANREcti; r , QS 1989 Cl,. 0,CItYClerk de: P/kv claim against the City of Redondo Beach and makes the following statement in support of the claim: 1. Claimant's address is 2629 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, California, 90254, 2. Notices concerning this claim should be sent to VERNON C. KROL, INC., 18411 Crenshaw Boulevard, #421, Torrance, California, 90504. 3. The date and place of the occurrence giving rise to this claim are on or about January 12, 1989 on a stairway at the police department at or near 1513 Peir Avenue, Hermosa Beach, California., 4. The circumstances giving rise to this claim are as follows: At the above time and place, claimant descended a staircase and was exercising reasonable caution for his own safety when a handrail that he was using collapsed and caused 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 him to fall and injure himself. At such time and place said handrial was dangerous, defective, negligently designed and negligently maintained. As a result of said dangerous and defective conditions, claimant sustained serious injuries to his person. Said CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH negligently cause and suffered said dangerous and defective conditions to exist. 5. Claimant has sustained serious physical and mental injuries to his person and has incurred and will incur expenses for medical and related care, loss of earnings, and general damages in an amount as yet unascertained. 6. The names of the public employees causing the claimant's injuries is unknown. 7. The amount of claimant's claim lies within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court, and is based on claimant's injuries and general damages, present and future medical and related expenses incurred, and present and future loss of wages suffered. DATED: January 23, 1989 2 C) VERNON C. KROL, On Behalf of Claimant L'. : y9--ate–S LIABILITY Lt VUL : .6.1 Cv CITY CLAIM REPORTING FORM FOR ALL PERSONS OR PROP MAIL TO: City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 COPIES TO: r: \,. SJ co, / 4,03441r 1 Claims for death, injury to persons, or to personal property, must be filed not later than six (6) mobil* ll�ter the occurftrn\ ! (Gov. Code, Sec. 911.2). \./ ' i �/ 2. Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later than one (1) year atter the occurrence (Gov' 3. Read entire claim before filing. 4. Attach separate sheets, if necessary, to give full details. Name of Claimant (FLast, Middle) o e T 7. Ce t c .,i s Age Home Address o1 Claimant (Street. City, State, Zip) /7 2 , - , o f /91,, /1/4/cao sr9 13i_e/4ehl 69 90 ' r Telephone No. (gL'» Business Address of Claimant (Street. City, State, Zip) Telephone No. ( 1 Address to which you desire notices or communications to be sent regarding this claim: SAmF Date of Dema • . oss/lnjury f e, ;,C 3 I i , 7 Time A.M. /e :eXt Place of Damage/Loss/Injury How did damage/loss/injury occur? (Be specific) -L /419 C /9/4t E.S%ED (gL'» le; /e _ 'Y K1 741, 'S E-TEiv :G' t".0 /4g,Z7`,- 1,.v,O /., - -,A'G R y ic 1 4-‘1Ll Z #"9' Were Police at scene? Yes Cii-' No0 Were Paramedics at scene? Yes 0 No0 Report No. .' ///4',0 ,/— 57;14-0,4, What particular act or omission do you claim caused the damageAess/injury? ,e/ //PA. 5 'fi'/C .e-- 1 ' 1 0f C'7//C gv 2', Name of City employee(s) causing the damage/loss/injury: e(/C, Eit (I, i/9,,,,, /<e / Is the total amount of your claim, including the estimatedamount of any prospective injury, 32 leemss than $10,000.00 If so, state the amount 70 1.0 lie w 0 more than $25,000.00 damage, or Toss: (Superior Court Jurisdiction) 0 more than $10,000.00 but Tess than $45,000.00 (Municipal Court Jurisdiction) How was amount of claim computed? (Be specific. List doctor bills, *age rate, repair estimates, etc.). Please attach two (2) estimates. -i' & >s fla if 1 e frif iiii iii f , /cam, (_.i . /% . o f C 16,x' ie Tr /2 ,95 xi )0/,7 67 e , f"# 1/F7ifre 17 /1-; Expenditures made because of damage/loss/injury (Date and Item). 1/0 s t/ I,iz' AL 2 / O; /d /zi Lir THIS CLAIM MUST BE SIGNED ON REVERSE SIDE. Expenditures made because of damage/loss/injury (Date and item). Name and address of witness(es), doctor(s), and hospital(s). PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY. For all vehicle damage claims, draw a diagram with the names of streets, and indicate place of incident by 'X' and by show- ing house numbers or distances to street corners. If City Vehicle was involved, designate by letter 'A' location of City Vehicle and by 'B' location of yourself or your vehicle. If Personal or property damage claim please identify location as completely as possible. CLAIMS INVOLVING VEHICLES CLAIMS - OTHER (Please draw diagram) I HAVE READ THE FOREGOING CLAIM AND KNOW THE CONTENTS THEREOF: AND CERTIFY THAT THE SAME IS TRUE OF MY OWN KNOWLEDGE EXCEPT AS TO THOSE MATTERS WHICH ARE HEREIN STATED UPON MY INFORMATION AND BELIEF: AND AS TO THOSE MATTERS I BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE. I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Dated ft- 6, /fs7 9 Signed �-'7 �re; NOTE: PRESENTATION OF A FALSE CLAIM IS PUNISHABLE AS A FELONY (CAL. PEN. CODE 72). ) / (*stet- c %7/4,e ,5/•° February 1, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council February 14, 1989 APPROVAL OF STATE GRANT FUND PROJECTS RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission that the City Council approve the purchase of a portable fence to be used on the Clark field for Little League and -adult Softball Leagues; fu,ther that the fence be purchased with those funds remaining in the final outstanding grant the City has with the State that was not earmarked at the last Council meeting (approx. $7,958). BACKGROUND At the last City Council meeting of Jan. 24, 1989 the City Council approved the expenditure of the balances in the various outstanding grants the City has with the State. The Council did not act on the final grant because at that time the Commission had recommended the money be expended for the demolition of the old Prospect School. At the last Council meeting the City Council rejected that recommendation therefore resulting in the need to approve this money for another purpose. A copy of the Jan. 24th. agenda item is attached. ANALYSIS The Commission has recommended this purchase of the portable fence due to the very poor condition of the existing portable fence. The new fence suggested is more durable and easier to maneuver and can be stored in a much smaller space than the present fence. Should the City Council approve this project, the City must then file an amendment with the State for this grant which will change the scope of the project to include this purchase. It is staff's hope the State will approve this project and allow the amendment. That won't be known until the State reviews all the paperwork. Once the State approves these amendments staff will return to the City Council and request an appropriation for these purchases because the City must expend its own funds initially and then be reimbursed by the State. The total appropriation will be approximately $30,000. Concur: •evin B. Northcraft City Manager Respectfully submitted, / Alana Mastrian-Handman Assistant City Manager Noted for Fiscal Impact: vim: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator lni January 18, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council RECOMMENDATION City Council Meeting of January 24, 1989 APPROVAL OF STATE GRANT FUND PROJECTS It is recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission that the City Council approve the purchase of the following items from the remaining fund balances in the miscellaneous state grants the City is in the process of closing out: $ 1,000 1,000 20 658 $22,658 BACKGROUND park water fountains park trasn cans playground equipment At the last City Council meeting the City Council filed a report that detailed tne remaining monies grants the City is closing out. That agenda item your reference. ANALYSIS received and in the various is attached for The Commission at their January 4, 1989 Special Meeting decided on the above recommendation. The Commission at that same meeting also decided to recommend to the Council the demolition of the old Prospect School. The funds to be used for that demolition ($7,958) is an amount that also remains in one of the grants the City is in the process of closing out. Since the City Council rejected tne recommendation of the Commission there remains the $7,958 to appropriate. The Commission meets the day after this Council meeting to determine that and. will return to the City Council in February with that recommendation. Once the City Council approves tnese projects the City must file an amendment with the state for each of tnese grants to cnange the scope of each project. All of these remaining funds and all paperwork must be concluded and into the State no later than June 30, 1989. For the past several years the City has spent very little for playground equipment and this funding provides an opportunity to fill a need without using the General Fund. Concur: Kevin B. Nortncraft City Manager Respectfully submitted, Alana Mastrian-Handman Assistant City Manager Noted for Fiscal Impact: ` Viki Copeland Finance Administrator lg December 28, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council January 10, 1989 FINAL REPORT ON STATE GRANTS RECONCILIATION RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council receive and file this report. BACKGROUND At the Council meeting of May 24, 1988, the City Council approved an appropriation of $7,000 for a consultant to reconcile the outstanding recreation grants that were still pending with the state. The attached report from the consultant is the final wrap-up report regarding that work. ANALYSIS In closing out the grants the consultant was able to determine the City expended its own funds to carry out some of these projects and will now be reimbursed for those expenditures. The City will be receiving approximately $42,000 from the state as reimbursement funds. Additionally, the City has some money remaining in the various grants and tnat amounts to approximately $30,000. The $30,000 needs to be expended and all paper work submitted to the State no later than June 30, 1989. Elsewhere on the agenda this evening, there is a recommendation before you -.to demolish the old ProspectAvenue School at Fort Lots o' Fun Park on Prospect Avenue. The funds to be used for tnat demolition. ($7,958) are a part of the $30,000 figure mentioned above. By the City Council hiring a consultant at a cost of $7,000 to close out these recreation grants, the City was able to recoup approximately $42,000 from the State and has been informed it has another $30,000 left to expend for park and recreation purposes. It appears the City has received a very good return on that $7,000 expenditure. Concur: Kevin B. Nortncraft City Manager 1 Respectfully submitted, Alana Mastrian-Ha'ndman Assistant City Manager Noted for fiscal impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Administrator 1g G7 c.88 City MEr. (,truce December 6, 1988 Ms. Alana Mastrian Assistant City Manager Director, Development of Community Resourses City of Hermosa Beach 710 Pier Avenue Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 SUBJECT: Progress Report on State Parks & Recreation Grant Close-outs Dear Alana: This letter is to provide you and the City with a brief progress report on the status of the close-out activities of the City's State Park and Recreation Grants. We started with nine projects that represented a total of $229,890.00 in funding. Of this total, the City had to establish documentation to justify the $154,364 they had already received from the State, and provide documentation to receive the $75,526.00, that is still available. Some of the projects have been completed and the close-out documents submitted to the State. The remaining projects have funding available and are being programed for expenditure by June 30, 1989. The following are the projects that have been closed -out and the documentation submitted to the State. Grant Previously Amount Project Amount Drawn -Down Due City BG -19-013 $12,219.00 $12,219.00 $ -0- BG-19-378 19,323.00 17,400.00 1,923.00 BG -19-553 4,765.00 4,228.50 536.50 BE -19-682 14, 238.00 12, 814.00 1,424.00 BE -19-857 1,011.00 674.00 910.00 The following are the projects that still have funds remaining and are being reprogramed for expenditures prior to June 30, 1989. With the exception of BE -19- 721, all of the projects have had funds expended. These expenditures, to date, have been compiled and will be combined with the reprogramed funds when they are spent. MARK BRIGGS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 505 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite 282, Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 550-0390 Ms. Alana Mastrian December 6, 1988 Page Two Grant Expended Amount Remaining Project Amount To Date To Be Expended 19-0019 $57,958.00 $50,000.00 $ 7,953.00 76-19026 60,025.00 51,781.00 8.244.00 80-19019 58,243.00 45,937.00 12,306.00 BE -19-721 2,108.00 -0- 2,108.00 There is nothing else to be done under our contract until the City is ready to close-out the projects that have the remaining funds. All of the close-out documents have to be submitted to the State prior to June 30, 1989. Mark Briggs and Associates, Inc., has enjoyed working with you and the rest of the City staff on this project. We are pleased that we were able to come up with the documentation that will enable the City to both retain the funds received and also receive the funds still due. If you have any questions, or if problems should arise concerning the projects, please give me a call. Sincerely, Bryon . Baron Senior Vice President BKB:ajy it cc: Kevin Northci aft City Manager Vicki Copeland Finance Administrator Hermosa/120688 February 7, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 14, 1989 SUBJECT: THE STATE OF SANTA MONICA BAY Recommendation To receive and file. Background The staff was requested to attend workshops held by the Southern California Association of Governments on Santa Monica Bay Pollution and to prepare a report to the City Council. Analysis The' attached executive summary indicates that over the past 20 years or more, progress has been made in resolving the pollution problem, but that more needs to be done. The National Estuary Program is seen as the vehicle necessary to carry the clean-up of the bay forward. "Establishment of the National Estuary Program• (NEP) for Santa Monica Bay should provide the necessary vehicle for addressing and resolving many of the technical and management issues identified in the "State of the Bay" reports. The findings and conclusions of this effort provide the NEP Management Conference with a solid foundation for actions to improve the condition and management of the Bay. ..Continuation of the partnership and shared commitment established through the Santa Monica Bay Project, will be critical for successful achievement of Bay restoration and protection goals." (Executive Summary, page 53.) CONCUR: T/ccsrbay 1 Resip" t£, u4. su,bmi ted, Michael Schbuach Planning Director iq SANTA MONICA BAY PROJECT STATE OF THE BAY r f. This report was prepared with funding from, and through contract with the California State Resources Control Board (No. 7-131-140-0); the cities of Los Angeles, Culver City, Lawndale, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Santa Monica; Chevron U.S.A., County of Los Angeles, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and Southern California Edison. The funding for this study from the California State Water Resources Control Board was provided using Section 205(j) grant funds made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. This does not signify that the contents necessarily reflects the views and policies of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the California State Water Resources Control Agency or of any other of the funding organizations, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Prepared by Southern California Association of Governments 600 South Commonwealth Avenue Los Angeles, California 90005 (213) 385-1000 f f { i 1 r L i L L SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Acknowledgements President • DON GRIFFIN Councilmember, Buena Park First Vice President MIKE ANTONOVICH Supervisor, Los Angeles County Second Vice President: CHRISTINE REED Councilmember, Santa Monica TOM BRADLEY, Mayor, Los Angeles KAY CENICEROS, Supervisor, Riverside County JACK CLARKE, Councilmember, Riverside DEANE DANA, Supervisor, Los Angeles County ROBERT FARRELL, Councilmember, Los Angeles JOHN FLYNN, Supervisor, Ventura County TIM JOHNSON, Councilmember, Redlands JOHN MELTON, Councilmember, Santa Paula JON MIKELS, Supervisor, San Bernardino County GLORIA MOLINA, Councilmember, Los Angeles PEGGY SARTOR, Councilmember, Victorville ABE SEABOLT, Supervisor, Imperial County CLARENCE SMITH, Councilmember, Long Beach ROBERT WAGNER, Councilmember, Lakewood HARRIETT WIEDER, Supervisor, Orange County DORILL WRIGHT, Mayor, Port Hueneme MARK PISANO, SCAG Executive Director State of the Bay SANTA MONICA BAY PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE SCAG appreciates and is grateful to the members of the Steering Committee, the Management Review Subcommittee, the Scientific Review Committee, and all other Project Participants and Contributors, for their valuable assistance and guidance in the preparation of this report. Chair HON. CHRISTINE REED Councilmember, City of Santa Monica Vice -Chair HON. RUTH GALANTER Councilmember, City of Los Angeles HON. ROBERT G. BEVERLY, State Senator, 29th District DEL A. BIAGI, Los Angeles City Bureau of Sanitation ' HON. JAMES BOULGARIDES, Vice Mayor, Culver City KATHLEEN BROWN, City of Los Angeles, Board of Public Works THOMAS CRANDALL, California Coastal Commission HON. DEANE DANA, Supervisor, County of Los Angeles HON. BARBARA DOERR, Mayor, City of Redondo Beach DR. MALCOLM S. GORDON, UCLA DOROTHY GREEN, Heal the Bay MARK HELVEY, National Marine Fisheries Service MIKE HERTEL, Southern California Edison HON. C. R. "BOB" HOLMES, Councilman, City of Manhattan Beach DR. RICHARD JACKSON, California Dept. of Health Services ' HERBERT KAMEON, National Coalition for Marine Conservation DR. DON KEACH, USC Sea Grant Program PAUL LANE, Los Angeles Department of Water & Power HON. MEL LEVINE, Congressman, 27th District HENRI MARGA1LLAN, Sportfishing Association of California INGRID MARKUL, Los Angeles County League of Women Voters ED MASTRO, Cabrillo Marine Museum DR. DWAYNE MAXWELL, Calif. Dept. of Fish & Game, Region V ROBERT MIELE, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts BEVERLY MOORE, Santa Monica Visitor & Convention Bureau HON. GWEN MOORE, Assemblywoman, 49th District DIANA PALMER, Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce DR. PAUL PAPANEK, L.A. County Department of Health Services DR. FRED PILTZ, Minerals Management Service TED REED, Los Angeles County Department of Beaches & Harbors DR. DONALD REISH, Southern California Ocean Studies Consortium HARRY SERAYDARIAN, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency RICHARD SIMONETTI, Sierra Club -Clean Coastal Waters Task Force ROD SPACKMAN, Chevron, USA BENJAMIN SUSMAN, Los Angeles Rod and Reel Club THOMAS TIDEMANSON, L.A. County Department of Public Works CHARLES C. VERN,ON, L.A. Regional Water Quality Control Board MANAGEMENT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW COMMITTEE SCAG PROJECT STAFF PROJECT CONSULTANTS MBC APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Executive Summary Chair: DOROTHY GREEN, Heal the Bay Vice -Chair: CHARLES VERNON, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board DEL A. BIAGI, Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation JOHN MITCHELL, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works HON. CHRISTINE REED, City of Santa Monica Chair: DR. FRED PILTZ, Minerals Management Service DR. DAVID BOONE, Oregon Graduate Center DR. ALAN BRATKOVICH, NOAA, Great Lakes Environ. Research Lab DR. RONALD KOLPACK, Consultant DR. ROBERT.LAVENBERG, Los Angeles Co. Museum of Natural History DR. GERALD A. POLLOCK, Calif. Department of Health Services DR. HAROLD PUFFER, USC -School of Medicine DR. DANIEL F. SMITH, Calif. Department of Health Services DR. ROBERT SMITH, EcoAnalysis, Inc. CRAIG J. WILSON, State Water Resources Control Board PATRICIA NEMETH, Director, Environmental Planning CATHERINE TYRRELL, Project Manager JOANNE FREILICH, Principal Planner MARIANNE YAMAGUCHI, Senior Planner DELAINE WINKLER, Associate Planner STEPHEN HIGA, Intern THOMAS J. KAUWLING, Project Manager DR. M. JAMES ALLEN DONALD B. CADIEN CHARLES T. MITCHELL ROBERT R. WARE iii State of the Bay PTI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DR. D. SCOTT BECKER PIETER N. BOOTH DR. THOMAS C. GINN DR. LUCINDA A. JACOBS DR. ROBERT A. PASTOROK OTHERS DR. VICTOR CABELLI, University of Rhode Island SANDRA BAUER, Michael Brandman Associates CARLA WALECKA, Consultant iv OVERVIEW Introduction The simultaneous use of Santa Monica Bay as a marine habitat, recreational site, source of food, and site for disposal of urban wastes has raised concern among the public and public policy makers. "Is the Bay safe to swim in?" "Are the fish safe to eat?" "Ilow has pollution impacted the Bay?" "What has been done to protect the Bay?" are all questions for which there have been no clear answers. The need to answer these questions led to the organization of the Santa Monica Bay Project. The Santa Monica Bay Project was initiated as an effort to increase understanding of the pollution problems of the Bay and to assess what measures would be necessary to better protect and enhance the Bay environment. This Project has strived to bring together all the parties who have concerns and interest in the Santa Monica Bay, in order to jointly seek resolution of the complex problems associated with Bay protection and restoration. Funding for the Project has been provided by a consortium of local, state, federal and private entities; a forty -member, broad-based Steering Committee has provided overall direction for the Project. The purpose of the study effort conducted by the Santa Monica Bay Project was: e To document what is and is not known about the condition of the Bay and about the effects of pollution on human health and the marine environment; e To describe and assess the institutional and regulatory framework within which the Bay is managed; and e Recommendations for actions necessary to better protect and enhance the Bay. This effort resulted in the development of a two -volume "State of the Bay" report, the first major compendium of existing environmental and scientific information on Santa Monica Bay. Recommendations made by the Santa Monica Bay Project will begin to be implemented over the next several years through the Santa Monica Bay National Estuary Program. The Santa Monica Bay Project study area encompasses the coastal waters from Point Dume to Point Fermin and seaward to the 500 -meter water depth contour. Land areas in the watershed and wasteshed of the Bay are also part of the study Brea (Figure 2-1). The Bay is adjacent to one of the most populous, most urbanized coastal metropolitan areas in - the United States. Los Angeles County is home to about 8.5 million persons; over 10 million persons are projected to be living in the County by 2010. The people of the region put the Bay to a wide variety of recreational, commercial and industrial uses. Santa Monica Bay has long been a popular spot for recreation and tourist activities. Activities such as swimming, surfing, sunbathing and sailing constitute major uses of the Bay and its environs and provide an important source of income to the local coastal communities. Competing with these activities is the use of the Bay for industrial and municipal purposes by two municipal sewage treatment plants, three power generating stations, an oil refinery, and a major airport. 1 State of the Bay Santa Monica Bay is an open embayment on the central part of the southern California coast. Itispart of alarger geographic region known as the Southern California Continental Borderland or Southern California Bight. The topography of the Bay and its environs is largely the result of movements of the Pacific and North American tectonic plates which formed a series of mountains and basins through block faulting. At present the submerged bottom of the Bay is covered primarily with sandy and silty sediments; rocky areas occur only along the Malibu and Palos Verdes coasts and in a deep water area known as Short Bank. The climate of the region is Mediterranean, and oceanographic conditions are generally typical of the Southern Califor- nia Bight. The dominant habitat in the Bay is the pelagic, or open ocean habitat, which supports several important sport and commercial fish species. The most extensive benthic, or ocean bottom, habitat present in the Bay is the subtidal soft bottom. Because the benthic species are by and large resident to the Bay, they are more likely to be affected by pollution than the pelagic species. The natural environment of the Bay has experienced a tremendous increase in the human population of the surrounding area; and in the intensity and diversity of human use of its resources. Accompanying this increase in human use has been an increase in contamination of the Bay and alteration of the Bay's natural environment. Figure 2-1 Santa Monica Bay study area, natural drainages and wastesheds. 2 r rf it\ T f L L fi r i s 1 f. SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION POINT SOURCES 1 Municipal and Industrial Discharges L L Contamination Of The Bay The contaminants of greatest concern in Santa Monica Bay are chlorinated hydrocarbons (especially DDT and PCBs), organomptalloids (especially tributyltin and methylmercury), PAHs, and viral pathogens. Trace metals (such as arsenic, silver, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc) are also important, but somewhat less so. DDT and PCBs are of particular concern becaus0 they are highly concentrated in certain areas of the Bay, are very persistent in the environment, bioaccumulate, and. have known adverse effects on humans or other organisms. Other contaminants also exhibit one or several of these characterisitics. Viral pathogens are a public health concern because they can cause acute gastroenteritis. The sources of contamination to the Bay are varied. Both point and nonpoint sources directly or indirectly reach the waters of the Bay. Locations of primary point and nonpoint sources are shown on Figure 3-1. Point sources are those that discharge contaminants to the water at a single point such as a pipe or conduit. Discharges or flows from a point source are generally continuous or originate from a known source. Several types of point sources impact the Bay. There are municipal and industrial wastewater facilities that discharge directly into the Bay; commercial/industrial facilities which indirectly discharge to the Bay through the sewer and storm drain systems; and discharges at permitted ocean dumping sites. Six direct point sources discharge contaminants to the Santa Monica Bay study area: treated municipal and industrial wastewaters from the Hyperion Treatment Plant (HTP) and the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP); once -through cooling water discharges from the Redondo, El Segundo, and Scattergood Generating Stations; and treated industrial wastewater from Chevron USA's refinery in El Segundo. All six discharges operate under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits which limit the kinds and amount of contaminants discharged to the Bay and which require the discharge to be monitored. The two wastewater treatment facilities, also known as publicly -owned treatment works (POTWs), provide treatment capacity for most of Los Angeles County and discharge about 800 million gallons per day (MGD) of municipal and industrial wastewater into the Santa Monica Bay study area. Municipal wastewater includes wastes from many different types of sources -- residential, commercial and industrial. About 85% of the total flow is from residential sewage which contains a variety of household cleaners and detergents, oil, grease, solvents, food wastes, and human fecal wastes. Each person in the region generates about 100 gallons of sewage per day. Oils and grease, metals, and a variety of synthetic organic substances are discharged by commercial and industrial sources. 3 State of the Bay 118,45' A 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 stat mi. km Depth N meters Q Pico-Kenter j Storm Drain Hyperion Outfalls Scattergood Generating Station "-El Segundo Refinery 'El Segundo Generating Station 118°15' 34000' ya Redondo Generating Station King Harbor 0 --33045' 5r30 LA -1 Dumpsite (Inactive) LA -2 Dumpsite 18°45' 30' THUMS Dumpsite ' Figure 3-1. Major point and nonpoint contaminant sources in the Santa Monica Bay area. Industrial and commercial entities which discharge into sewer systems "upstream" from a treatment plant are indirect point source dischargers. Their discharges are regulated under pretreatment permits issued by the POTWs. Discharges from these sources include oils and grease, metals, and a variety of synthetic organic substances. Approximately 16,000 entities are regulated by pretreatment permits for discharge into sewer systems that flow to Santa Monica Bay. Primary and Secondary Treatment -- Municipal wastes are collected by an extensive network of main and feeder sewer lines which drain into central treatment plants. The level of treatment that can be attained can vary widely. Untreated or raw sewage is ordinarily not discharged to the ocean or any stream discharging into the ocean. 4 f r r t 1 t Industrial Discharges Executive Summary Sewage treatment occurs in several stages. Sewage is initially subjected to preliminary treatment, which consists of screening, pulverization and grit removal. Primary treatment is a physical process of settling and skimming that removes about half of the conventional pollutants [bacteria, nutrients, BOD, and total suspended solids (TSS)] and half of the metals from wastewater. Secondary treatment involves the reduction of organic material in the remaining solids largely by bacterial decomposition. Secondary treatment removes about 85 to 95 percent of conven- tional pollutants, three-quarters of the metals, and a variable percentage of other toxic pollutants from wastewater, however many of these constituents are transferred to the resulting sewage sludge. • Tertiary treatment (advanced waste treatment) includes the removal of nutrients and most of the remaining suspended solids. Finally, the effluent may be subjected to disinfection, whereby the effluent is treated with disinfectants such as chlorine to kill bacteria and viruses. The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires all municipal wastewater discharges in the nation to achieve a minimum of secondary treatment. Chevron USA's refinery in El Segundo is the only direct discharger of treated industrial process wastewater into the Santa Monica Bay. Stormwaters that flow from the 1,000 acre site are also subject to treatment before discharge. Coastal Power • Generating Stations 1 Dumpsites L Coastal generating stations use seawater to cool condensers, and discharge the waste heat in the form of hotter water to the nearshore waters of the Bay. Although flows from these facilities are very high, less than one-tenth of one percent is actually added from in -plant operations; the vast majority is the same seawater that was withdrawn from the ocean. In -plant wastes are collected in retention basins and discharged gradually into the once -through cooling water flow. Chlorine is injected periodically to control biological growth, some metal ions and other pollutants are also added to the discharge stream, but the amounts of these substances relative to other sources are quite small. There have never been any designated dumpsites within the study area, although two active ocean dump sites for the disposal of dredged materials and drilling muds are located within 8 miles of the study area and others are located throughout the Southern California Bight (Figure 3-14). One site, known as LA -2, was given interim status by EPA in 1977 for ocean disposal of dredged materials, and is currently undergoing review for designation as a permanent site. The materials dumped at this site originate from maintenance and construction dredging in the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors. The other, known as the THUMS (Texaco Humboldt Union Mobil Standard) dumpsite, was designated by EPA in 1985 for a 3 year period, to allow disposal of drilling muds and cuttings from THUMS' production operations in Long Beach Harbor. Historically, large quantities of DDT process waste and a variety of other toxic wa,stes were dumped at a site in the San Pedro Channel 10 miles northwest of Santa Catalina Island. Studies to determine if any the material from this site moves shoreward have not been conducted, but it is unlikely that much, if any, has moved toward the study area. The ocean disposal of all hazardous wastes was terminated in 1972 with passage of the federal Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. State of the Bay L\ Point Conception Santa Barbara Ventura de. co O 10 0 Type of waste: 0 25 ' 50 75 100 t t 0 25 50 75 100 L km • Los Angeles Santa Monica Long Beach • 2 015 • dZ° 3 016 011 O ❑ 12 ‘, 013 Refinery and chemical waste- 1, 3, 4, 7 Chemical and oil drilling waste - 2 Sitar cake - 8 Recuse and garbage - 4. 5, 9 Radioactive wase - 10. 14 - Military explosives - 6, 11, 12 Dredge disposal - 15, 16, 17 Data unavailable - 13 14 05 80 7 9 stat. mi. San Diego MEXICO Ensenada Cabo Coinett Figure 3-14. Designated ocean dumping sites in the Southern California Bight, 1931- 1978 (modified from Chartrand et al. 1985) NONPOINT SOURCES Nonpoint source pollution is pollution that enters the water from dispersed and uncontrolled sources rather than through pipes. Unlike point sources, nonpoint sources arise from may diverse factors and are often difficult to isolate, identify, and control. Nonpoint pollution sources may originate far from where water quality problems appear. While the individual sources of nonpoint pollution may appear small, in aggregate, they may contribute significantly to pollution in the Bay. Litter, sediment, oil and grease, bacteria, toxicants and other wastes that are carried by rain or street runoff and channeled to the ocean by streams or storm drain systems are examples of nonpoint source pollutants that result from human activities on land. Nonpoint source 6 t r r f i 1 t Urban Runoff Executive Summary pollutants may also originate from boats, ships, and jets, or be carried through the air and deposited to the ocean through aerial fallout. Advection (the transport of material by ocean . currents) is also a nonpoint source of pollutants to the Bay. Storm drain systems, while designed and constructed in order to quickly remove rainwater from city streets, are today also major conduits for pollutant discharge to the ocean. Unlike many other regions in the United States, the storm drain system in the Los Angeles Basin is separate from the municipal sewer system. Surface runoff is discharged to the ocean, without treatment, via about 70 storm drains (Figure 3-12). Because there are so many drains and because the flow varies with the time of year, it is difficult to quantify the kinds and amounts of total contamination from this source. Street litter, garden fertilizers and pesticides, animal feces, and oil, grease, and other pollutants generated from motor vehicle operation and maintenance, are some of the many urban wastes that are carried to the ocean along with rainwater. Storm drains may also carry NPDES-permitted Figure 3-12. Natural drainage into Santa Monica Bay. Each dot represents one storm drain or channel (modified from LAC,DPW maps). 7 0 5 1011 is, 1 i 1 1 •Y4y.. \ �.. 1 F 1 1: _ 3 ,ii.�` tr yy `r,•••..,, %„ 1.MN '/.11 \.is . Z. - x/,11,,,,,,, " '. 1,n...s: ,.. •.,, .,„ ,In` • ry� • ,,/'.Ns Topanga Canyon ,,- .� - -Santa Monica Canyon':'Z44.,� i % "rico-Kanter Storm Drain ., ./ - Sepulveda Channel t ,p... \ i-Sawtelle Channel --'-Ballon Creek -„; Centlnela Creek • e‘:. \ +`"'9•• % '.... -`''' 1 4 • I'....,, 1 .1 -'^,i — \ 0 5 10 15 20 1 1 I i km . -74°15 3 ,-- \ I Courtly 1 H _ ---. is, �• o/' ..•• `• Mery -••\ 0 r -., $ \ .f ••'• K°o'•-.^-,1,, • Gauging station • Storm drain or channel ..', Drainage ares SANTA MONICA BASIN —33.2°5' Depth In meters 1 +.r I Figure 3-12. Natural drainage into Santa Monica Bay. Each dot represents one storm drain or channel (modified from LAC,DPW maps). 7 State of the Bay wastewater discharges, accidental sewer overflows, as well as other miscellaneous wastewaters from commercial and industrial sources such as firefighting wastewater, illegally discharged household and industrial hazardous wastes, and operational spills (i.e. truck and work area washdowns). Overall,surface runoff probably constitutes the second largest source of contaminants to the Bay and may be an important source of trace metals. pesticides, and coliform bacteria to the Bay. Because there is no means for treating surface runoff at present, the only way to reduce the levels of contamination from this source is through the control of pollutants prior to their discharge to the drainage system. In addition to chemical contaminants, surface runoff is a source of coliform bacteria. This is a particular concern since runoff often discharges across or near beaches, where the likelihood of contact with swimmers and other beach users is high. Recent analyses indicate that fecal coliform counts are several times higher during and just after rains than on dry days. However, high coliform counts do not necessarily indicate the presence of pathogens that can cause disease in humans. Aerial Fallout Aerial fallout is another nonpoint source of contamination which has not been well -quantified. Even more than with surface runoff, there is no practical way to prevent this contamination other than by source control, Estimates made in the 1970s indicate that aerial fallout was a important source of lead, mercury, zinc, copper, DDT and PCBs to the Southern California Bight. Aerial fallout to land in the watershed becomes part of surface runoff, thus complicating the analysis of runoff as a discrete source. Current studies of the sea -surface microlayer may shed more light on the importance of aerial fallout as a nonpoint source of contamination to the Bay. Vessel Discharges Marine vessel operation and maintence is another nonpoint source. Most of this contamination enters the Bay in marinas, although some oil, gas, and combustion by-products enter in open water. At present, the contaminant of most serious concern from marine vessels is probably tributyltin (TBT) which is used as an anti -fouling agent in boat bottom paint. Paint that contains TBT can no longer be used on most recreational boats, but is released to the environment as prior applications slough off or are scraped off boats. Overboard discharges of sanitary wastes, especially at marinas and docks, may also be a source of bacterial contamination. Other Sources Advection -- Advection refers to the movement of substances from one area to another via ocean currents. If the great volume of water which moves through the study area each year is considered, advection can be the major source of contamination even though the concentrations of contaminants are quite low. However, since an equal amount exits the area each year as enters in the water mass, advection only constitutes a source if contaminants come out of solution or suspension. The pattern of currents in the study area are not well known, but net offshore movement of contaminants appear to indicate that advection may be removing contaminants from the Bay. Sediment Transport -- Chemical contaminants tend to bind to sediments and thus can move from place to place along with the sediments. Movement of suspended sediments near the 8 LEVELS OF CONTAMINATION POINT SOURCES Executive Summary ocean floor may bring contaminants into the study area from outside reservoirs, however, the studies necessary to prove or disprove this theory have not been conducted. The transport of sediments also functions to replenish beach sand to some extent. Oil Seeps -- There are two natural oil seeps in the study area, one offshore Manhattan Beach and the other near the Redondo Submarine Canyon. It has been estimated that an average of 10 barrels (420 gallons) of crude oil from these seeps reach the surface each day. Offshore Oil and Gas Operations -- At present, offshore oil and gas operations in the study area are limited to the tankering of crude oil to, and refined products from, the Chevron refinery. Although small•spills occur about once a year, no large spills or leaks have been noted since 1972. It has been estimated that the 40 lease tracts in federal waters of Santa Monica Bay have reserves of oil and gas, but it does not appear likely that oil and gas drilling will take place in Santa Monica Bay in the near future. The total amount of the contaminant that reaches the Bay is called the "mass emission" or "loading" of the contaminant. Mass emissions are calculated by multiplying the concentration of the contaminant by the volume or flow discharged. The levels of contamination contributed by various point and nonpoint sources to the Santa Monica Bay are compared in Table 3-8/9. The municipal wastewater treatment plants contribute the greatest amounts of contaminants to the Bay. About 800 million gallons of wastewater are discharged daily from the two municipal wastewater treatment facilities. The primary constituents of municipal wastewater discharges are conventional pollutants (BOD, total suspended solids, oil and grease), nutrients (nitrogen, phosphate, detergent), metals, and bacteria. Concentrations and mass emissions of contaminants from municipal wastewater treatment plants have decreased markedly over the past 15 years as a result of better source control and improved treatment technology. As of 1987, all point source discharges were generally in compliance with NPDES discharge limits; HTP and the Chevron Refinery had more incidents of noncompliance in the mid-1980s before construction of improved treatment facilities. The discharge of DDT and PCBs were terminated in all discharges in the early 1970s. The Hyperion Treatment Plant The City of Los Angeles operates a wastewater collection and treatment system which serves approximately 3.5 million people. The Hyperion Treatment Plant (HTP) is the largest of the City's four major wastewater treatment facilities and provides solids treatment for sludge discharged from two upstream facilities located in the San Fernando Valley. Hyperion has a primary treatment design capacity of 420 MGD and 100 MGD of secondary treatment capacity. Currently, it treats 380 MGD at primary and 130 MGD at secondary levels and discharges this unchlorinated mixture of effluent through its 5 -mile outfall. The flows and levels of contaminants discharged by this facility have fluctuated over the years. Annual flow from this outfall increased from about 340 MGD in 1974 to about 410 MGD in 1983; in 1987, it had declined to about 380 MGD. Between 1974 and 1984, the mass emissions of total suspended solids (TSS), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and oil and grease 9 State of the Bay Generating Drainage Hyperion JWPCP Stations' Refinery Channels' TOTAL 5 -mile 7 -mile Flow (MGD) 375 3.4 366 1.5' 6 154 905 Conventional (MT) BOD (5 -day) 60383 - 54600 11.4 123 1514 116,631 Total Suspended Solids 29982 - 36900 6.9 105 - 66,994 Oil and Grease 7706 2687 5560 12.1 63 664 16,692 Other High Emission Constituents (MT) Ammonia Nitrogen 8397 1837 19200 1.0 25 277 29,737 Organic Nitrogen 3319 2148 3740 2.3 - - 9209 Total Phosphate 1519 - 3790 0.22 - 201 5512 Detergent (MBAS) 1464 - 1700 0.02 - - 3164 Phenol 22 0.5 1000 0.09 0.2 - 1022 , Heavy Metals (MT) Zinc 91 53 61 0.34 1 14 220 Copper 30 36 21 0.25 0.04 6 93 Nickel 29 7 26 0.14 0.1 11 73 Lead 22 7 25 0.11 ND 3 57 Chromium 10 14 26 0.24 0.3 7 57 Cyanide 14 0.3 <10 0.04 0.3 - 24 Silver 5 1 4 <0.01 0.01 0.4 10 Arsenic 4 1 4 <0.01 0.3 - 9 Cadmium 3 3' 1 0.01 ND <0.2 7 Trace Constituents (kilograms) Selenium - 144 6600 - - - 6744 Mercury 66 91 150 ND 14 <213 534 Total DDT ND - 30 ND ND 56 86 PDB ND - 0 ND ND - - Bacteria (cells/yr) Total Coliform Fecal Coliform 9.1x1019 - - - - 9.81x1018 2.7x101° - - - - 1.04x101' Source: NRC, COWT 1984; Schafer 1984; SCCWRP 1986a; Alcaino 1988, pers. comm.; Schumann 1988, pers. comm.; LAC,DPW, unpubl. data; RWQCB, LAR, 1988, unpubl. NP DES reports; Stull 1988, pers. comm. MGD = million gallons per day MT = metric tons MBAS = Methylene blue activated substance ND = below detectable limits = not reported ' Combines discharge totals for three facilities. Portion of data for Scattergood for suspended solids and oil and grease are based on monthly analyses and flow measurements for 1987, other constituents are based on analyses performed In 1981. Figures for detergent, zinc, lead, silver, arsenic, and cadmium are rounded to the nearest hundreth. 2 Average of 1983 (wet year) and 1984 (dry year). Mass emissions based on average concentrations in Malibu Creek, Santa Monica Canyon, Pico-Kenter storm drain, Ballona Creek, and Centinela Creek. Note that sampling was not necessarily done during storms and hence consists largely of non -storm flows. ' Does not Include once -through, non -contact cooling water flows which total 1269 MGD. Table 3-8. Mass emissions of constituents from various sources to Santa Monica Bay, 1987. 10 Executive Summary increased gradually. A sharp increase in 1985 was the result of construction of new facilities which took some settling tanks out of operation. In 1987, concentrations and mass emission of these parameters were at or below 1974 levels, despite increases in the service population and influent flow (Figure 3-4). Digested sewage sludge was discharged through a 7 -mile outfall at the head of the Santa Monica Submarine Canyon between 1957 and 1987. Flow from this outfall averaged about 4.5 MGD over that period, and concentrations of. most contaminants in this discharge were high. The discharge of sludge was terminated in November 1987. The discharge lhvels of DDT and PCBs from HTP declined dramatically in the mid-1970s, largely as a result of source control -- prohibitions on their manufacture and use. Discharge levels of most trace metals of concern have also declined in the last 10 years, a result of source control and improved treatment technology. Significant declines in coliform counts have also occurred since the 1940s (Figure 5-11). 10000 ' 1000 100 10 1946 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 Year Mean of Annual Geometric Mean (mpn/0.1 L) Coliform 1 1943-1947: screening, solids incineration 2 1948: 192 MGO - screening, chlorination, solids incineration 3 1949: 201 MGD - screening, chlorination, new 1 mi outtail, solids digestion 4 1950: 201 MGD - screening, chlorination. new 1 m outfall, solids digestion 5 1951-1957: 250 MGD - high rate secondary, chlorination, solids digestion. filtration drying 6 1959: 254 MGD - high rate secondary, chlorination, solids digestion. 7 mi outfall 7 1962: 164 MGO - primary - 5 mi outfall. 100 MGO - standard rate secondary, 1 mi outfall. solids digestion, 7 -mi outfall 8 1963-1977: 240 MGD primary - 5 mi outfall. 100 MGD standard rate secondary, 5 mi outfall, solids digestion. 7 mi outfall 9 1978-1983: 263 MGD primary - 5 mi outfall, 85 MGD standard rate secondary, 5 rrti outfall. solids digestion, 7 mi ourtall Figure 5-11. Temporal trend in total coliform bacteria at Santa Monica Bay shoreline (Garber and Wada, inpress). 11 State of the Bay The Joint Water Pollution Control Plant The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County provide sewage collection, treatment and disposal for about 4 million people. These operations treat a total of more that 500 MGD of wastewater at 11 treatment sites located throughout the County. The Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) is the largest of the Districts' wastewater treatment facilities and is the terminal location of five upstream wastewater reclamation facilities. It has a design capacity of 385 MGD and currently provides advanced primary and secondary treatment for 360 million gallons of wastewater daily. The JWPCP presently discharges a mixture of primary and 200 MGD of secondaly effluents from two outfalls that extend approximately 2 miles offshore of the Palos Verdes Peninsula near Whites Point. Like the Hyperion Plant, the quality of the JWPCP effluent has also improved since 1974 as a result of improved source control and treatment procedures. Concentrations and mass emissions of total suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand, and oil and grease are now 25 to 50% of what they were in 1974; those of many trace metals are only 10 to 30% of what they were formerly (Figure 3-10). Until 1972, the JWPCP outfall discharged extremely high levels of DDT, a result of the disposal of DDT process wastes into the JWPCP sewerage system. When this practice -- and eventually the manufacture of DDT -- was banned, levels in the effluent also fell dramatically. A comparable pattern is seen in PCB levels. Chevron USA -El Segundo Refinery The Chevron Refinery discharges an average of 6 to 7 MGD of treated wastewaters during dry weather and up to 20 MGD during rains through an outfall 500 feet offshore. All wastewaters are given primary and secondary treatment at an on-site Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) before discharge. Stormwaters are given primary treatment and if necessary, can be routed to the ETP for biological treatment. Southern California Edison Southern California Edison operates two coastal generating stations, one in El Segundo and one in Redondo Beach. Average flows of seawater through both facilities totaled about 1,120 MGD during 1985 to 1987. Less than one-tenth of one percent of this flow is wastewater added from in -plant operations; most of this flow is seawater withdrawn from the ocean and used to cool condensers. Average discharge temperatures for waters discharged from these facilities are about 83°F to 85.7°F. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power The Scattergood Generating Station, located in Playa del Rey, is owned and operated by the City of Los Angeles' Department of Water and Power. The maximum flow of cooling waters discharged from Scattergood is about 500 MGD, with an average flow of about 322 MGD. Average discharge temperatures equal 80.7°F in winter to 82.4°F in summer. 12 L TSS, BOD, 011 & Grease Mass Emission (mf/yr) Moss Emission (me/yr) 12 1979 1981 Year 1983 1985 1987 Nitrogen, Phosphate 1 I •rnmenr N...44 Orsenie we.y.n $-'ONW /..enols 10 6� 1, • 6 � o --T 4F 01 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 Year 250 200 Mass Emission (me/yr) Chromium, Copper, /Inc $ Cnnrnos i Ceeo., 411.- 1973 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 Year - 2500 2000 1500 '- 1000 1000 - Moss Emission (mt/yr) Detergent 500 Q -e' Oeeeripenl (144S) 0 1973 1975 1977 1979 1961 1993 1955 1987 120 100 80 60 40 20 Mass Emis,isn (mt/yr) Executive Summary Sihrsr, Nickei, Lead 0 1973 1975 1977 .1979 1981 1983 1985 Year Mass Emission (mt/yr) 100 r 80 60f- 40 F 23 I.- .12 .12 0 1987 Cyanide, Phenols 1973 1975 1977 1979 1961 1983 1985 1987 Year Mass Emission (me/yr) Arsenic, Cadmium, Mercury 101- 8 F 0 8F 6r 4 I- I 2r 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1963 1985 1987 Year Moss Emission (kg/yr) 2000 1500 1030 F 500 F 0 DDT, PCB Teloi 001 teem PCs I 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1963 Year Year Figure 3-4. Average annual mass emission rate of selected contaminants discharged from the Hyperion 5 -mile outfall from 1974 to 1987. (Data from Mitchell and McDermott 1975; Schafer 1976,1977,1978,1980,1982,1984; SCCWRP 1986a, HTP 19876, 1988). 1985 1967 13 State of the Bay 14 160 140 120 100 TSS, BOO, Oil & Grease Moss Emission (ml/yr) X 1000 so I- 60 40 20 0 1973 1975 1977 1979 1951 1983 1905 Year Mass Emission (ml/yr) 1000 000 I- 600 400 200 25 20 0 1973 1975 1977 1979 1901 Year 1907 Chromium, Copper, Zinc $ Cnremium Ceoee. v Zine i Moss Emission (mt/yr) X 1000 1903 1985 1907 Nitrogen, Phosphate 151- 10r 5 0 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1905 1967 Year $ Ammeme Nilnpen -A.' OryenN Nitrogen v Teles inneeeMle 100 160 140 120 100 60 60 40 20 0 1973 Mass Emission (mt/yr) Lead, Nickel, Silver $ Legg -4,' NIee0 Silver 1975 1977 1979 1901 Year 1903 1985 1907 Detergent, Cyanide, Phenols Mass Emission (mt/yr) X 1000 25 1975 1977 Moss Emission (ml/yr) 1979 1901 Year 1953 1985 1907 Cadmium, Arsenic, Mercury 201 - is 10 I- 5 5r I• 0 1973 1975 1977 1979 1901 1983 1985 1927 Year T Ceem�um t- enenw e- rerun 6 Mass Emissions (k9/yr) R 1CCC DOT, PCB - Tong DOT Tenli pc, 4r- 3 - r 3- 1979 1981 Year 1983 1985 Figure 3-10. Average annual mass emission rate of selected contaminants discharged from, the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant outfall from 1974 to 1987. (Data from Mitchell and McDermott 1975; Schafer 1976,1977,1978,1980,1982,1984; SCCWRP 1986a, Stull 1988, pers. comm.). URBAN RUNOFF THE TRANSPORT AND FATE OF CONTAMINANTS L Executive Summary Flows from storm drain channels are the second largest contributor of flows and contaminants to the Bay after municipal wastewater treatment plants. On average, total flow of surface runoff to the Bay has been estimated at about 150 MGD. This is about one-fifth that of sewage effluents combined and one-tenth the amount of seawater recirculated by all generating stations combined. Storm drain runoff is an substantial source of trace metals, pesticides, and coliform bacteria to the Bay. Although drainage channels are considered nonpoint when they reach the Bay, it should be noted that well over 100 NPDES-permitted point sources discharge treated wastewa- ter to these channels. Thus, the annual flow is a composite of unregulated water from truly "nonpoint", as well as permitted sources. The contaminants in surface runoff are not monitored as regularly or comprehensively as those in point discharges with NPDES permits. Oil and grease (from vehicles) may be high during the first flush of the rainy season, but average annual estimates (1983-84) indicated that runoff accounted for only about 3% of that in sewage effluent. The annual mass emissions of zinc, copper, nickel, chromium, and lead in runoff during this period were between 3 and 9% of levels in sewage. Contaminants are supplied to Santa Monica Bay from a variety of sources, including sewage outfalls, storm drains, industrial effluents, aerial fallout, harbor activities, vessel operations, and ocean dumping. Having entered the Bay, contamihants follow a variety of pathways to their ultimate fate. Figure 3-18 illustrates the transport and fate of contaminants in the Bay. ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION OUTFALLS SEASONAL RIVERS STORM DRAINS SEIMOE OUTFALLS l 1 1 "dis SEA -SURFACE MICROLAYER iy CURRENTS MIXING 7 MIXING CURRENTS SEDIMENTATION AND BURIAL I IMCOLUCIC CMa-I-An. SEDIMENTS WATER COLUMN RESUSPENSION AND DESORPTION • BIOACCUMULATION 4 • BIODEGRADATION • BIOTRANSFORMATION DIFFUSION Figure 3-18. Generalized contaminant transport and fate model for Santa Monica Bay. 15 State of the Bay Factors such as water turbulence, strength of currents, and the size of particles upon which contaminants are borne determine how contaminants are transported in the environment. The chemical characteristics of a particular contaminant help to determine what form it will be transported in -- dissolved in the water column or attached to other particles -- and also dictate its susceptibility to be degraded, transformed by, or accumulate in, marine organisms. Numerous natural processes can potentially mitigate the biological impacts of contaminants. For example, dispersion and advective transport can dilute concentrations of contaminants in ocean waters and sediments; accumulation and burial with clean materials (such as eroded soils) can enhance recovery of contaminated sediments if contaminant sources are controlled or eliminated; and the degradation of organic contaminants by microbes can also mitigate contamination problems. Even resistant contaminants such as PCBs and DDT are eventually (although very slowly) degraded. However, these natural mitigation processes are most effective if they occur in conjunction with actions that decrease or eliminate the sources of contamination. DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAMINANTS The distribution of contaminants in the environment results from the interaction between contaminant loadings and a variety of physical, chemical and biological processes in the ocean. Contaminants move into the ecosystem in four major compartments: the water column, the sea -surface microlayer, the sediments, and.in plant and animal tissues. Surface Microlayer Contaminant levels in the sea -surface microlayer have not been well studied, but it is known that trace metals and organics do accumulate there, especially in harbor areas. Water Column Important contaminants in the water column include heat (from power generating station discharges), turbidity (near wastewater outfalls and storm drains after storms), nutrients (ammonia) and biological pathogens. Most trace metals and many toxic organics are associated with particles and eventually sink to the bottom rather than remain in the water column. Dissolved TBT levels are high in Marina del Rey. Also, ammonia pools sometimes occur near the HTP, JWPCP, and Chevron refinery outfalls. Sediments Sediments are the major reservoir and sink of most contaminants entering the Bay. Contami- nated sediments are reworked by waves, current, storm action, and the burrowing activities of animals. The sediments may be resuspended and deposited several times before they are ultimately buried. The net effect of the processes that control particle transport is illustrated by the distribution of contaminants from the HTP and JWPCP outfalls. Contaminants such as metals, PCBs, and DDT from these outfalls have accumulated at high concentrations in sediments near these discharges and at lower concentrations over large areas of the Palos Verdes and Santa Monica shelves. Trace metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons are present in significant amounts in sediments of the Bay. Some trace metals (e.g. cadmium and lead) have their highest levels near the HTP sludge pipe (Figure 3-24 and 3-27) and the JWPCP outfalls; TBT and mercury are highest in 16 s 1 r i 1 1 f 1 L L L i L Figure 3.24. Cadmium concentrations in surface sediments around Santa Monica Bay, 1986 (Hyperion Treatment Plant, unpubL data). Figure 3-30. Concentrations of PCBs In surface sediments of Santa Monica Bay, 1985 (Hyperion Treatment Plant, unpubl. data; Stull 1988, pers. comm.). Executive Summary Figure 3.27. Lead concentrations in surface sediments of Santa Monica Bay, 1986 (Hyperion Treatment Plant, unpubL data). Figure 3-31. Concentrations of DDT In surface sediments of Santa Monica Bay, 1985 (Hyperion Treatment Plant, unpubL data; Stull 1988, pers. comm.). 17 State of the Bay Marina del Rey. PCBs and DDT are highest in sediments off the JWPCP outfall and secondarily near the HTP outfalls (Figures 3-30 and 3-31). The most contaminated sediments near the JWPCP outfalls are pres- ently buried. In general, metal levels in sediments near the municipal wastewater out- falls are decreasing, a result of im- proved source control and treatment technology. An area -wide decrease in the aerial fallout of lead may also have contributed to the decline of lead levels in Bay sediments. Fig- ures 3-25 and 3-28 illustrate de- clines in the concentrations of cad- mium and lead in sediments of the Palos Verdes Shelf. Levels of lead, mercury, and cadmium in sediments at the mouth of Ballona Creek and within harbors, however, have in- creased. PCB levels in the vicinity of sewage outfalls were likewise very high in the 1970s. PCB levels near the HTP outfalls were approximately 60 times background; near the JWPCP out- falls, peak values were more than 1000 times background. Restric- tions on the manufacture and use of PCBs in the early 1970s resulted in greatly reduced levels of PCBs in surface sediments. Between 1977 and 1985, levels in the surface sedi- ments of the Palos Verdes Shelf had diminished by about one-half. The concentration of PCBs around the HTP discharges have also declined since the 1970s --between 1983 and 1986, levels declined about 50%. While the concentrations of PCBs around point sources has declined over the last 10 or 15 years, concentrations at sites away from the point sources have increased, suggesting that dispersion has occurred; however, changes in analytical techniques may also be a contributing factor. • • yls —43' %, z1i4 Is LOS VERDES PT —33.40' 14.20' CADMIUM 1974 12* -'51 50mq/dry kg `I KILOMETERS DEPTH IN METERS 3 4,0 '60 LOS VERDES PT • 19 —43' • I I20' CADMIUM 1980 •Iii _20. '6,2+ • '•6 \�\ X39 S9 J '1 50 mg/try kg —33.40' AA. . a.et 01 KILOMETERS DEPTH IN METERS 46. 13 :6 Figure 3-25. Cadmium concentrations in surface sediments of the Palos Verdes Shelf, 1974 and 1980 (Stull and Baird 1985). DDT concentrations in the sediments of the Palos Verdes Peninsula are the highest reported for any marine environment in the United States, approximately 100 times those near the HTP out- falls and 1,000 times those in the New York Bight. This is largely the result of the disposal of large amounts of process wastes to the JWPCP system prior to the early 1970s and possibly of illegal dumping. 18 r Animal Tissues Concentrations of DDT in the surface sediments have declined considerably be- tween 1973 and the present, reflecting the decline in in- put levels. However, much of the estimated 500 metric tons which were present at the surface in 1973 are naw buried by a foot of new, less -contaminated sediment. Near -bottom currents, storm -surge, sediment . re- working by animals, and the discontinuation of solids input from the JWPCP outfall may lead to the re -exposure and resuspension of the contami- nated materials. On the basis of surface sedi- ment concentrations of vari- ous contaminants, five "hotspots" of contamination have been identified: the areas around HTP's 5- and 7 -mile onrfalls; an area around and to the northwest of the JWPCP outfalls; Marina del Rey; and the mouth of Bal - lona Creek. It is likely that the enclosed portions of King Harbor and areas offshore large storm drains have sig- nificant levels of contami- nation; however, there are insufficient data to document this. Executive Summary is. *LOS VERDES PT —33.40' Il.z0. LEAD 1974 . 133' 5 "131 ?SS 4 . 3` 40071q/dry kg II KILOMETERS DEPTH IN METERS 45 \349 W is 4LOS VERGES PT -33.40• nd•zo' ii5• _-•223 310• yso 362 10333 �1 400mq/dry kg `I KILOMETERS LEAD 1980 DEPTH IN METERS 221 '6o Figure 3-28. Changes in lead concentrations in surface sediment of the Palos Verdes Shelf be- tween 1974 and 1980 (Stull and Baird 1985). The uptake and retention of chemical contaminants in the tissues of organisms is called bioaccumulation. Contaminants that are bioaccumulated can cause adverse effects in marine organisms, such as disease or impaired reproduction. Contaminants that are bioaccumulated in seafood can be transferred to humans and result in adverse health effects. The source of bioaccumulated contaminants can be food, water, or sediments. The amount of a contaminant that is bioaccumulated by an organism depends on several factors„including the chemical characteristics of the contaminant, its concentration in the marine environment, and the characteristics of the organism. Chemicals with a high potential for bioaccumulation include pesticides such as DDT, complex chlorinated hydrocarbons such as PCBs, and organo -metallic compounds such as methylmercury. Highly soluble or volatile compoundssuch as chloroform have a very low potential for bioaccumulation, even when highly concentrated. 19 State of the Bay Organisms with a high bioaccumu- lation potential generally have char- acteristics such as high fat content, live on or near the bottom sedi- ments (Dover sole), filter -feed on organic particles (miiesels and clams), or are high on the food chain (seals). Once chemicals are bioaccumulated, they may biotransform within the organisms. Chemicals such as PAHs may become more toxic following biotransformation, whereas others may be broken down into less toxic forms and eliminated from the or- ganisms. Organisms vary in their ability to biotransform chemicals. For example, fish can readily bi- otransform PAHs in their livers, clams and mussels cannot and there- fore tend to accumulate them. All marine organisms have a limited ability to biotransform PCBs. Met- als cannot be broken down by or- ganisms, but fish can regulate metal concentrations in muscle tissue, and therefore their potential for bioac- cumulation of metals is low. In contrast, invertebrates generally cannot regulate metals and have a higher potential for metals bioaccu- mulation. The highest tissue levels of DDT in all invertebrate and fish species evaluated were found near the JWPCP outfalls at White Point, a documented source of the pesticide (Figure 3-41), with levels decreasing both upcoast and downcoast from that site. Current levels are significantly less than those present in the 1970s (Figure 3-43). 2000 1500 1000 500 A00 300 Concentration. ppb (rr) DDT M—SMP VP MDR RAP sue WPO LAM OCC DP i♦ White Croaker ® Asg. other spp. Max. other spp. Concentration. ppb (sir) PCB 200 1 - RAP SMB WPO LAM OCC DP White Croaker ® Avg. other spp. Max. other spp. Legend: M -SMP • Malibu/Santa Monica Pier VP • Venice Pier MDR • Marina del Rey RAP • Redondo Area Pier SMB • Santa Monica Pier WPO LAH OCC DP • White Pt. Outfall • Loa Angeles Harbor • Orange Co. Control • Dana Point • Figure 3-40. Regional variation in concentrations of total DDT and total PCB in muscle tissue of white croaker and other fish species from the Southern California Bight (Gossett et al. 1983b). Patterns of contamination in invertebrate tissue indicate that the JWPCP and HTP outfalls are the major sources of silver, whereas contamination by lead appears to be associated with urban runoff and maritime activities. Although other metals are elevated in invertebrates of the Bay, they do not have well-defined distributions, suggesting a variety of sources in the Bay. Invertebrates from throughout the study area are contaminated by relatively homogeneous levels of PCBs. Studies of fish indicate that the JWPCP and HTP outfalls are major sources of PCBs, but relatively high tissue concentrations have also been found in Marina del Rey, at Venice Pier, and at Point Dume (Figures 3-40 and 3-41). This suggests that PCBs originate from multiple sources -- offshore sewage discharges as well as marinas and other nearshore sources. 20 L r i t i s t t L Chlordane levels in mussels are high at at Marina del Rey, indicating a major local source of this pesticide. Lower concentrations in other parts of the Bay suggest either multiple sourcesor contaminant transport. High DDT levels were found in the eggs of California brown pelicans during the 1960s and 1970s. Total DDT, DDE and 'CB levels in peli- can eggs decreased by an order of magnitude between 1969 and 1981. Currently, DDT and PCB contami- nation of pelicans is a chronic (long-term, sublethal) rather than an acute (short term, lethal) prob- lem. Bioaccumulation of chlorinated hydrocarbons and other contami- nants in marine mammals in the study area is not well documented, and most information on body bur- dens come from stranded animals. However, from available data, tis- sue burdens of marine mammals (sea lions, whales, and dolphins) offshore Los Angeles, Santa Bar- bara, and Orange counties, are ele- vated above those from other areas of the California coast or world- wide. Tissue levels in marine mammals indicate that smaller spe- cies that live closer to shore are more contaminated than larger spe- cies that forage over a wide range. In general, the levels of DDT and PCBs in bird and mammal tissues have dropped considerably from levels found in the early 1970s. 120 Concentration, ppb (ww) 100 80 00 40 20 0 Executive Summary DDT 1 .. ■, .. ., .n it ■ . _ T SB V PH PD MB HO WPO OP C LJ IB E Sampling Location MI Pacific Santiago ® Cal. SCoralontlan YsllowcnIn Sculoln ® Longatilne Comorlan Concentration, ppm (ww) 20 PCB 5- o 01' I. I. 1, i, ki 11 [ r ., I. T SB V PH PD' MB HO WPO DP C LJ 19 5 Sampling Location MI Pacific Sanadao Cal. Scorolonflan Q YeiIOWCnin SCulaln ® LonQaoine Comotlsn t t 5 Legend, T • Tailgwa SB • Santa Barbara V • Ventura PM • Pt. Muenenla PD • Pt. Duma MB • Malibu Beech MO • Hyperion Outfall WPO • White Pt. Outfall DP • Dana Pt. C • Carlsbad LJ • La Jolla IB • Imperial Beach E • Engense. Figure 3-41. Regional variation in concentrations of total DDT and total PCB in four fish species from the Southern California Bight (Brown et al. 1986, Thompson et al. 1987). COMPARISON TO OTHER BAYS Coastal areas through the United States are environmentally degraded, in large part because of contaminant inputs from urban -industrial complexes. Degradation is more pronounced near urban centers located adjacent to protected embayments where dispersion is restricted. The relative contamination of Santa Monica Bay can be determined by comparison with other coastal areas of the U.S. 21 State of the Bay Other contaminated coastal areas which were reviewed included the Southern California Bight, the New York Bight, Puget Sound, and Che- sapeake Bay. While each differs from the Santa Monica Bay in some respect, some comparisons can be made. Relative to other areas re- viewed, sediments of Santa Monica Bay are highest in DDT and PCBs. However, concentrations of contami- nants such as PAHs and lead are low relative to areas such as Puget Sound and Chesapeake Bay (Figure 3-44). 22 25 20 15 1 Concentration, ppm (ww) DDT ' o- s 0 70 71 72 73 74 75 78 77 ( 1L14 }1} 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 88 Year DOver cote ® Kelp 0833 Black perch Figure 3-43. Temporal variation in concentrations of total DDT in muscle tissue of fishes near the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant outfall, 1970- 1986. (McDermott -Erlich et at. 1977, 1978; Sherwood et al. 1978; Smokier et al. 1979; LACSD 1988; Young et al. 1988). 1.000 Executive Summary 170.000 DDT (ppb, dry wt.) PCBs (ppb, dry wt.) • e.300 4.200 PAH (ppb, dry wt.) LEAD (ppm, dry wt.) MAXIMUM MEAN • HOT SPOTS o BASINS ZINC (ppm, dry wt.) Figure 3-44. Mean and maximum reported concentrations of PCB, DDT, PAH, lead, and zinc in sediments of Santa Monica Bay and five comparison coastal areas. 23 IMPACTS ON HABITATS AND ORGANISMS Plankton Soft -Bottom Benthos 24 Impacts On The Ecosystem The environment of Santa Monica Bay has been in a constant state of change, even before human habitation of the area. With extensive human use and contamination of the Bay, impacts to the natural ecosystem would be expected to occur, and these changes have been observed. However, while,it is relatively easy to describe variations in the distribution, abundance, and health of organisms in the Bay, it is far. more difficult to establish a cause -and -effect linkage between this variation and particular contaminants br human activities. Natural variability must also be considered and separated from human impacts on the ecosystem. Human activities have impacted marine life in the variety of ways. Pollutant discharge and habitat alteration are the primary means through which humans have affected the Bay ecosystem. Elevated contaminant levels have been found in tissues of several species of fish and invertebrates, predominantly near wastewater outfalls. High levels are usually found in organisms on the Palos Verdes Shelf and somewhat lower levels are found in Santa Monica Bay proper. This pattern and the type of contaminants accumulated (DDT and PCBs in fish) suggests that sediments near the JWPCP outfalls and, to a lesser extent, near the HTP outfalls, are tfie source of this contamination. Wetland losses are one of the most significant habitat alterations in the Bay. Early human impact on Santa Monica Bay was relatively minor. As the region has been settled and urbanized, man's use and contamination of the Bay has increased, and impacts on the marine environment have increased as well. These impacts were assessed by habitat group and by major contaminant source. Plankton provide the primary basis of the food web that supports most of the larger organisms in the Bay. Hence, impacts to the plankton populations could seriously upset the abundance of other species. Most of the variability of plankton in Santa Monica Bay is natural and its abundance may vary by ten times over the course of several years. Human impacts on plankton have been relatively minor, primarily nutrient enrichment near the major point source discharges. - . A great deal is known about pollutant impacts on organisms of the soft -bottom benthos. These small invertebrates, which live in and on soft sediments, have been most affected by human uses of the Bay. Since contaminants accumulate in sediments, it affects these organisms through direct toxicity or oxygen depletion. Several square miles of this habitat near the JWPCP and HTP outfalls have been impacted by the accumulation of sewage particles and contaminants (Figure 4-8). While large numbers of organisms may reside in these areas, the diversity of species is usually low. Distinct assemblages (groupings) of pollution indicator species are also found in these areas. Executive Summary Point Dume INFAUNAL INDEX 8 60-100 (normal) 30-60 (changed) ® 0-30 (degraded) Santa Monica Bay Santa Monica Submarine Canyon Santa Monica Marina del Rey Hyperion Outfalls Redondo Submarine Canyon King Harbor Palos Verdes Peninsula • Los Angeles County Outfalls • FIgure 4-8. Location of "normal", changed, and degraded areas in the study area as defined by changes in infaunal index, 1977 (Bascom 1978). 25 State of the Bay In recent years, improved treatment of effluents has led to reduced levels of contamination near the JWPCP outfalls. This has been accompanied bra change in the infaunal assemblage and the areal extent of impact has decreased. The burrowing activities of a spoon -worm, as well as the El Niilo event of 1982-1983 both appeared to accelerate this recovery process. An impacted area up to 25 square miles was evident near the Hyperion outfalls in the late 1960s and 1970s; this has decreased to less than 12 square miles. Approximately 1 square mile of seriously degraded benthos is found around the 7 -mile outfall. With discharges from this outfall terminated in 1987, studies are underway to assess the rate and extent of recovery of this area. Subtidal Hard Bottom Natural hard bottom surfaces in most of Santa Monica Bay are quite limited, but do occur on the Palos Verdes Shelf. Not much is known about pollution impacts to this community, but species such as sea anemones and algae were found to be adversely impacted near municipal wastewater outfalls. The commercial catch of California spiny lobster in the Bay has decreased since 1955; however, total catch has increased on the Palos Verdes Shelf in the 1980s. The red sea urchin fishery on the Shelf began on a large scale in 1976 but by 1981, these had been over -harvested. Artificial reef construction should increase the abundance of sport fishes that are associated with this habitat. YEAR Figure 4-14. Changes in the Palos Verdes Peninsula kelp canopy 1974 to 1987 (CDFG, unpubl. data). 26 r r t - r i )1 i i t L t Kelp Beds Wetlands Executive Summary Kelp beds have flourished on the Palos Verdes Shelf during the last decade. Although there are indications that sewage discharge at the JWPCP outfalls contributed to the elimination of giant kelp from the Palos Verdes Peninsula, natural factors such as El Nino conditions were also prominently involved. Low nutrients in the water and severe storms, which uproot kelp forest, have also contributed to losses of giant kelp in the Bay and elsewhere. The impact of improved effluent quality is difficult to separate from the impact of kelp transplant programs which occurred on several occasions in the 1960s and 1970s. Although early efforts were not successful, the present kelp beds are all apparently recruited from transplanted material. By 1982, kelp coverage on the Palos Verdes Shelf was almost what it was in the 1940s, and by 1987, one-third greater than it was in 1911 (Figure 4-14). However, severe storms in January 1988 decimated these and other kelp beds throughout southern California. The major impact to the wetlands of the study area has been the direct loss of habitat through reclamation activities. Subsequent human disturbance and pollutant loading have also affected the flora and fauna of the wetlands. The Ballona wetlands are one of the most heavily impacted habitats in the Bay. Historically, approximately as much as 2,100 acres of saltmarsh and wetlands were found in the vicinity of Ballona Creek. However, the major lagoons of the Ballona wetlands were drained by about 1930, and dredging of the Marina del Rey in the early 1960s further reduced this habitat. Only about 150 acres at Ballona Creek remain as viable, . functioning wetlands, although most of these are somewhat degraded (Figure 4-15). Ballona wetland reclamation has reduced available breeding and foraging habitat for Belding's savannah sparrow, and the California least tern, two endangered bird species found in wetland environments; it has also reduced the wetland's potential as a nursery area for juvenile California halibut. A proposed plan for restoration of the Ballona wetland habitat is currently proposed to be implemented by the National Audubon Society. Figure 4-15. The Ballona wetlands region in 1894 and 1988. 27 State of the Bay Fishes • Fish populations are heavily influenced by human activities, but also vary considerably in the absence of man. The abundances of some pelagic fish species have been affected by large scale climatic patterns such as El Nifio events. During these periods, warm water species have increased, while the cold water species have declined. Populations of Pacific sardine and northern anchovy vary, for unknown reasons, on cycles of more than 100 years. No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that fishing success has declined significantly in the study area or to apportion any change in fisheries to one cause or another. Sediment contamination directly affects demersal fish species (those which live on or near the bottom), although they are also subject to recreational and commercial fishing pressure and habitat alteration. Soft -bottom fishes (e.g. white croaker) are affected primarily by the contaminated invertebrates that they consume. This is especially apparent in the "hotspots". In the early 1970s, abundance and diversity of demersal fish assemblages near wastewater outfalls were low; by the mid-1980s, these assemblages had changed and a greater number and • variety of species were present. Commercial fishing in the study area is largely restricted to the outer portions of the Bay proper, although inshore bait -fishing (for northern anchovy) is allowed and practiced. Most commer- cial fishing takes place south of Pa- los Verdes Point and north of Point Dume. While the numbers of Cali- Percent of Catch fornia halibut in the Bay may have 35 declined as a result of destruction of 30 wetland nursery grounds, gillnets 25 set near the corners of the Bay may 20 also intercept California halibut 75 entering the Bay from outside nurs- 10 eries. BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF POLLUTION Fish Diseases and Abnormalities Disease and abnormalities in ma- rine organisms have been related to human pollution throughout the world, making them useful indica- tors of pollution -related environ- mental degradation. Diseases and abnormalities in marine organisms from southern California have been documented since at least the 1950s, although intensive evaluations of the relationship between these con- ditions and environmental pollution were not conducted until the early 1970s. Most surveys have focused 28 5 0 Fin erosion Distance From Outfalls (km) '0- 80 m depth 137 m depth Percent of Catch too 80 so 40 20 0 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1978 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Year Fin erosion IIII 1 km from Outfall ® 3 km from outfall 9 km from outfall ® 24 km from Outfall Figure 4-18. Spatial and temporal patterns in the prevalence of fin erosion in Dover sole near the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant outfalls, 1971- 1983 (Cross 1988). Birds and Mammals on fishes. The major kinds of abnor- mal conditions that may be related (at least in part) to pollution in Santa Monica Bay include fin erosion, epidermal tumors, oral papillomas, and microscopic liver abnormalities. Several diseases and abnormalities are more common in fishes from the study area than in fishes elsewhere. The most significant abnormalities are fin erosion and epidermal tumors in demersal fishes, particularly Dover sole. The prevalence of these abnor- malities decrease with increasing distance from JWPCP outfalls (Fig- ures 4-18 and 4-20), suggesting that the discharges are responsible. Both conditions are much less common now that in the early 1970s but their persistence is still cause of concern. At one time oral papillomas (a be- nign tumor) were though to be re- lated to HTP discharges, but the rarity of these abnormalities in subsequent studies casts doubt on this relation- ship. Microscopic liver abnormali- ties have been found throughout the Southern California Bight (Figure 4-21), suggesting that they are not related to specific sources of con- tamination. 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 .0.5 0 Percent of Catch Executive Summary Epidermal tumors 0 2 4 8 8 10 ' 12 14 18 18 20 22 Distance From Outfalls (km) -e- 80 m aeoth 137 m aeoth ercent of Catch 251 24 Epidermal tumors 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1978 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Year 1 km from outtalle ® 3 km from 0u111111 9 km from 0u111113 ® 24 km from Outfalls Figure 420. Spatial and temporal patterns in the prevalence of epidermal tumors in Dover sole (<120 mm SL) near the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant outfalls, 1971-1983 (Cross 1986). The low prevalence of serious abnormalities such as liver tumors and pretumorous conditions in fishes from Santa Monica Bay suggest that they are not exposed to the same levels of carcinogenic chemicals as fishes from other parts of the United States, such as Puget Sound and Boston Harbor. Recent studies of impaired reproduction and chromosomal damage in fishes from the study area suggest that elevated levels of these conditions may be related to chemical contamination. These Lauer two conditions have been evaluated in only a small part of Santa Monica Bay. High levels of DDT in the 1960s apparently caused thinning of California brown pelican eggs and resulted in poor reproductive success. Since the late 1970s (and after discharge of DDT was banned), DDT levels have dropped and eggshell thickness and pelican reproductive success has increased. 29 State of' the Bay Marine mammals have been im- pacted by humans as evidenced by high levels of DDT and PCBs found in their tissues. Whether marine mammals strand on the shores of the Bay as a result of human or natural causes usually cannot be determined. The en- tanglement of gray whales and California sea lions in gillnets may be the most serious hazard to the marine mammals of the Bay. 30 Portant of Catch 60 Liver 'abnormalities 50 40 30 20 10 0 5145 no PV3 LAN w OP Sampling Location El wilt. Croaker en XarrMnsod turbot = Col. tanquollsh Legend: • SMB • Santa Monica Bay PVS • Palos Verdes Shell LAN • LA. Harbor DP • Dana Point ND • no data Figure 4-21. Prevalence of significant liver abnor- malities in three fishes from southern California in 1984 (Malin et al. 1986). RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH CHEMICALLY CONTAMINATED SEAFOODS Potential Human Health Impacts The protection of public health has been, and continues to be, an issue of primary concern in the Santa Monica Bay. This issue relates to two basic questions: (1) "Are the fish caught in the Bay safe to eat?" and (2) "What are the health risks associated with swimming in the Bay?" Many pollutants found in ocean waters have the potential to produce a variety of acute and chronic human health effects. Whether these pollutants pose human health risks depends upon the characteristics of the pollutants, their concentration in the environment, as well as their potential to reach and thereby cause adverse impacts in humans. Humans can be exposed to potentially hazardous contaminants through two principal pathways -- consumption of con- taminated fish or seafood, and ingestion or contact during water recreation activities. The risks of an adverse health effect from exposure to toxic chemicals or pathogens is essentially a question of the probability of harm. Since it is difficult to clearly link or measure exposures to an observed effect in human studies, health scientists often rely on predictions to assess potential health risks. Since such predictions (risk assessments) involve many assump- tions, calculations are made so that any possible errors would be on the side of human health protection. Potential human health risks were calculated for exposures to pathogens (i.e., bacteria or viruses), and to toxic chemicals in food from Santa Monica Bay. Data was not available for determining cancer risks associated with swimming in chemically contaminated waters, but based on other studies, risks associated with exposure to toxic contaminants during water recreation activities are 10-100 times lower compared to risks from consumption of contami- nated seafood. This is generally the case because these substances are typically present at low concentrations. The only areas of potential concern (other than when hazardous substance spills occur), are areas located next to storm drain outlets, industrial discharges or sewage overflow points. The contaminants of greatest concern regarding human health effects in Santa Monica Bay are DDT and PDBs. These contaminants are persistent in the aquatic environment, are highly concentrated in fish and shellfish from the study area, and are suspected as potential causes of cancer in humans. Chlordane and selected metals (lead, silver, cadmium, chromium, and mercury) in shellfish may also pose a human health hazard, but data on these substances are too limited for analysis. Although PCBs have low toxicity in short-term exposures, they are of concern because of their persistence and their long-term toxic effects in humans and other animals. The toxic effects of PCBs may include induction of skin lesions, reproductive effects, and various effects on liver 31 State of the Bay tissue, including cancer. Like PCBs, the pesticide DDT and related compounds are readily accumulated in animal tissues. On the basis of experiments with rats, mice, and other animals, the EPA has concluded that DDT, DDD, DDE, and dicofol are probably carcinogens (cancer-causing chemicals). Three previous risk assessments concluded that the consumption of certain seafood from the most contaminated areas of Los Angeles would elevate the risk of cancer in exposed humans. The highest tissue contaminant levels were found in white croaker. These assessments were limited to data on chemical concentrations found in fish from 1980 or before, the current evaluation included some 1985 data. The health risks associated with eating seafood from Santa Monica Bay vary depending upon several factors: (1) where the fish are caught (e.g., its proximity to sources of contamination; (2) the particular species of interest (e.g., open water or bottom -dwelling); (3) the chemicals responsible for the contamination; (4) the rate of seafood consumption; and (5) the tolerable risk level (as defined by an agency or consumer). Additional lifetime cancer risks of one in a million or less are generally considered tolerable by environmental regulatory agencies; risks above about one in one thousand are generally considered unacceptable. The risk estimates (Tables 5-3 and 5-4) represent excess or additional lifetime risk due to exposure to total DDT and PCBs in fish from Santa Monica Bay (beyond the average lifetime risk of 20-30% per individual for all cancers from all causes). Because of their importance in the recreational catch and the availability, of data, two species were evaluated and used to estimate human health risk. White croaker were chosen as the worst-case indicator species for bottomfish; Pacific bonito was chosen to represent open -water species. Of the sites evaluated, seafood from White Point and nearby areas of the Palos Verdes Peninsula pose the greatest risk of cancer from total DDT and PCBs combined. The lowest risk levels were in white croaker from Malibu and Santa Monica piers, where risk estimates were slightly lower than control areas in Orange County. Consumption of only five to six meals of white croaker per month over a 70 -year period could produce a plausible upper -limit risk of cancer greater than one in one thousand. On the other hand, consumption rates for croaker caught from Malibu/Santa Monica Piers or the Orange County control areas would have to be extraordinar- ily high (more than 2 meals/day) to pose a similar risk. Risk estimates were also compared with available guidelines. Estimates for the intake of PCBs in white croaker and Pacific bonito showed that FDA guidelines would not be exceeded at any of the locations sampled during 1980 and 1985, even assuming a very high consumption rate of two meals per day. The total DDT intake associated with consumption of Pacific bonito at very high rates would also not exceed health protection guidelines. However, the total DDT intake associated with consumption of white croaker, even at low to moderate rates, could potentially exceed the EPA health guidelines, especially if these fish were harvested from the Palos Verdes Shelf. Despite the limitations of this preliminary risk assessment, the data do support the conclusion that relatively high consumption of bottomfish and fatty fish species from certain locations in Santa Monica Bay may result in significant health risk. More information will be known as the California Department of Health Services completes its survey and risk assessment of a wide variety of sport -caught fish in Santa Monica Bay. Although the potential risks of eating fish from Santa Monica Bay are high in some cases, other foods and activities may also pose substantial risks (greater than one in one thousand). To aid interpretation of risk estimates, comparisons with these other risks are presented Figure 5-5. 32 1 l l L ONE IN A HUNDRED ONE IN A THOUSAND ONE IN 10 THOUSAND ONE IN 100 THOUSAND ONE IN A MILLION 0.1 1 10 CONSUMPTION RATE (MEALS/MONTH) MAXIMUM ADDITIONAL CANCER RISK FOR UFETIME CONSUMPTION OF WHITE CROAKER Legend: WP = White Point 1980 PV = Palos Verdes 1985 SMB = Sarna Monica Bay/ LA Harbor 1980: Venice Pier 1985 MOR - Marina Del Rey 1980; Venice Pier 1980 RP = Redondo Pier 1980 HB - Hermosa Beech 1985 C : Control -Orange County Gana Pam 1980 MP = Malibu/Santa Monica Piers 1980 These risk estimates are Interim values bared on available limited data. A more complete and current tisk assessment is planned by the California Department of Health Services. Risk values presented in the chart above represent the sum of upper -limit estimates of lifetime cancer risks from total PCBs and total DOT in white croaker. "Chemical data used to calculate risks were collected in 1980 and 1985. Risk is related to consumption of white croaker fillets at the rates shown over an average lifetime (70 -year period). PCBs and DDTs are classified by U.S. EPA as 'probable human carcinogens', since there a sufficient evidence of their cancer-causing potential from animal studies and inadequate evidence from human studies. One meal = 0.25 Ib = 114 g. 100 Figure 5-3. Upper -limit estimates of lifetime cancer risk from total DDTs plus total PCBs In white croaker. ONE IN TEN ONE INA HUNDRE ONE IN A THOUSAND ONE 1N 10 TNOUSANO' ONE INA HUNDRED ONE IN A THOUSAND ONE IN 10 THOUSAND ONE IN 100 THOUSAND ONE IN A MILLION Executive Summary MAXIMUM ADDITIONAL CANCER RISK FOR UFETIME CONSUMPTION OF PACIFIC BONITO 0.1 1 10 .CONSUMPTION RATE (MEALS/MONTH) Legend: WP = White Point 1980 C = Control -Orange County Dana Point 1980 These risk estimates are interim values based on available limited data. A more complete and current risk assessment is planned by the Callomia Department of Health Services. Risk values presented in the chart above represent the sum of upper -limit estimates of lifetime cancer risks from total PCBs and total DDT in bonito. Chemical data used to calculate risks were collected in 1980. Risk is related to consumption of bonito fillets at the rates shown over an average Iifetih» (70 -year period). A band is shown to represent Inc range of risks for White Point and the Control areas because contaminant levels among areas were not substantially different PCBs and DOTS are classified by U.S. EPA as 'probable human carcinogens', since there is sufficient evidence of their cancer-causing potential from animal studies and inadequate evidence from human studies. One meal= 0.25 Ib=1149. 100 Figure 5-4. Upper -limit estimates of lifetime cancer risk from total DDT plus total PCBs in Pacific bonito. PACK/DAY CIGARETTES (FIVE IN TEN RISK) 1..SIDESTREA1.4 CIGARETTE SMOKE •••••• ALCOHOL - LIGHT ORINKER ...-A,FREOUENT AIRLINE TRIPS (RADIATION) 1 MEAL/MONTH OF LAKE MICHIGAN TROUT (PCBs 19801 0.25 LB/MONTH PEANUT BUTTER (AFLATOXIN) • _1 MEAL/MONTH WHITE CROAKER FROM PALOS VERDES PENINSULA (TOTAL PCBS • GDT. 1080 • 19881 0.25 LB/WEEK CHARCOAL -BROILED STEAK (BENZO(E)PYRENE) �1 MEAL/MONTH BONITO FROM PALOS VERDES PENINSULA OR 'CONTROL ONE IN AREA (TOTAL PCBs • DDT. 1080) 100 THOUSANO� MEAL/MONTH ENGLISH SOLE FROM RURAL BAY. PUGET SOUND (PCBs) Y�1 MEAL/MONTH WHITE CROAKER FROM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 'CONTROL. AREA (TOTAL PCBs • DOT. 19801 ONE IN A MILLION 1 All risk estimates were taken from Wilson and Crouch (1987) except: peanut butter, English sole. trout, steak (Pestorok et al. 1986): sidestream cigarette smoke (Papanek 1988, pers. comm.); white croaker and bonito (present study). Average annual risk estimates from Wilson and Crouch (1987) were multiplied times the uncertainty factor given by the authors to Convert them to upper -limit estimates and by a factor of 70 yeas to convert them to lifetime risks Data were not available to calculate cancer risk estimates associated with swimming in Santa Monica Bay. Figure 5.5. Upper-Umit estimates of lifetime cancer risk for various activities. 33 State of the Bay MICROBIAL RISK ASSESSMENT Direct water -contact activities such as swimming, surfing, and skin -divine. and the consump- tion of raw shellfish, are the major routes for the transmission of infectious diseases to man via activities in the marine environment. The pathogens of most concern in the United States are those that derive from the fecal wastes of ill individuals and carriers. These pathogens reach marine waters via municipal wastewater discharges, bathers themselves, discharges from boats, stormwater runoff and sewage spills. Pathogens of greatest concern are the Norwalk -like viruses, most frequently identified with acute gastroenteritis, and the Hepatitis A virus. Historically, total and fecal coliforms have been used as indicators of sewage contamination. While they enumerate the presence of certain bacteria, they do not adequately predict the risk of illness. For microbial indicator systems to be truly effective, the indicator should be found consistently and relatively specific to human fecal wastes, and should survive through wastewater treatment processes and in marine waters in a manner comparable to that of the Norwalk -like viruses. No indicator systems currently satisfy both requirements, especially with regard to specificity for human fecal wastes. Of the microbial indicators studied by EPA in the 1970s, enterococcus levels in the water correlated best with the rates of swimming -associated acute gastroenteritis. This relationship was subsequently recommended by EPA as the revised marine recreational water quality criterion. California does not have a bacteriological body contact standard based on enterococ- cus criteria. PREVIOUS STUDIES Several studies of spatial and temporal trends in microbial indicators have been conducted in the vicinity of the Bay. While they do not qualify as risk assessments, they provide information on levels of microbial contamination in the study area. Between 1972 and 1982, total coliform counts at the shore near the JWPCP outfalls decreased at all stations except one, where high values were attributed to sea lions (Figure 5-9). This de- crease is attributed to improve- ments in treatment; however, a comparison between shoreline and nearshore stations over the 10 -year period suggests that the reduc- tion of onshore sources of the indicator may also be a factor. 34 Log Moan Most Probable Number 100_ Q, Coliform 10- 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 Year — 51 -a- 52 -.1.- SS ' 54 •+' 5S "' 56 57 Figure 5-9. Temporal trends in total coliform bacteria counts at Palos Verdes shoreline stations 1972-1982 (LACSD, unpubl. data). t Analysis of Monitoring Data Executive Summary Changes in discharge rate, outfall locations, and the level of treatment between 1947 to 1984 at the HTP were reflected in changes in shoreline coliform levels in Santa Monica Bay (see Figure 5-11 in Contamination section). Levels of total coliform bacteria decreased dramati- cally between 1947 and 1957 due to improved treatment and changes in the location of outfalls. Recent increases in coliform levels in northern parts of the Bay have been attributed to discharges from large storm drain systems; however, except in cases of sewer overflows, coliform counts in storm sewers cannot normally be attributed to human feces. An evaluation of coliform levels at shoreline stations in Santa Monica Bay between January 1985 and June 1987 found that levels increased dramatically during rainy periods. Coliform counts exceeded state standards on 22% of the wet days but only 4% of the dry days. Some of the highest levels were found near the Pico-Kenter storm drain in Santa Monica. There is no evidence in the indicator data collected by HTP or JWPCP that microbial pathogens from their outfalls reach shore at levels which produce an unacceptable risk of illness; however, data from JWPCP suggest that such levels are present at the outer periphery of the kelp beds on Palos Verdes Peninsula. Whether or not viruses reach the shore at levels which would result in measurable risks of swimming- or shellfish -related acute gastroenteritis is not known, since viruses probably survive longer than enteric bacteria in seawater. Measurements for F phage and C. perfringens levels would provide data which is more re- sponsive to this issue. Hyperion data clearly indicates that the enterococcus and coli- form indicator levels derive pri- marily from discharges from stormwater drains and creeks during wet as well as dry weather. The highest levels were associ- ated with rainfall events, but unusually high enterococcus levels were present on a number of occasions in the absence of re- ported rainfall. Dry weather enterococcus levels were found to be appreciably less than those considered acceptable under recent EPA guidelines (Figure 5-15). Very little data are available from which to evaluate the effective- ness of chlorination in reducing the risk of illness. There is recent data showing that the Norwalk virus and its simulant, the F phages, are highly resistant to Mean Probable Number/t00m1 e[ 2e e Enterococcus Dry Weather Marina del Rey 2/e 02 02 04 Cl 00 01 00 00 10 11 12 13 14 I0 10 IT SHORELINE STATIONS (S01 to S17) =o.Mll,. Mesa Zig 9019 P4,.00111. Mean Probable Number/100m1 Enterococcus 2001- f 110 001- Ia0 IN 00 O2 Marina del Rey 1 Wet Weather EPA recemllaneee Waist quality emotion (compare to Oeometrle mesa) Oa 04 00 00 0, OS 00 10 1 2 3 14 SHORELINE STATIONS (S01 to S1T) a.r.ur bier I=001e P.0.4•11119 Figure 5-15. Enterococcus levels (geometric means and 90th percentiles) at beach stations in Santa Monica Bay, August 1987 to March 1987 (HTP, unpubl. data). 35 State of the Bay wastewater chlorination. A comparison at JWPCP shoreline stations appears to indicate that chlorination does not affect enterococcus levels at beaches (standards were not exceeded in either case). Development of a Recreational Water Quality Standard The available data suggest that there is a minimal risk of swimming -associated illness from stormwater that contains no human fecal input. Considerably more data are needed since this is an important issue in Santa Monica Bay. There are pathogens (such as Salmonella) in lower animal fecal wastes which can infect man. Swimming -associated illness rates were predicted from the enterococcus levels at each of the shoreline stations. The predicted illness rates during both wet and dry weather undoubtedly overstate actual rates to the extent that enterococci in the discharges from storm drains derive largely or exclusively from non -human fecal sources. Thus, there is a critical need to obtain epidemiological data on the risk of illness associated with such discharges when the enterococcus levels are high, but when there are no inputs of human fecal wastes. Human fecal inputs to the drains should be identified and eliminated; minimizing sewage spills is also necessary. An interim, dry -weather standard of 25 to 30 enterococci/100 ml is suggested for Santa Monica Bay as the first step towards the development of a recreational water quality standard consistent with the recently published USEPA criterion. This standard is both attainable and more limiting than the EPA guideline, and it carries with it a predicted risk of swimming -associated acute gastroenteritis which is less than that accepted by the guideline. It should also serve as an impetus for the acquisition of much needed data. Data on enterococcus levels during dry weather months (May through September) will add to the existing database and should respond. to the question of intermittent contamination from storm drains during the dry season. The most crucial issue, during the wet season at least, is the source of high enterococcus levels which apparently derive from storm drains during rainfall and during "unexplained" events. 36 MANAGEMENT OF POINT SOURCES OF POLLUTION Management Assessment "Who is minding the Bay?" is a question often asked by the public as it has faced the bewildering array of laws, regulations, and governmental entities involved in "managing" Santa Monica Bay. With much attention focused on the problems of ocean pollution, the ability of this complex management framework to effectively address Bay resource and public health protection issues has become the focus of much debate and concern. The regulatory structure for management of California's oceans and bays is, indeed, complex. Numerous local, state and federal agencies have authority over various aspects of S anta Monica Bay management, as shown in Table 1. Agencies may also carry out a number of roles as they operate under different legislative mandates, as illustrated in Figure 1. Despite this complexity, the laws and the regulatory structures developed to implement them have significantly reduced the pollution problems of the Bay. However, gaps do exist. The Management Assessment describes the existing management framework and the mechanisms through which it operates, identifies deficiencies for its improvement, and proposes actions necessary to achieve focused and comprehensive management of the Bay. Wastewater discharges to Santa Monica Bay include both point and nonpoint sources which, either directly or indirectly, reach the waters of the Bay (Figure 2). Direct point sources are those sources of pollution, primarily sewage and industrial process wastewater, which are discharged directly into the into the Bay after treatment. Indirect point source dischargers are those industrial and commercial facilities which discharge into the sewer system "upstream" from a treatment plant (there are approximately 16,000 sewer hookup permits for this type of discharge that eventually lead to Santa Monica Bay), or which discharge directly into the storm drain system. Discharges from these latter sources become part of the nonpoint flow as they mix with other flows in the storm drain system. Because of their direct impact on ocean waters, point sources were the first targets of federal and state legislation aimed, at meeting water quality standards. The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and the California Ocean Plan are the primary mecha- nisms through which pollutant discharges are regulated in California. The CWA established minimum national water quality goals and created the National Pollutant Discharge Elimina- tion System (NPDES) permit system to regulate the quality of discharged waters (effluent). All point source dischargers, both direct and indirect, must obtain NPDES permits. Municipal and industrial stormwater runoff (previously considered a nonpoint source) will also be regulated under the NPDES system beginning in 1991. The CWA also established types of pollutants (Table 2-1) and categories of industries to be regulated. Pollutants regulated under the CWA are of three types -- conventional, toxic or priority, and non -conventional pollutants. Currently, 126 pollutants are included in the "priority" pollutant category. Although many additional toxic pollutants have been identified, they have not been officially added to the "priority list" because of resource contraints. 37 State of the Bay Point Sources Non -Point • Sources Natural Resources Public Health Federal EPA EPA Agencies Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Dept. of Transportation U.S. Coast Guard U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service Army Corps • of Engineers DOl-Minerals Management Service U.S. Food & Drug Administration NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service EPA EPA State State Water Agencies Resources Control Board LA. Regional Water Quality Control Board State Water Resources Control Board LA. Regional Water Quality Control Board Calif. Air Resources Board SCAQMD Calif. Dept. of Fish & Game Calif. Coastal Commission Calif. State Coastal Conservancy Calif. Dept of Health Services State Water Resources Control Board Calif. Dept. of Boating & Waterways Calif. State Lands Commission Local City of Los Agencies Angeles Co. Sanitation Districts of LA. County LA. Co. Dept of Public Works LA. Co. Dept. Health Services City of Los Angeles LA. County Agricultural Commission Local Cities SCAG L.A. County Dept of Beaches & Harbors City of Los Angeles Coastal Cities Bordering Santa Monica Bay L.A. Co. Dept. of Health Services LA. County Dept of Beaches & Harbors Table 1. Governmental Agencies Responsible for Various Aspects of Santa Monica Bay Management. 38 Executive Summary OPEN OCEAN 41( COASTAL WATERS 3-12 Nautical Miles (Contiguous Zone) and Beyond Shore to 3 Nautical Miles Stormdrairi System Sewage Disposal in Federal Waters 7-Mila Outfall Industrial Waste Disposal to• Storm Drains and Channels». - S -Milia Outfall /17\ Oil Platform' Waste Water Discharge RBUCWA Star[ law Industrial Pipelines Ship Discharge Sewage Disposal in State Waters Industrial! Waste Disposal intoSewernir _ .` Sewage Systems:.:... Treatment Plant' 4.1 Ocean Dumpsites CWA Clean Water Act EPA Environmental Protection Agency MPRSA Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works RB Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board • If a sewage treatment plant receives a 301(h) waiver on its discharge permit it is administered jointly by EPA and the Regional Board " Not currently in Santa Monica Bay Figure 1. Agencies and Laws by Jurisdiction 39 State of the Bay INDIRECT DISCHARGE o uo Household Wast. DIREGT:: QISCHARGE:::: NPOES F Flood Control Drainage System IndfistrIaVCa mmerclatWastv. Prent NEVES Permit Pone from from RB POTW 1) Sewer Sewer Oa - Sewage: Treatment Plant. Urban urban NPOES Permit Fluent( Runoff w from EPA OfRB Receiving Waters iter Monica Bay EPA Environmental Protection Agency NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System RB Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works Figure 2. Waste Water Discharge System. 40 Executive Summary Federal numerical "criteria,"which designate allowable concentrations in receiving waters, have been established for the priority pollutants, however translating these "ciiteria" into en- forceable standards requires additional research. Effluent limitations have been established in California for 21 or the 126 priority pollutants; they are listed in the California Ocean Plan. A National Pretreatment Program, designed to regulate pollutant discharges into sewage treatment systems, was also established under the CWA. The intent of the pretreatment program is to achieve a total reduction in discharges of priority pollutants from indirect dischargers roughly equivalent to that required by direct point source dischargers. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the primary Federal agency responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act. EPA has jurisdiction to issue discharge permits outside of State waters (beyond three nautical miles) and reviews permits issued within three miles. For special permit conditions (e.g. CWA Section 301(h)), EPA is the primary permitting authority but must receive the concurrence of the state. Types Of Pollutants Pollutants are classified in the Clean Water Act into three groups for purposes of regulation: Conventional Pollutants, which consist of: • Total Suspended Solids (TSS; material Which remains suspended in a waste after treatment); • Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD; a measure of the amount of oxygen consumed during degradation of waste); • pH (a measure of the acidity of a waste); • Fecal coliform bacteria; and • Oil and grease. 1 Toxic Pollutants, which include metals and organic chemicals. EPA currently lists a total of 126 toxic "priority" pollutants. Non -Conventional Pollutants, a "catch-all" category that can include any additional substance that may require regulation. The current Federal list includes nutrients such as total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and other substances such as chlorine, fluoride, and certain metals. Source OTA, Wastes in the Menne Environment 1987. Table 2-1. Types of Pollutants Regulated under the Clean Water Act. 41 State of the Bay The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) is the primary state agency responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act and the the state's Porter -Cologne Water Quality Act within state waters. The State Water Resources Control is also responsible for water quality regulation through its work in preparing and adopting the California Ocean Plan. Elements of the Ocean Plan are presented in Box B. Box B. The California Ocean Plan The California Ocean Plan establishes beneficial uses of ocean waters, water quality objectives, and effluent limitations for waste discharges to the ocean. Regional Boards have the option to establish more stringent water quality objectives and effluent quality requirements than those contained in the Ocean Plan. Beneficial uses to be protected include industrial water supply, recreation, esthetic enjoyment, navigation, and preservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and other marine resources or preserves. Water quality objectives are intended to ensure protection of beneficial uses and prevention of nuisance. They indude: • Bacteriological Standards, for body -contact and shellfish harvesting; • Physical Characteristics, including floatables, visible oil and grease, discoloration of the surface, the reduction of light penetration, and the rate of deposition of solid and inert materials on the bottom; • Chemical Characteristics, including dissolved oxygen, pH, dissolved sulfide in and near sedi- ments, concentration of substances in the sediments, organic materials in the sediments, and nutrient levels; • Biological Characteristics, that marine communities not be degraded, and that the taste, odor and color of fish or shellfish used for human consumption not be altered. Effluent quality requirements are also applied to waste discharges to the ocean and are contained in Tables A and B of the Ocean Plan. Table A limitations apply only to POTWs and to industrial dischargers for which effluent limitation guidelines have not been developed in the Clean Water Act. Table B applies to all dischargers. Table A limits concentrations of grease and oil, suspended solids, settleable solids, turbidity, pH, and toxicity concentration. Table B sets forth effluent limitations for: Arsenic Phenolic Compounds (non -chlorinated) Cadmium Chlorinated Phenolics Chromium Aldrin and Dieldrin Copper Chlordane and Related Compounds Lead DDT and derivatives Mercury Endrin Nickel HCH Silver PCB's Zinc Toxaphene Cyanide Radioactivity Total Chlorine Residual Toxicity Concentration Ammonia 42 MANAGEMENT OF NONPOINT SOURCES OF POLLUTION Executive Summary Local agencies also have responsibility for managing wastewater discharges. All are required to meet requirements set forth in their NPDES permits, to monitor their discharges for compliance with their permits, and to submit monthly reports to the Regional Board and the EPA. As operators of the two POTWs that discharge to the Bay, the City of Los Angeles and the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles also have "control authority" over the pretreatment program. They are responsible for ensuring that indirect industrial dischargers achieve and maintain compliance with pretreatment standards and requirements. Ocean dumping is regulated under the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). EPA has the primary responsibility for designation of ocean disposal sites; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has joint responsibility to ensure proper management and disposal at those sites. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates dredge and fill activities in nearshore waters and wetlands and is jointly implemented by EPA and the Corps. The primary deficiencies of the point source regulatory system center on the need to close regulatory gaps (incomplete regulation of toxic pollutants and certain industry groups), lack of comprehensive, Bay -wide management, and the need for effective enforcement. The assess- ment of the point source management framework is summarized in Table 7. Nonpoint sources of pollution have received more attention as more and better controls have been achieved over point sources, and as the relative contribution of nonpoint source problems has become recognized. Unlike point sources, nonpoint sources are diffuse in nature, and are therefore difficult to control and regulate. The regulatory and management structure for the control of nonpoint sources of pollution is not fully implemented. Addressing this issue will require a broad range of incremental efforts which encompass regulation and enforcement, public education and economic incentives. The general public has an important role in the control of nonpoint sources. Development of an education program directed to the public and industry, focused on proper disposal and waste reduction practices should be a crucial component of a comprehensive management strategy for control of nonpoint sources. Many governmental entities, from the federal to the local level, arc involved in the management of nonpoint sources of pollution. The roles and responsibilities of these agencies are summarized in Table 3. Deficiencies and gaps in the nonpoint source management framework are summarized in Table 7. Major nonpoint source issues to be resolved are the mechanisms for regulation and control of urban runoff and the need for new standards and indicators of health risk associated with storm drain runoff. 43 State of the Bay Agency Managing Nonpoint Sources of Pollution Roles U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Coast Guard U.S. Department of Transportation State Water Resources Control Board L A. Regional Water Quality Control Board Calif. Air Resources Board South Coast Air Quality Management District LA. Co. Department of Public Works LA. Co. Department of Health Services City of Los Angeles Local Cities Develops regulatory framework for issuance of NPDES permits for municipal and industrial stormwater discharges. Establishes national ambient air quality standards, standards for new stationary and motor vehicle sources. Establishes standards for oil and hazardous sub- stances discharges from boats into federal waters. Promulgates per- formance standards for marine sanitation devices. Enforces Clean Water Act prohibitions on discharges of oil, hazardous substances, and sanitary wastes from marine vessels. Establishes regulations for marine sanitation devices to meet federal performance standards. Develops, administers and enforces regulations to regulate marine pollution from ships, including plastics and garbage. Develops state-wide nonpoint source assessment and management report. Issues NPDES permits to indirect point source dischargers that discharge to the storm drain system. Oversees local air quality management districts and develops comprehensive State Implementation Plan. Regulates air pollution in the South Coast Air Basin emitted from stationary and non -vehicular sources. Operates and maintains County storm drain system. Maintains about 40 storm drain outlets to Santa Monica Bay. Conducts sampling in certain storm drain systems. Enforces hazardous waste disposal laws within the County. Monitors bacteriological concentrations near county storm drains. Can order beach closures and issue advisories when there is a health risk at swimming areas. Operates and maintains City storm drain system and outlets. Conducts sampling near certain beach and drain outlet locations. Developing a stormwater discharge control project pursuant to Consent Decree. Control land uses within city boundaries which may contribute to nonpoint sources of pollution. Some operate and maintain storm drain systems within city boundaries. Table 3. Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Agencies. 44 r r r r r i t L L THE NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Executive Summary The term "natural resources" refers to a variety of non -manmade components including: the animals and plants; the places or "habitats" where organisms reside; aesthetically pleasing areas; and the minerals or oil and gas that lie beneath the ocean. Natural resources are protected under a multitude of federal, state, and local regulations because they are irreplaceable, they are important to the overall ecosystem of the Bay, and they add to the quality of life for people today and for future generations. To manage natural resources, an institutional framework has evolved with three different and somethimes conflicting objectives: 1) to maintain, protect, and enhance the resources; 2) to provide the public with recreational opportunities to enjoy the resources; and 3) to manage the resources for commercial/industrial purposes. There are eleven primary federal, state, and local agencies with natural resources management responsibilities. Table 4 summarizes the duties, responsibilities, and legal authority for each agency. Natural resources management agencies must balance the pressures of encroaching coastal development and recreational activities with the goals of conserving and enhancing the Bay's natural resources. This "tug of war" coupled with narrowly focused legislative mandates has resulted in some duplication of efforts, deficiencies in achieving desired goals, and some misunderstandings between agencies and the public. These issues are summarized in Table 7. Responsible Agencies Natural Resources Management Major Duties and Responsibilities Major Legislative Mandates National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini- stration; National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Establishes programs to protect and conserve fishes, marine mammals and critical aquatic, estuarine, and marine habitats. Has advisory role in coastal development permit processes; conducts or supports research and education; promotes federal marine fisheries (both sport and commercial); provides fundingto develop state Coastal Zone Management Plans; advises Secretary of Commerce on establishing marine sanctuaries. Responsible for protecting and conserving fishes, wildlife, and critical habitats. Provides technical assistance regarding these resources; has advisory role in coastal development permit processes; conducts research on man's impact to fish and wildlife resources. Clean Water Act (CWA), Fish & Wildlife Coord. Act (FWCA), Nat'l Environ. Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), Marine Protection, Research & Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), Fishery Con- servation and Mgt. Act CWA, FWCA, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, NEPA, ESA, MMPA, MPRSA 45 State of the Bay Environmental Protection Agency Army Corps of Engineers Minerals Management Service California Department of Fish and Game California Coastal Commission California State Coastal Conservancy Designates sites for ocean disposal of non -hazardous dredged materials; coordi- nates emergency situations with U.S. Coast Guard, other Regional Response Team members for oil/hazardous releases to navigable waters; administers National Estuary Program. Issues permits for development in navigable 'waters; conducts planning and feasibility studies for shoreline protection, harbor development, and management of water resources. Regulates the exploration, development, and production of offshore minerals (i.e., fossil fuels) in federal waters. Responsible for managing and enhancing state fish and wildlife resources. Advises and provides information in coastal development permit processes; promotes the state's marine fisheries (both sport and commercial fishing activities). Regulates development in state coastal areas. Determines consistency between federal permits and California's Coastal Management Program. Responsible for preserving, enhancing and restoring coastal resources and addressing coastal resource issues that regulation alone cannot resolve. Provides information and public eduction on wetland preservation and restoration projects. California Department of Provides funding assistance, technical Boating and Waterways expertise, and educational instruction related to California boating activities. Acts as a state coordinator on beach management and erosion control programs. California State Lands Regulates the development of offshore Commission minerals (i.e., fossil fuels) in state waters. LA. County Department Provides lifeguard services and care of of Beaches and Harbors recreational facilities for most beach communities around the Bay. CWA, NEPA, ESA, MMPA, MPRSA CWA, NEPA, ESA, MMPA, Rivers and Harbors Act, Water Resources Develop- ment Act Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, NEPA, CWA, ESA, MMPA Calif. Fish and Game Code, FWCA, NEPA, CWA, ESA, Calif. Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Porter -Cologne Act, Calif. ESA, MMPA CZMA, Calif. Coastal Zone Conservation Act, CEQA, NEPA, Permit Streamlining Act, Submerged Lands Act (SLA) Public Resources Code, Calif. Coastal Zone Conservation Act Harbors and Navigation Code, CEQA SLA, Calif. Coastal Zone Conservation Act, CEQA LA. County Code/ Ordinance and Policy 1314 Table 4. Summary of Natural Resources Management Agencies and Their Roles. 46 THE PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTION SYSTEM Executive Summary The primary human health protection issues center on the adequacy of the current regulatory system to protect the public from risks associated with contaminated ocean waters. These risks may be associated with (1) the consumption of seafood that may be contaminated with toxic constituents or pathogens; and (2) from pathogens that may be present in waters where swimming or other water contact activities may occur. In addition, there is concern regarding the ability of the water• quality regulatory system to manage pollutant inputs in a manner adequately protective of human health. The responsibilities for the protection of public health associated with consumption of contaminated seafood from the Santa Monica Bay rest primarily with the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the California Department of Health Services (DHS). Primary responsibility for managing swimming -associated risks fall upon DHS and the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services. Through their roles in regulating pollutant inputs into the marine waters, the EPA and the State and Regional Boards are also responsible for protection of human health. The various roles and responsibilites of these agencies are summarized in Table 5. Agency Roles In Public Health Protection Agency Seafood Contsm/natibn Swimming Water Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Food and Drug Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Calif. Department of Health Services State Water Resources Control Board Advises FDA on development of action levels in food products. Establishes ambient marine water quality criteria Sets and enforces allowable levels of toxic substances in seafood products in interstate commerce. Establishes ambient marine water quality aitena. Primary federal agency authorized to inspect seafood harvested tor commercial use. Largety voluntary inspection program. Evaluates chemical contamination of food and associated public health impacts. Issued interim health advisories for consumption of certain sporttish from the Santa Monica Bay. Can quarantine environmentally contaminated seafoods introduced into commerce within the state. Establishes bacteriological standards for waters where shellfish are harvested. Establishes standards and criteria for regulation of wastewater discharges. LA. Co. Department Can remove contaminated products of Health Services from market shelves within the County. Sets bacteriological stan- dards and corrective action for ocean water contact at public beaches. Establishes bacteriological standards for ocean waters used for body -contact sports. Lead responsibility for health implications associated with hazardous material or sew- age releasee into Santa Monica Bay. Orders beach closures. issues advisories. when bacterial standards in surf zone are exceeded or when sewage contamination occurs. Table 5. Public Health Protection Agencies and Role& 47 State of the Bay The issue of greatest concern is the regulation of both recreationally- and commercially - harvested seafood. Commercial fishery restrictions limit catches of potentially contaminated species from most of Santa Monica Bay. However, on the Palos Verdes Shelf, where a large reservoir of DDT remains in sediment and where estimates of cancer risk from long-term consumption of white croaker are high, no restrictions on the commercial harvest of this species is in place. Lack of information on the source and destination of seafoods sold in the marketplace, and the continued use of FDA guidelines restrict the effectiveness of the currently system to protect the public from these risks. Current techniques for assessing the presence of viruses and pathogenic viruses in nearshore areas of Santa Monica Bay are also inadequate. Indicators currently used (total and fecal coliforms) may significantly underestimate or overstate the risk of illness. The bacteria enterococcus has been found to better correlate with illness (although this indicator may also overstate the risk of illness during rains), and a dry weather recreational water quality standard has been proposed for use on an interim basis. These and other public health system deficiencies are summarized in Table 7. IMPLEMENTATION OF MONITORING AND RESEARCH PROGRAMS Data collected in monitoring programs cover the physical, chemical, and biological aspects of the Bay's environment. Approximately 34 monitoring programs and a myriad of scientific studies are now underway in the Santa Monica Bay. Monitoring is conducted for a number of purposes including: to alert the public of immediate health hazards; to comply with NPDES permit requirements; and to understand what factors may influence the ecosystem. Table 6 lists the agencies and private entities that conduct monitoring programs, the type of monitoring performed, and the legal authority under which they operate. Seven major issues influence monitoring/research activities and constrain the development of effective management strategies and actions for improving the quality of Bay waters (Table 7). Better inter -agency coordination, effective use of monitoring data, and the need for cumulative analysis of the data in order to assess the overall environmental condition of the Bay and potential public health concerns, are the primary areas in which monitoring efforts can be improved. CONCLUSIONS Much has been accomplished since the passage of water quality legislation to improve the quality of coastal waters in California, including Santa Monica Bay. Improved regulatory mechanisms have contributed toward reducing pollutant inputs, and public concern for protection and enhancement of coastal resources have led to improvement in management practices. However, much is left to be accomplished. Concerns about toxic constituents in wastewaters, impacts of urban runoff, and health risk issues are only beginning to be addressed. In addition, population and economic growth will continue to make attainment of Bay ecosystem and public health protection objectives more difficult to achieve. Future efforts will need to focus on a comprehensive approach to management of Santa Monica Bay. 48 f Executive Summary Current Monitoring Activities Organizations Legal Mandates NP DES Compliance Monitoring of Point Source Discharges Industrial Pretreatment City of Los Angeles, Dept.of Public ' Works, Bureau of Sanitation County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County City of Los Angeles, Dept. of Water and Power Southern Calfornia Edison Company Chevron U.S.A. City of Los Angeles, Dept. of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Urban & Stormwater Runoff Los Angeles County Dept. of Public Works Public Health Biological Conservation, Restoration, and Enhancement City of Los Angeles, Dept. of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner City of Santa Monica Los Angeles County Dept of Health Services Los Angeles County Dept. of Beaches and Harbors Los Angeles County West Mosquito Abatement District U.S. Food & Drug Administration National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA/NMFS Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game Clean Water Act Porter -Cologne Act California Ocean Plan California Thermal Plan EPA Pretreatment Program and Local Ordinance EPA Pretreatment Program and Local Ordinance No legal mandate No legal mandate Calif. Agricultural Code No legal mandate Calif. Health and Safety Code Local ordinance Local ordinance Federal Food & Drug Act No legal mandate Natl.Ocean Pollution Planning Act, MMPA, CWA Calif. Fish & Game Code Table 6. Summary of Current Monitoring Programs in the Santa Monica Bay Study Area. 49 State of the Bay Assessment of the Management Framework (Deficiencies, Gaps, Overlaps) • Regulation.of PointSourcess. Municipal and Industrial Discharges • A comprehensive approach to the management of Bay water quality is necessary. • Discharge standards have not been developed for all toxic pollutants that may be present in municipal and industrial wastewaters. • Standards do not address contamination of sediments with toxic pollutants. • NPDES permits for POTW's do not address non-priority pollutants or priority pollutants for which standards have not been established. • Current regulation of wastewater effluent does not incorporate mass emission limitations. Industrial Pretreatment Programs, Indirect Point Sources Discharge standards have not been developed for all toxic pollutants and all industries that may contribute to contamination of the Bay. • NPDES and pretreatment programs have only limited ability to address discharges of ' non-priority pollutants. • Lack of standards limit the ability of pretreatment programs to regulate discharges of priority pollutants into municipal systems. • Penalties for permit noncompliance are inadequate. • Facilities that have not applied for pretreatment permits may not have been identified. • Funding for enforcement activities has been limited. Nonpoint Source:Managemefi . Urban Runoff • Discharge of urban runoff to the ocean is not fully regulated. • Stormwater system management agencies do not have the authority to directly Influence • discharges into drainage systems. • Beach closures near storm drains are based upon standards that may not be the best measures of health risk. Aerial Fallout • Atmospheric deposition of pollutants on the ocean and in the watershed is not directly regulated nor well studied. Boating Activities • The impact of nonpoint source discharges from ocean -related sources are not well understood and may be difficult to regulate. Table 7. Summary of Management Framework Assessment. 50 Executive Summary Natural Resources Management,: Biological Resources Protection/Enhancement • Comprehensive management of the Bays biological resources is needed. • Natural resource managers do not have direct control over protecting biota from chronic water pollution. • Efforts to restore and enhance degraded marine and wetland environments has been limited and sporadic. • Enforcement actions for small spills and illegal ocean dumping are not consistently administered. • Some overlap of roles occur between federal and state fishery agencies. Commercial/industrial Opportunities • Resource management agencies have limited ability to dose commercial fishing areas. Recreational Opportunities • Public education on resource management has been limited. • Most Local Coastal Programs in the Bay area have not been approved. Public Health Protection* Regulation of Commercial Seafood Products • Restrictions on the commercial harvest of fish/shellfish species from known contaminated areas is inadequate. • Standards upon which enforcement actions can be taken against chemically contaminated fisheries products are limited. • Inspection of commercial seafood products is limited. Health Risks Associated with Consumption of Sportfish • There are no standards for toxics in sportfish. Use of national standards may be Inadequate to protect local recreational or subsistence fishermen. • There is no on-going, mandated program to address health risks associated with consumption of chemically contaminated sportfish. • Effectiveness of signs and warnings in limiting consumption of potentially contaminated sportfish is not known. Swimming Associated Health Risks • Current bacteriological standards may not be adequate indicators of health risk at bathing beaches. • There are no recreational water quality standards for toxic constituents. Table 7. Continued. 51 State of the Bay Regulating Pollutant inputs • The incorporation of standards for toxics in wastewater has been hindered by lack of information regarding human health effects of most chemicals. Environmental Monitoring -and Research Activities-.. Compliance Monitoring • • The results of compliance monitoring activities have not been effectively utilized for comprehen- sive Bay management. • Discharger self-monitoring programs should be strengthened with effective enforcement. Research Issues • Additional research is needed to better Zink management objectives and monitoring programs. • Standardization of sampling methodologies and determination of appropriate quality assurance/ quality control protocols are necessary to ensure the quality of monitoring and research activities being conducted. Comprehensive Approach • The results of on-going monitoring activities have not been utilized to meet comprehensive Bay management objectives. • Some monitoring programs have not been conducted or have been limited in scope because of gaps in regulations. • More inter -agency coordination of monitoring activities is needed. • • An integrated information network would be useful for comprehensive analysis of Bay condi- tions. • Better public outreach on Bay -related research and monitoring activities is necessary. Table 7. Continued. 52 Recommendations The protection and enhancement of Santa Monica Bay will require that a large variety of actions be implemented by many responsible parties. Since the purpose of the "State of the Bay" report was to identify "what" types of actions are necessary, the recommendations establish directions for action rather than specify the details of their implementation. Through both the Scientific and Management Assessments of the "State of the Bay," gaps and deficiencies have been identified, and actions necessary for improvement have been proposed. The primary focus of recommendations is the need to develop a comprehensive approach to management of Santa Monica Bay. Comprehensive, integrated decision-making will require the development of management goals and strategies, implementation of actions, and continu- ous assessment and feedback of results. Incorporating these elements into planning efforts for the Bay will be crucial to the success of this process. Key objectives of the recommendations are to: • Develop comprehensive Bay management programs and strategies, and a com- prehensive plan to guide long-term implementation of actions; • Focus comprehensive planning efforts on public health issues; • Close regulatory gaps; • Improve enforcement of existing regulations; • Establish inter -agency coordination mechanisms that promote comprehensive Bay management and cost-effective use of resources; • Promote public participation in Bay management and decision-making processes; and • Comprehensively assess and report on the condition of the Bay to the public and to public policy -makers on a regular basis. Establishment of the National Estuary Program (NEP) for Santa Monica Bay should provide the necessary vehicle for addressing and resolving many of the technical and management issues identified in the "State of the Bay" reports. The findings and conclusions of this effort provide the NEP Management Conference with a solid foundation for actions to improve the condition and management of the Bay. The transition process is schematically presented in Figure 7-2. Continuation of the partnership and shared commitment established through the Santa Monica Bay Project, will be critical for successful achievement of Bay restoration and protection goals. 53 State of the Bay Santa Monica Bay Project • i Findings and Action Recommendations I National Estuary Program i Further Study I LEarly Action Figure 7-2. Action Flow Chart THE DATA GAPS Although the Santa Monica Bay and environs is one of the most studied marine environments in the Southern California Bight, a great deal remains to be learned about its physical, chemical, and biological features. Expanding our knowledge about the sources and impacts of contami- nation upon the Bay ecosystem and on human health will improve our ability to make better decisions on Bay management issues. The specific details of proposed study efforts are discussed in the Recommendations chapter of the Part One report. Although several studies are currently underway that address some of the information gaps, additional needs were identified. Sources and Distribution of Chemical Contaminants The levels and sources of contaminant inputs from nonpoint sources, such as urban runoff and aerial fallout, are not well known. • The mechanisms by which contaminants are transported within and from outside the study area are poorly quantified. • The quantities and distribution of "non-traditional" contaminants (e.g. chlordane, TBT; PAHs, and dioxin), especially at sites not covered by point source monitoring programs, are not well known. 54 Impacts on Human Health Impacts on the Ecosystem yz RECOMMENDED ACTIONS AND STUDIES Feasibility Studies Executive Summary • Levels of contamination, and market destination, of commercially -caught fish and shellfish (especially from the Palos Verdes Shelf area). • Long-term chemical contaminant trends for all sport fish species. • Potential health risks of chlordane contamination. • The distribution and survivability of viral pathogens in wastewater effluents. • The relationship between the rate of swimming -associated illness and increased enterococcus levels from stormdrain runoff, in the absence of human fecal inputs. The sources of elevated coliform and enterococcus levels near storm drains following rainfall and "unexplained" events. Most of the demonstrable impacts to the marine biota of the study area are associated with contaminated sediments or are the result of direct habitat destruction. Documented impacts from pollution to other elements of the ecosystem have been difficult to establish.' Impacts of other human activities are also not well understood. These include: • The role of Ballona Wetlands and Lagoon as a nursery for California halibut in Santa Monica Bay. • The impact of commercial fishing (especially gill -netting) on the abundance of sport fish in the Bay. Two issues of central importance to the contamination of Santa Monica Bay will require feasibility studies. Feasibility studies are recommended because resolution of issues will be complex and will require the proposal of a number of actions that are beyond the scope of this study. • Assess the likelihood that contaminated sediments (particularly in the vicinity of the JWPCP outfalls) will be re -exposed; evaluate alternative methods and costs of addressing this problem. • Based on the findings of current stormwater runoff studies, assess the feasibility of a demonstration storm drain management program for Santa Monica Bay. 55 State of the Bay Comprehensive Monitoring Develop a comprehensive monitoring program for all contaminant inputs of concern in the Bay. • Supplement on-going storm drain monitoring programs so that they are more compre- hensive. All major drains into the Bay should be monitored, emphasizing pollutants of concern, such as DDT, PCBs, PAHs, and trace metals. • Conduct additional field and monitoring studies of water circulation and sediment transport (and thus contaminant transport) within and from outside the Bay. • Conduct baseline surveys on chemical contamination (e.g. chlordane, TBT, PAHs, and dioxin) throughout the Bay. • Locate monitoring stations throughout the study area, in areas not currently covered by point source monitoring programs. • Evaluate the need for a study of aerial fallout inputs into the Bay. . Seafood Contamination • Utilize data from the California DHS study to assess relative health risk of seafood consumption by location and species in the Bay. • Survey contaminant concentrations and market destinations for key seafoods. • Design and implement a long-term monitoring program to assess contaminant trends in fish and shellfish from the Bay. Evaluate results using risk assessment approaches. • Evaluate risks of chemical contamination in storm drains, chlordane contamination, and neonatal effects of PCBs. Microbial Risk Issues • Establish a uniform, area -wide bacteriological monitoring program between Point Dume and Point Fermin, using the present Hyperion program as a prototype. • ,\ • Expand wastewater monitoring programs to include measurements of enterococci, F phage, and Clostridium perfringens. • Conduct a routine monitoring program in the major storm drains to determine if human fecal wastes enter these drains other than during sewage spills. Conduct sanitary surveys to identify and eliminate sources of contaminants, especially those of human fecal origin. • Measure biological decay values for bacterial and viral indicators in the study area. • Identify appropriate beaches and conditions to conduct a bathing -beach epidemiologi- cal study when enterococcus levels are high due to storm water and there is no source of human fecal waste. This should be undertaken as the first step toward establishing new standards or modifying existing or proposed standards. 56 Ecosystem Impacts MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK RECOMMENDATIONS Close Regulatory Gaps Executive Summary • With the agreement of state officials, replace the use of total and fecal coliform measures with enterococcus, F male -specific bacteriophages (simulant of the Norwalk viruses), and Clostridium perfringens (a conservative tracer) measures. • Until an epidemiological database and an improved indicator system are available, continue the current practice of issuing health advisories concerning swimming at beaches near storm drains after rainfall. Restore the Ballona wetland as proposed by the National Audubon Society and consider purchasing additional degraded land for restoration. Assess the feasibility and results of restoring tidal circulation to Ballona Lagoon. • Continue to install and monitor artificial reefs in the Bay. • Evaluate the impact of local commercial fishing (especially gill -netting) on sport fisheries in the Bay. Consider additional restrictions if impacts appear large. Many regulatory and institutional measure are also necessary to implement comprehensive Bay objectives. They include the following actions: • Take actions necessary to control the commercial harvest of white croaker off of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. • Update FDA action levels for all pollutants of concern that are found in fish and shellfish in the Santa Monica Bay. • Establish an on-going program to address health risks associated with consumption of seafoods from the Santa Monica Bay. • Develop wastewater effluent limitations based on mass emissions of pollutants. • Develop a strategy for implementing sediment objectives. • Develop water quality objectives for all toxic pollutants that contribute to contamina- tion of the Bay but are not currently regulated. High priority should be given to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), tributyltin (TBT), and other EPA priority pollutants of concern in the Santa Monica Bay. • Implement effluent toxicity testing (bioassays) as protocols are established. 57 State of the Bay Improve Enforcement • . Increase funding for enforcement activities of regulatory agencies. Focus additional enforcement effort on indirect industrial point source dischargers to sewer and storm drain systems. • Provide additional resources to ensure better regulation of commercial fish catches. Monitor and evaluate contaminant concentrations in commercial seafood products from Santa Monica Bay on a regular basis. Inter -Agency Coordination • Establish an inter-agency/discharger task force to coordinate implementation of standardized discharger monitoring and reporting procedures. • Develop inter -agency coordination mechanisms to better integrate public health and natural resource protection activities into the framework for water quality regulation. Include greater participation by public health agencies in update and development of Ocean Plan standards and in review of major NPDES permits. • Establish a network of contact persons among agencies to coordinate public informa- tion activities associated with regulatory activities, public health issues and pollution incidents. • Develop a mechanism to better coordinate activities of natural resource management agencies. Promote Public Participation • Publish a "Report Card" on the condition of the Bay on a regular (annual/bi-annual) basis. • Develop a comprehensive public information and education program that emphasizes public health protection and waste reduction issues for the general public and for industry. 58 • 144bil:› ft 40. 1 11) tififintiNtor'..1 • r r r This document is the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of the two -volume "STATE OF THE BAY" report. PART ONE: ASSESSMENT OF CONDITIONS AND POLLUTION IMPACTS Prepared by MBC Applied Environmental Sciences PART TWO: ASSESSMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK Prepared By Southern California Association of Governments January 31, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council RECOMMENDATION City Council Meeting of February 14, 1989 KIWANIS CLUB OF HERMOSA BEACH CHRISTMAS TREE LOT REPORT It is recommended the City Council receive and file this report and forward the request of the Kiwanis for next year's event to the Park, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission for action. BACKGROUND The attached Council report of October 11, 1988 reflects Council's action for permitting the Kiwanis Club use of the Community Center's front lawn for the purpose of selling Christmas trees. At that time the Council also requested a wrap up report from staff once the project was completed. ANALYSIS It appears for all concerned, the project sponsored by the Kiwansis Club was a success. The main area of concern for staff was`the electrical hookup. We have always experienced electrical problems at the Community Center. This added to the problem. However the problem is being reviewed by the Public Works Dept. and hopefully some of these problems will be mitigated in the future. Other than that one area, the project ran smoothly from the City's point of view. Kiwanis' contribution to the Foundation is a glowing example of the cooperative spirit that is a part of that organization. Concur: ,> Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager 1 Respectfully submitted, Alana Mastrian-Handman Director Dept. of Community Resources KIWANIS CLUB OF HERMOSA BEACH HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA 1-27-89 City of Hermosa Beach Civil Center Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Alana: Enclosed is a financal break down of the christmas tree lot sale and a day by day count of inventory and sales by unit. For a first time event this fund raiser went very smothly, with the one excpetion of the electrical system at the Community Center. The System is old and needs to be re -wired, not only for our event, but any other event in the future. We would like the City to conceder this event for next year. But we would lite to move the lot from the triangle on the front lawn of the community center to directly east, across the sidewalk, the most Southest part of the lawn. We will present the $1,000. to the Community Center Foundation at the February 14th Council meeting. Thank you for all your help! Sincerely, Cary -J. Bichlmeier 7 X() (5)c 6 Zll /Ode) . o0 cz /a2.....; .: Az /3 %2//5- ix a ..7es ity-e5 Aze.64,11xlvie) 44/27(1,-0-' 3 /nes. October 5, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting o of the City Council October 11, 1988 KIWANIS CHRISTMAS TREE SALE REQUEST RECOMMENDATION The Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission recommends City Council approves the request from the Hermosa Beach Kiwanis Club to conduct a Christmas Tree sale on the south lawn of the Community Center. BACKGROUND The Kiwanis Club brought forth a request for this sale to the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission at their Sept. 28th meeting. Kiwanis projects to occupy the site from November 21, 1988 through January 1, 1989. The sale will be a fundraiser for the Kiwanis Club and will also benefit Community Center Foundation's Air Conditioning Fund. (The Kiwanis Club has agreed to donate $1,000 or 10% of their net profits, whichever is higher, to the Foundation's Air Conditioning Fund.) ANALYSIS The Commission agreed that the project should be approved on a one year trial basis subject to the following conditions: The location of the trees shall be the southern most triangle of the front lawn of the Community Center (abutting llth Place); The area can be fenced in and lighted; Temporary signs can be installed on the front lawn directly in front of the trees and between the marquee and the designated site; Kiwanis will assume all costs for restoring the area back to its original state, with the Public Works Department approving all work; this may include other areas as the sprinkler system will have to be turned off in that particular area but it will affect other areas as well; said work to be completed by January 15, 1989; • Kiwanis will be allowed to have a camper on llth Place for 24 hour security purposes. Any lost revenue from the meters will be borne by the Kiwanis Club; • Kiwanis will pay to the City any other costs incurred by the City with regard to this project; 1 Kiwanis may occupy the site from November 21, 1988 through January 1, 1989; • Riwan sww l.1 prov de' 3n"surance ;, The approval will be for one year only with a review immediately following. Concur: even B. ort ,% raft City Manager 2 Res•e mitted, Mary C Dept. of Director mmunity Resources ,K February 6, 1989 Honorable Mayor City Council meeting and Members of City Council of February 14, 1989 RESOLUTION CONCURRING WITH THE L.A. COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, concurring with the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (CoHWMP). BACKGROUND The draft CoHWMP was circulated for public review from January 6, 1988 to April 21, 1988. The City Council, at their meeting of March 22, 1988, directed staff to review the plan and provide appropriate comments to the county. As reported to the City Council on May 24, 1988, the draft CoHWMP was reviewed by ap- propriate department heads with the consensus that the plan cre- ated no adverse impacts on the City of Hermosa Beach. ANALYSIS The executive summary of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan attached to this report provides information regarding the content and background of preparing the CoHWMP. Staff has reviewed the final CoHWMP and concurs with the assess- ment provided for the draft document, that the plan creates no adverse impacts for the City of Hermosa Beach. State law re- quires that the CoHWMP must be approved by a majority of the cit- ies, which contain a majority of the population of the incorpo- rated area of the county. Cities are required to approve or re- ject the CoHWMP within 90 days of receipt from the county. Our deadline for such action is February 22, 1989. Assuming the CoHWMP is approved as indicated above, it will be forwarded to the State Department of Health Services (SDOHS) for final approval. Within 180 days of SDOHS approval, cities are required to take one of the following actions: a. Incorporate applicable portions of the final CoHWMP, by reference, into the City's General Plan; or b. Adopt a city hazardous waste plan which is consistent with the CoHWMP and containing all the elements required 1r by Section 25135.1(d) of the State Health and Safety Code; or c. Enact an ordinance which requires that all applicable zoning, subdivision, conditional use permit, and variance decisions are consistent with the portions of the final CoHWMP which identify general areas or siting criteria for off-site hazardous waste management facilities. Staff believes that option (a) and/or option (c) would be the appropriate mechanism for city implementation of the CoHWMP. A letter was received (see attached) from the City of Paramount urging approval of the plan but denial of the map which iden- tifies potential hazardous waste treatment sites. Staff does not feel that this action is necessary due to local control over per- mitting hazardous waste treatment sites; however the resolution as proposed does not adopt the map and indicates that it is for illustrative purposes only. A copy of the complete CoHWMP consisting of the Plan (Volume I), Technical Supplement (Volume II), and Appendix (Volume III and IV) as well as the CoHWMP's final E.I.R. certified by the Board of Supervisors is available for review in the office of the city clerk. Concur: Respectfully submitted, William Grove Director, Bldg. & Safety Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 89 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA CONCURRING WITH THE COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, Section 25135.1(b) of the California Health and Safety Code authorizes the County of Los Angeles to adopt a county hazardous waste management plan pursuant to guidelines adopted by the State Department of Health Services; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles elected to prepare a Hazardous Waste Management Plan on March 10, 1987; and,. WHEREAS, the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan was circulated for public review from January 6, 1988 to April 21, 1988; and, WHEREAS, the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan establishes siting criteria for development of needed off-site hazardous waste management facilities or expansion of existing facilities; and, WHEREAS, the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan includes a map identifying general geographical areas within the cities and unincorporated area where the siting criteria might be applied and could potentially be suitable for off-site facilities (except residual repositories). This map is for illustrative purposes only and may be used as a tool to designate lands to accomodate the siting of off-site hazardous waste management facilities; and, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, all the comments received through public meetings/hearings and from the cities within the Country, various public agencies, environmental groups, industry/manufacturing groups and interested parties were reviewed and the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan was completed under the guidance of the County Hazardous Waste Management Advisory Committee; and, WHEREAS, the County Hazardous Management Plan is subject to the approval by the majority of the cities within the incorporated area of the County; and, WHEREAS, the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan was submitted to the City of Hermosa Beach for approval; and, Now, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach approves the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of February, 1989. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY PRESIDENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL and MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA ENCLOSURE A LOS ANGELES COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Los Angeles County generates approximately 9.4 million tons of hazardous waste annually. Of this amount, approximately 93 percent is managed on-site with the remaining sent off-site for treatment and disposal. In 1986, approximately 616,000 tons of hazardous waste were generated in Los Angeles County and manifested for off-site management. Nearly half of these wastes were generated in the southern portion of the Coastal Plain (i.e., south of Artesia Freeway). However, with no Class I or Class II hazardous waste disposal facilities and inadequate treatment capacity in Los Angeles County, much of the waste is shipped outside of the County for land disposal. With the State and Federal laws prohibiting direct land disposal of untreated hazardous waste by May 8, 1990, uncertainties inherent in the current hazardous waste management system leave the County in a precarious situation. Prudent management must be exercised to assure the protection of public health, the environment, and the economy. Comprehensive planning is therefore needed to address all factors ranging from health to economics. It is the intent of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (CoHWMP) to achieve a multi -faceted, balanced, and effective system of hazardous waste management on a Countywide basis providing protection to the citizens and their environment. As such, on March 10, 1987, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (Board) elected to prepare the CoHWMP in lieu of a Hazardous Waste Element of the County Solid Waste Management Plan. The Board's position is that an independent CoHWMP could better provide for basic framework for the proper management of hazardous waste in the County. On May 27, 1987, the Board established the County Hazardous Waste Management Advisory Committee (CoHWMAC) to assist the Board, County staff, and the cities in preparation and administration of the CoHWMP. The Committee includes distinguished representatives from private industry, various State, regional and local governments, and public interest groups such -1- Enclosure A as the League of Women Voters and the Sierra Club, as well as mayors and council members from the Cities of Agoura Hills, Commerce, Duarte, Los Angeles, Redondo Beach, Santa Monica, and West Covina. The last seven members were appointed by the City Selection Committee to represent the cities in the Los Angeles County. With this direction from the Board, the CoHWMP was prepared by the staff of the Department of Public Works (DPW) under the auspices of the CoHWMAC. The CoHWMP was prepared pursuant to Chapter 1504 of the 1986 State Statutes, as amended, and in accordance with the State Department of Health Services' (SDOHS) Guidelines, dated June 30, 1987. The draft CoHWMP and its draft EIR were submitted to the cities during the first week of January 1988 and last week of March 1988, respectively. The draft documents were also submitted to the State Clearinghouse, SDOHS, Southern California Hazardous Waste Management Authority, various other public agencies, industry/manufacturing groups and other interested parties. The DPW, also under the guidance of the CoHWMAC, conducted nine public hearings during the months of March and April 1988, to solicit further input/comments on both documents. All comments received on the draft CoHWMP were reviewed and incorporated in the final CoHWMP as determined appropriate by the CoHWMAC. Comments provided on the draft EIR are included and responded to in the final EIR. The final CoHWMP (dated September 1988) consists of four volumes - the Plan (Volume I), Technical Supplement (Volume II), and Appendix (Volume III and IV). As mandated by law, the CoHWMP describes and defines existing conditions, projects future wastestreams and needed off-site hazardous waste management facilities, and recommends action programs on a Countywide basis. In addition, legislation is recommended to implement and fund certain programs. The Plan is intended to encourage and facilitate the establishment of needed hazardous waste programs and facilities by the private sector. Waste minimization is the primary goal in the Plan. However, since additional off- site hazardous waste management facilities will also be needed, the CoHWMP includes siting criteria for such needed off-site facilities and identifies -2- Enclosure A general geographical areas within the cities and the County unincorporated area where the siting criteria might be applied and suitable sites found. The siting criteria, combined with the process for public involvement included in the CoHWMP, may be the most significant aspects in facilitating the siting of off-site facilities by the private sector. Because of the Board's clear commitment and strong support since 1984 to solving the hazardous waste problem in this County, the CoHWMP also provides for the County to assure the development of needed off-site facilities if the private sector fails to meet the need. Included in the recommended action programs are efforts to assist small businesses in waste minimization, development of an improved Countywide data base, development of economic incentives to improve hazardous waste management practices, improved enforcement programs, and implementation of a Countywide household hazardous waste program from the pilot program already initiated by the Board. As previously mentioned, the CoHWMP consists of four volumes. The Technical Supplement and Appendix (Parts I and II) contain background information from which the Plan was developed. The Technical Supplement (Volume II) consists of thirteen chapters as listed below. Each Chapter addresses a separate issue associated with hazardous waste. Specifically: o Chapter 1 presents the major statutory laws and regulations governing the management of hazardous waste in California. o Chapter 2 consists of current available data on hazardous waste quantities, types, and sources. • Chapter 3 identifies and presents an overview of the existing, planned, and proposed off-site hazardous waste management facilities in Los Angeles County. -3- Enclosure A o Chapter 4 is an overview of new and proven technologies designed to treat and reduce quantities of hazardous waste. o Chapter 5 evaluates available off-site capacity for treatment and disposal as well as projects future management needs of the County. o Chapter 6 presents the permitting process, the siting criteria for off-site facilities as well as County's efforts in this endeavor. Also included is a map identifying general geographical areas in the cities and the County unincorporated area where the siting criteria might be applied and could be potentially suitable for new off-site hazardous waste management facilities (except residuals repository) and expansion of existing ones. Chapter 6 also identifies areas previously studied by the County as potential sites for residuals repositories. At this time, it has been concluded that there is no apparent area potentially suitable and economically feasible for a residuals repository in the County. Nevertheless, it should be noted that residuals repository has not been eliminated from consideration and the County will continue its efforts to assure that hazardous waste treatment residuals are properly managed. o Chapter 7 discusses the various methods by which hazardous waste can be minimized and includes current and proposed efforts by the private industries and public agencies on implementation of waste minimization programs in the cities and the County. o Chapter 8 presents an overview of current regulations governing the transportation of hazardous waste and establishes routing criteria. o Chapter 9 delineates provisions to facilitate public education and full public participation in the decision-making process on hazardous waste management issues. It also describes the County's efforts to ensure public involvement during the preparation of the CoHWMP. Enclosure A • Chapter 10 identifies the responsibilities of Federal, State, County, and local governments with respect to their roles in response to a hazardous waste/material incident. o Chapter 11 discusses inactive hazardous waste sites and contaminated sites. o Chapter 12 presents the regulations, management problems, and solutions associated with small quantity hazardous waste generators. o Chapter 13 discusses the household hazardous wastes and the impacts associated with the improper disposal of consumer products. As mentioned previously, the CoHWMP also establishes siting criteria for development of off-site hazardous waste management facilities and designates general geographic areas within the cities and County unincorporated area where the siting criteria might be applicable. The CoHWMP recommends that storage, transfer, recycling, and treatment/incineration facilities be located in manufacturing and/or industrial areas where the waste is produced; that is, as close to the areas of generation as possible. A residuals repository (land storage facility for residuals left from treatment) that can meet Federal, State, and local requirements may be located at some distant area from urbanized zones. County is to pursue its efforts to site a residuals repository in the unincorporated areas and/or enter into an agreement with neighboring counties for development of such a facility. It should be noted that local variations in siting criteria will be allowed by the SDOHS provided that the local criteria are: a. Within the scope of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process; b. Currently applied to the land use permits for other types of facilities within the County; -5- Enclosure A c. Demonstrated to be nonexclusionary for the County as a whole; and d. Stated with adequate flexibility for modifications to account for specific circumstances, design, type or waste facility, and waste. Additionally, Section 25135.7(d) of the State Health and Safety Code (Chapter 1167 of the State Statutes of 1987, SB 477, Greene) provides authority to a city to attach appropriate conditions to the issuance of any land use approval for a hazardous waste management facility in order to protect public health, safety, or welfare and does not limit the authority of a city to establish more stringent planning requirements or siting criteria than those specified in the CoHWMP. The siting criteria are intended to assist the proponent, the local community, and the local land use authority in making informed decisions. General geographic areas are tentatively identified within cities and the unincorporated areas where such criteria might be applied and could be potentially suitable for new off-site hazardous waste management facilities and expansion of existing ones (except residuals repository). The map, however, is only for illustrative purposes and may, but is not required to, be used by the cities/County as a tool to designate lands to accommodate the siting of off-site facilities. The Plan does not identify any specific sites, but emphasizes that the criteria should be considered minimum standards that must be met. At this time, the CoHWMP is being submitted to the cities for approval prior to its being adopted by the Board. The CoHWMP must be approved by a majority of the cities which contain a majority of the population of the incorporated area of the County. Cities are required to approve or reject the CoHWMP within 90 days of its receipt from the County. State law also provides that if a city does not take action within that time period, the city will have been deemed to have approved the CoHWMP. The anticipated date for the submittal of CoHWMP to the SDOHS for their approval is March 1, 1989. -6- Enclosure A State law further requires that within 180 days of the SDOHS' approval, the County must either incorporate applicable portions of the CoHWMP, by reference, into the County's General Plan or enact an ordinance which requires that all applicable zoning, subdivision, conditional use permit, and variance decisions are consistent with the portions of the final CoHWMP which identify specific sites or siting criteria for off-site hazardous waste management facilities, The County anticipates that the CoHWMP will be incorporated into the County's General Plan by reference. State law also requires that within the same 180 -day period stated above, the cities are to take one of the following actions: a. Incorporate applicable portions of the final CoHWMP, by reference, into the City's General Plan; or b. Adopt a city hazardous waste plan which is consistent with the CoHWMP and containing all the elements required by Section 25135.1(d) of the State Health and Safety Code; or c. Enact an ordinance which requires that all applicable zoning, subdivision, conditional use permit, and variance decisions are consistent with the portions of the final CoHWMP which identify general areas or siting criteria for off-site hazardous waste management facilities. MMM:sh(2)/ENC-A -7- ENCLOSURE B SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO THE DRAFT LOS ANGELES COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN (CoHWMP) The following provides a brief summary of changes to the Draft CoHWMP which has been incorporated into the final CoHWMP dated September 1988. The revisions are made based on comments on the Draft CoHWMP provided by the State Department of Health Services (SDOHS), cities, industrial/manufacturing groups, environmental groups, special interest groups, homeowners associations and various private and governmental agencies and private citizens. A. Volume I, Plan The Volume has been revised to expand/modify Plan's recommendations, implementation schedule, and further describe the purpose of Figure 1 which identifies potential hazardous waste management facility sites (except residuals repository) in the County. The recommendations have also been revised to address comments from the cities as well as financial means for implementation of these recommendations. B. Volume II, Technical Supplement 1. Chapter 1 This Chapter was expanded to include pertinent State legislation enacted in 1988. Also, minor editorial changes have been made. 2. Chapters 2, 3, 5, and 11 Data presented in these Chapters have been updated to include the latest information available. The format has also been modified toaddress comments by the SDOHS. Specifically in Chapter 5, the needs for various types of off-site facilities have been revised based on updated cdata from Chapters 2 and 3. -2 - Enclosure B Furthermore, the need for future off-site facilities for the planning period does not incorporate impacts of waste minimization pursuant to SDOHS' mandate. The former Figure 5-9 and the section discussing the purpose of the map have been moved to Chapter 6. The figure was revised and renumbered as Figure 6-1. 3. Chapters 4, 8, and 9 Changes in these Chapters are mostly of editorial nature. Chapter 9 has been expanded to provide a detailed discussion of the efforts expended in raising public awareness and inviting them to participate in the decision-making process on the preparation and review of the CoHWMP. 4. Chapter 6 This Chapter has been revised to include the following changes. The changes are presented in the order of importance: ° Figure 6-1 (formerly 5-9) has been changed to incorporate comments from the cities. This map identified general geographical areas in the cities and the County unincorporated area where the siting criteria might be applied and could be potentially suitable for new off-site hazardous waste management facilities (except residuals repository) and expansion of existing ones. ° This map previously was to be adopted as a part of the cities' and the County's General Plans. However, based on the consensus reached with the SDOHS, this map is only for illustrative purposes and may, but is not required to, be used by the cities/County as a tool to designate land for future zoning to accommodate the siting of off-site facilities. -3 - Enclosure B • Figure 6-2. This map has been added to identify selected land use data to assist in the evaluation of potential off-site hazaradous waste management facilities as stipulated by the SDOHS in their comment letter of May 3, 1988. • Figure 6-3. This map has been added to show those areas which were previously considered by the County for residuals repositories and found to be geologically not suitable and/or economically not feasible for such facilities. o A detailed description and methodology have been provided to discuss the efforts utilized in preparation of Figure 1 and its equivalent, Figure 6-1 (larger size). • A detailed description has been added to illustrate the County's efforts in locating a site for residuals repository in the County. The County will continue its efforts in assuring that hazardous waste treatment residuals are appropriately managed. o Siting Criteria, Appendix 6A has been reviewed per SDOHS' comments. Also, Appendix 60 was added to provide background information source for the maps (see Section C). 5. Chapter 7 This Chapter has been expanded to include the current efforts by the private industries and public agencies on implementation of waste minimization programs in the County. Also included is a plan for development and implementation of a Countywide waste minimization program by the County. 6. Chapter 10 This Chapter has been updated to include the latest information on emergency response. -4- 7. Chapter 12 Enclosure B This Chapter has been modified to exclude discussion on household hazardous waste. In its revised form, this Chapter only discusses small quantity generators. 8. Chapter 13 This Chapter has been added to provide and discuss issues involving household hazardous waste. The discussion was previously provided in Chapter 12 of the draft CoHWMP. C. Volumes III and IV, Appendix (Parts I and II, respectively) 1. Appendices 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 3A, 4A, 4B, 6B, 7C, 108, 10C, 11B, 11C, 11D These Appendices have been updated to include the latest data as well as incorporating some editorial changes. 2. Appendix 6A Siting Criteria, Appendix 6A has been revised to incorporate comments on the Draft CoHWMP by the SDOHS, dated May 3, 1988. Pursuant to the SDOHS comments, a few elements of the criteria have been deleted and/or revised on the basis that they were already an integral part of the permitting process and, as such, must be addressed prior to issuance of any Hazardous Waste Management Facility Permit. Appendix 6A has also been revised to allow variation to the siting criteria by the local jurisdiction where the facility is located. Pursuant to Chapter 1167 of the 1987 State Statutes, the CoHWMP does not limit the authority of a city to establish more stringent planning requirements or siting criteria than those specified in the CoHWMP. Enclosure B -5 - 3. The following Appendices have been added to provide substantiating information for the Plan and Technical Supplement: o Appendix 6D County/City Zoning/General Maps Appendix 6D has been added to list cities/County zoning maps and/or general/plan maps used in preparation of Figures 1 and 6-1. o Appendix 7B Used Oil Collection Centers o Appendix 9A Listing of Letters Mailed to Each City Concerning the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (CoHWMP) o Appendix 9B Listing of Presentations and Public Hearings on the Draft County Hazadous Waste Management Plan and Environmental Impact Report o Appendix 9C Examples of Aired Messages, News Releases, and Official Notis o Appendix 9D Hazardous Waste Fact Sheets o Appendix 9E Public Comments Received on the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan o Appendix 9F State Department of Health Services Comments on the Draft Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan o Appendix 11E Local Ordinance and/or Existing Land Use Restrictions on Contaminated Sites in Los Angeles County o Appendix 11F Site Reporting Form Information on Contaminated Sites 4. Appendix 13A The information in the former Appendix 12C has been updated and renumbered as Appendix 13A. 5. Appendix 13B The information in the former Appendix 12D has been updated and renumbered as Appendix 13B. WOW All -America City 11111, CITY OF PARAMOUNT February 1, 1989 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Hermona Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 RECEIVED FEB 0 21989 C i , //f_ l" V / / CHARLES R. WELDON Mayor !l HENRY H.- RKEMA Vice Mayor ESTHER C. CALDWELL, Ed. D. Councilmember MANUEL E. GU!LLEN Councilmember GERALD A. MULROONEY Councilmember Dear Mayor and City Council: Re: Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan The Paramount City Council recently reviewed the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (CoHWMP) and strongly urges you to approve the plan but deny approval of the map which identifies areas which could potentially serve as off-site hazardous waste management facilities locations. While we endorse the CoHWMP and the principle of treating waste near its point of generation, we recommend that you deny the map for the following reasons: 1) The County Hazardous Waste Management Plan already includes criteria which must be evaluated in locating hazardous waste management facilities. A map designating areas which potentially meet these criteria is unnecessary. Additionally, we feel it is highly unlikely that the areas designated on the map even meet the evaluation criteria in the CoHWMP since the method of designating these areas was unscientific and superficial; 2) Additional time and analysis is needed to fully evaluate these designated areas. It is entirely likely that there are much more suitable locations for these facilities that are not designated on the map or that the "general areas" designated on the map can be better defined and reduced in size; 3) The southeast and central portions of Los Angeles County have been identified to bear a seemingly disproportionate share of these types of facilities. Your efforts as a local councilmember to attract high technology, "clean" businesses and development over the past year, could be permanently sidetracked well into the next century; and 16400 Colorado Avenue • Paramount. California 90723-5091 • (213) 531-3503 Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan February 1, 1989; Page 2 4) Each municipality should have the right to adopt its own map of potential off-site hazardous waste management facilities which is consistent with its own local Hazardous Waste Management Plan and, the County Plan. There is no need to endorse this map at this time! As you may be aware, if your city does not take action on the CoHWMP within ninety (90) days from the date you received it from the County, under law it will automatically be assumed that you have approved the plan, and the map, which may have far reaching consequences for your community. Denying the map, now, will provide us with better planning for tomorrow. It will also provide us more flexibility and control over this issue but still allows us to stay within the framework of benefiting all residents of Los Angeles County. Even if we deny the map now and our subsequent analyses determine that the designated areas are appropriate for these types of facilities, we can always adopt a map designating the same areas as the County's map, but it will be as part of our local Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Once again, my City Council colleagues and I strongly urge you to deny the map of potential off-site hazardous waste management facilities but to approve the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Thank you for your time and consideration. CITY OF PARAMOUNT Charles R. Weldon, Mayor cc City Manager CITY OF PARAMOUNT THOMAS A. TIDEMANSON, Director CECIL E. BUGH, Chief Deputy Director MAS NAGAMI, Assistant Director November 23, 1988 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Mr. Kevin Northcraft City Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-029 Dear Mr. Northcraft: 900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331 Telephone: (818) 458-5100 APPROVAL OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO: P.O. BOX 1460 ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460 IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO FILE: W V 2ij9g8 City Mgr.. ()ince WM-2 We are pleased to submit the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (CoHWMP) for approval by your City. State law provides that a city must either approve or disapprove the CoHWMP within 90 days of its receipt from the County. If a city does not take action within that time period, the city is deemed to have approved the CoHWMP. The CoHWMP was prepared by the County Department of Public Works under the guidance of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Advisory Committee (CoHWMAC) which included representatives from the cities, environmental groups, private industry and public officials. Your City also had the opportunity to assist in the preparation of the CoHWMP through your representatives from the City Selection Committee, public meetings and workshops as well as through input provided by City Contact Persons. Copies of the draft CoHWMP and its draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were transmitted to your City by letters dated January 6, 1988 and March 28, 1988, respectively, for review and comment. In addition, the County Department of Public Works conducted nine public hearings to solicit further input/comments on both documents and made presentations at various City Council meetings/hearings. All comments received from the cities, public, governmental agencies, industry/ manufacturing groups and other interested parties were reviewed by the CoHWMAC and incorporated into the proposed final CoHWMP where appropriate. In addition to the CoHWMP, the following are also submitted for your information: ° Enclosure "A" - "Executive Summary", provides a brief summary of the process involved in the preparation of the CoHWMP as well as its major features. 0 Enclosure "B" - Provides a summary.of the changes made to the draft CoHWMP. Mr. Kevin Northcraft -2- November 23, 1988 o Enclosure "C" - Sample "Resolution Concurring with the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan". This sample resolution may be of use in preparing your City's resolution in approving the CoHWMP. State law does not authorize cities to include qualifying conditions in approving the CoHWMP. • A copy of the CoHWMP's final EIR certified by the Board of Supervisors. Approval of the CoHWMP does not constitute authorization for the development of any off-site hazardous waste management facility. Each individual project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations as well as meet the minimum siting criteria stipulated in the CoHWMP. Approval of the CoHWMP also does not limit the authority of a city to establish more stringent planning requirements or siting criteria than those specified in the CoHWMP. The CoHWMP includes a map for illustrative purposes, which may but is not required to, be used by the cities as a tool to designate lands to accommodate the siting of off-site hazardous waste management facilities (except for residuals repositories). Cities also have the option to adopt this map. If such an adoption is made, the concurring resolution should be revised accordingly. Please advise this office one week in advance of the consideration of this matter by your City Council. Upon your request, staff from this Department will be available to attend the Council Meeting to answer any questions which the Council members may have. Your cooperation in expediting your City's formal action on the CoHWMP and promptly returning the concurring resolution to this office will be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Kenneth Kvammen, Assistant Deputy Director, at (818) 458-3500, or Mr. Mike Mohajer, Project Manager, at (818) 458-3561. tr .1 T. A. TIDEMANSON Director of Public Works MMM:sh(roster)/CITY Enc. cc: City Clerk City Contact Person February 1, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 14, 1989 ACCEPT WORK AS COMPLETE - BICYCLE PATH REPAIRS, CIP 87-165 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Accept as complete CIP 87-165, Bicycle Path Repairs 2. Authorize staff to: a) Release the 10% retention payment to Neff Contracting Corporation, less $1,387 in credits and deductions. b) Release Neff Contracting Corporation from the Faithful Performance Bond and the Labor and Materials Bond. 3. Authorize staff to file a Notice of Completion Background: On May 10, 1988 City Council awarded a contract to Neff Contracting Corporation in an amount not to exceed $13,178. On August 23, 1988, City Council increased the not to exceed amount to $18,374. The work involved removing and replacing deteriorated portions of existing concrete wall adjacent to the bicycle path on the west side of Hermosa Avenue from 35th Street to 29th Court. Analysis: This section is divided as follows: 1. Construction A. Built According to Plans & Specifications B. Final Contract Cost C. Project Delayed D. Project Deficiencies E. Liquidated Damages F. Notice of Completion G. Release of Bond 2. Fiscal Impact - 1 - 1 t 1. Construction 1A. Built According to Plans and Specifications Staff inspected the work and found it to substantially comply with the plans, specifications and change orders as prepared by the Public Works Department. 1B. Final Contract Cost Below is a summary of the final project cost: 573.5 lineal feet at $20.00 per foot Change Order #1 (remove and replace reinforcement bar) Adjusted Contract Amount Deductions: Credit Barricade Rental Final Contract Cost $11,470 3,300 $14,770 (1,147) ( 240) $13,383 Currently, no payments have been made to Neff Contracting Corporation. 1C. Project Delayed The start date of the Notice to Proceed was June 27, 1988. Forty-five calendar days were allowed for construction. Change orders, stop orders and negotiations all added time to the project. The contractor made good progress after the change order was executed and substantially completed the project on September 27, 1988. 1D. Project Deficiencies Even though the work complied with the structural specifications, the finished appearance of the wall is substandard. Some of the new sections have undulations on the west face and top and an uneven texture. The contractor agreed to do his best to correct these deficiencies by grinding and sand blasting. After the contractor had exhausted these corrective measures, the appearance had improved but was still substandard. A credit of $1,147 was agreed upon by Neff Contracting Corporation and staff. Therefore, this amount will be deducted from the retention payment. 1E. Liquidated Damages There are no liquidated damages on this project. The project was completed within the contract time.. $240 will be deducted from the City's payment to the contractor for barricades which were rented by the Public Works Department to protect the public. 1F. Notice of Completion Staff will file a Notice of Completion with the County of Los Angeles upon acceptance of this work as complete by City Council. 1G. Release of Bond Pending City Council authorization, and after the Notice of Completion is recorded, staff will release Neff Contracting Corporation from the obligation of the following Faithful Performance Bond and Labor and Materials Bond: Bonding Company: Insurance Company of the West P.O. Box 85563 San Diego, CA 92138-5563 Original Bond Amount: Amount to be released: Bond No: $11,980 $11,980 30 40 08 2. Fiscal Impact The project was completed $8,291 under budget. Below is a funding distribution of expenditures under this contract. Funding Source Fund Amount State Gas Tax, TDA Expenditure To Date Balance FY 86-87 $4,897 $4,897 $-0- FY 87-88 4,869 4,869 -0- FY 88-89 5,196 3,617 1,579 General Fund * 3,412 -0- 3,412 Total $18,374 $13,383 $4,991 * Designation for Capital Improvements, City Council action May 10, 1988. Alternatives: Another alternative considered by staff and available to City Council is: 1. Do not accept project as complete. Respectfully Submitted, Brian Gengler Assistant Engineer Concur: evin Northcraft City Manager Attachment: Project Budget Update Schedule ty/awacbpr Concur: Jai Alla :uv ./.tt- Anny An is Director of Publ. c Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator CIP 87-165 MISC. BIKEWAY CONSTRUCTION BUDGET SCHEDULE Col 1 24 -Aug -88 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Col 5 Col 6 Col 7 EXPENDED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED PROJECT PROJECT ELEMENTS EXPENDED BUDGET THRU EXPENDED BALANCE BUDGET COST FY86-87 FY87-88 2/29/88 6/30/88 6/30/88 FY88-89 TO DATE I I I I I PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING 0 0 PLANS, SPECS & ESTIMATES 0 0 CONSTRUCTION 13178 0 0 13178 977 977 a. Reappropiation FY88-89 * 13178 13178 b. 8/23/88 budget approp. 5196 5196 INSPECTION 0 0 • OTHER DIRECT COSTS 0 0 SUBTOTAL 0 13178 CONTINGENCY 0 0 0 0 0 13178 * 19351 19351 0 0 0 0 . TOTAL EXPENDITURE 0 13178 0 0 13178 * 19351 19351 EXPENDED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED PROJECT FUND FUNDING SOURCES EXPENDED BUDGET THRU EXPENDED BALANCE BUDGET COST NUM FY86-87 FY87-88 2/29/88 6/30/88 6/30/88 FY88-89 TO DATE I I I _ I I I I I I 001 GENERAL FUND 0 0 Designation for capital 0 0 improvements,CC 5-10-88 3412 3412 * 3412 3412 105 STREET LIGHTING FUND • 0- 0 110 PARKING FUND 0 0 115 STATE GAS TAX FUND 0 0 TDA Art.3(SB821)FY86-87 4897 0 4897 * -4897 4897 TDA Art.3(S8821)FY87-88 4869 0 4869 * 5846 5846 TDA Art.3(56821)FY88 89 0 5196 5196 120 COUNTY GAS TAX FUND 0 0 125 PARK FAC TAX FUND 0 0 130 GENERAL REVENUE SHARING 0 0 150 GRANT FUND 0 0 Federal Aid Urban 0 0 160 SEWER FUND 0 - 0 UNFUNDED 0 0 TOTAL FUNDING 0 13178 ZERO CHECK 0 0 0 0 * JULY 26, 1988 CITY COUNCIL REAPPROPIATION FY88-89 $13,178 S3,412 GENERAL DESIGNATION FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $4,897 STATE GAS TAX FUND TDA FY86-87 S4,869 STATE GAS TAX FUND TDA FY87-88 ON AUGUST 23, 1988 CITY COUNCIL APPROPIATED $5,196 ($5,196 STATE GAS TAX FUND TDA FY88-89) 0 13178 * 19351 19351 0 0 0 0 CONSTh,.. ION SCHEDULE PROJECT NAME : Riryc1P Path RPpairc ('TP R7_1fi5 ACCOUNT NUMBER : 1 1 1 1 LEGEND TENTATIVE SCHEDULE : miummiseim ACTUAL SCHEDULE : X : 10096 COMPLETE TASKS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1 1 1 1 1 1 2/23 /88Final design approval before advertising for construction Prepare advertisement & set bid opening date Advertising period (issue addendums as necessary) Accept sealed bids & public bid opening Review bids 5/10/88 Award contract Sign contract (bonds,insurance & workers comp. cert.) Preconstruction meeting procedure 6/2/88 Issue "Notice to Proceed" Construction Period Monitor progress & maintain records Progress payment and change order procedure 7/26/88 Acceptance of work as complete Issusing and recording a "Notice of Completion" Retention Payment Project close out 1 111 1 11 111 1 111111 I I 1111 ma I 1 I I 1 1111 la 11 1 1 111//11111 1 1 11111 1111 1 1 1If11I111111 1111111111111 1 1 CONFIDENTI, L% MATERIAL MOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Anthony Antich, Director of Public Works FROM: Brian Gengler, Assistant Engineer l5 SUBJECT: Bicycle Path Repairs, CIP 87-165 DATE: December 21, 1988 On December 20, 1988 I met with Elliott Neff, Jr. of Neff Contracting Corporation to negotiate a credit for this project. The final project sum due to the contractor suggested by me and acceptable to the contractor was as follows: Original Contract Amount 573.5 ft. @ $20.00/ft Change Order #1 Adjusted Contract Amount $11,470 3,300 $14,770 Credit <1,147> Barricade Rental <240> Total Amount Due Contractor $13,383 On December 21, 1988 I spoke with a Mr. Edward Hallman, representing Insurance Company of the West, the Surety Company holding Bond No. 30 40 08 for this project. Mr. Hallman stated that if the City does not accept the work and requires removal and replacement of the new concrete curb that the surety company could fulfill the obligations of the performance bond. However, Mr. Hallman also stated that if the City does not require removal and replacement of the new concrete curb but decides to accept the work with a credit from the contractor the surety company could not pay the credit. He suggested in this case the City should negotiate a credit with the contractor. cc: Neff Contracting Corporation, Attention: Elliott Neff, Jr. P.O. Box 550, Atwood, CA 92807 Insurance company of the West, Attention: Edward Hallman 17852 East 17th Street, Suite 110, Tustin, CA 92681 CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL kkal.FORP.1)LICU. To: Anthony Antich, Director of Public Works From: Brian Gengler, Assistant Engineer bh Subject: Bicycle Path Repairs, CIP 87-165 Liquidated Damages Date: January 12, 1988 • Below is an estimate of liquidated damages for the above -referenced project: City's Position Start Date 6/27/88 Original contract completion date 8/11/88 Days added by change orders 14 Adjusted contract completion date 8/25/88 Date of substantial completion 9/27/88 Days exceeding adjusted contract completion date 33 Liquidated damages @ $100/day $3,300 ESTIMATE OF ACTUAL DAMAGES INCURRED: 1. Additional staff time due to late completion Project Manager 12 hrs @ $21 / hr. = $252 Clerical 5 hrs @ $15 / hr. = 75 2. Barricade rental 240 $467 Attached is a copy of the contract section referring to liquidated damages. Also attached is a summary of contract costs. To: Anthony Antich, Director of Public Works From: Brian Gengler, Assistant Engineer Subject: Bicyle Path Repairs, CIP 87-165 Date: January 18, 1989 On January 18, 1989 I spoke on the telephone with Edward Hallman representing Insurance Company of the West (714-730-8421) the surety company holding Bond No. 30 40 08 for Neff Contracting Corporation. I asked Mr. Hallman what options the City had if the City did not accept the work as complete and the City wanted the surety company to either provide compensation through payment or by performing the work. Below is a summary of Mr. Hallman's comments. 1. The City should discuss the matter with the City Attorney. 2.. The City should describe how the contractor did not perform to the terms of the contract. 3. The City first should file a claim with Insurance Company of the West. 4. Insurance Company of the West would then put Neff Contracting on notice to perform the work required to satisfy the situation. 5. Insurance Company of the West would not pay the City any money. 6. Insurance Company of the West would only assure that the work was performed up to the amount of the bond ($11,980). If additional money were required to perform work beyond that amount then Insurance Company of the West would not pay the additional money. February 7, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City Council Meeting of February 14, 1989 HISTORICAL SOCIETY REPORT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council receive and file this report. BACKGROUND At the City Council Meeting of October 11, 1988 the City Council approved the lease agreement for the Historical Society for space in the Community Center. The Council at that time also requested the Historical Society to report back to the Council with a report indicating how the Society plans on becoming self-supporting. That report is attached. ANALYSIS At that October Council Meeting the Historical Society offered to make their room available to civic groups for meetings. The Society has followed through on that commitment. While the revenue generated to the City from this is minuscule, approximately $150 to date, the idea is sound. The revenue is low due to the lack of requests for those meeting rooms at night for this fiscal year. Last year the figure would have been much greater. Tnere is no way to predict this. The Historical Society has been approached to help the Commission in its efforts to renovate the Old Prospect School. As this takes shape, the Historical Society will be at the forefront of this project and will be providing a great service to the City. Respectfully submitted, a&lee.4-33e‘if:10164440... Alana Mastrian-Handman Director Dept. of Community Resources Concur: -79 Kevin B. Nortncraft City Manager TO: Hermosa Beach City Council FROM: Rick Learned, President Hermosa Beach Historical Society SUBJECT: Status of the Hermosa Beach Historical Society Background In October 1986 the City Council appointed a committee to persue the formation of an historical society. In November the committee requested and was granted a lease on space in the Community Center. In March 1987 the Hermosa Beach Historical Society was incorporated as a non-profit corporation and plans were underway for the city's 80th Anniversary. In September 1987 we opened Room 7 as a historical museum. Activities since inception Specific activities carried on by the Society since inception have included the following: Assisted the Chamber of Commerce in planning an "oldtimers" reunion luncheon which honored many former city officials and longtime residents. Coordinated and planned a Parade and activities celebrating the 80th anniversary of the incorporation of the city. Produced and published a 16 page special edition of the Hermosa Beach Review, and distributed over 5000 copies to the citizens of Hermosa Beach. Provided photos, artifacts and assisted in the production of two 30 minute Talk of the Town shows on channel 10. Also helped Los Angeles station KHJ-TV in the preparation of a public interest segment on local history. Collected, cataloged and reproduced over 100 photos of Hermosa Beach which are now on display in the Community Center. Current Activities Our Annual Meeting and historic home tour is scheduled for March 18. We are assisting the Chamber of Commerce in planning an anniversary luncheon honoring some of the older businesses in the city (including Vasek Polak). Room 7 is now available as a meeting room for other non-profi organizations. This arrangement offers the benefit of making other space available for revenue producing users and giving our historical displays more visability in the community. We have been asked by the Department of Community Resources to assist in the evaluation of the Prospect View School site as an historic resource. Federal grant money may be available for renovation and preservation. During the coming year we hope to provide input during the preparation of the Master Plan for Parks and Recreation. Status Currently -the Historical Society has 287 paid members. As of December 31 the society had $9205 in cash reserves.The Society has budgeted $2000 for display cases and security cabinets to protect our artifacts. During the past year the Historical Society has been negoti- ating with a publisher to produce a photo history of Hermosa Beach. We had anticipated spending $5000 on the first phase of this project when the publisher withdrew from the negotiations. We are still hopeful that a book project can be accomplished, but less certain about the timing. We have been conservative about spending our reserves and consequently have not budgeted funds for the payment of rent. Our three neighboring cities of Torrance, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach have supported their Historical Societies by providing rent free facilities on city owned land in return for the community benefits provided by their historical societies. It is our desire to be responsive to the needs of the city and we hope that in the long term to provide a benefit to the community far in excess of the rental value of the space provided by the city. I will be available at the council meeting to answer any questions or receive any input you may have regarding our mutual interest in the history of Hermosa Beach. February 7, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of February 14, 1989 STATUS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION RELATIONS RESOLUTION (EEOR) RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council instruct staff to proceed with implementation of an Employer -Employee Organization Rela- tions Resolution (EEOR), and reaffirm its opposition to binding interest arbitration on both legal and philosophical grounds. BACKGROUND: On December 19, 1988, the City Council held a joint meeting with the Civil Service Board. One of the issues discussed at that meeting was the status of the proposed EEOR that had been submit- ted to the City Council from the Civil Service Board. Chronology: November 19, 1986 - Civil Service Board finalized a draft of the proposed EEOR for submittal to the City Council. The proposed EEOR contained a procedure for referring an impasse in the "meet and confer" process to binding arbitration following mandatory mediation and optional fact-finding. December 16, 1986 - The draft of the EEOR was submitted to the City Council. The City Council set the matter for a hearing at the meeting of January 13, 1987 and directed the City Attorney to prepare an analysis of the legality of submitting Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) contract disputes at impasse to binding arbitration. January 13, 1987 - The City Council held a hearing on the pro- posed EEOR. The City Council also received a memorandum from the City Attorney regarding the issue of a city submitting an impasse in contract negotiations to binding arbitration. The City Attor- ney's memorandum is attached. January 27, 1987 - The City Council directed staff to amend the impasse procedures of the submitted EEOR to have issues at im- passe submitted to the City Council following optional mediation. March 31, 1987 - Staff commenced meetings with the employee or- ganizations regarding the proposed EEOR. These meetings con- tinued through May, 1987. Those organizations continued to request other mandatory procedures for resolving issues at im- passe, these procedures included factfinding and mandatory media- tion. Finally, the employee organizations requested that the City obtain an Attorney General's opinion regarding the City At- torney's memorandum in regards to Bagley v. Manhattan Beach and the issue of binding arbitration. No further meetings were held. 1 w ANALYSIS: An EEOR resolution is intended to provide a basis for the labor relations process under Chapter 10, Division 4, Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California, specifically sections 3500 et seq. (commonly referred to as the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MBA). Among the processes addressed in the EEOR resolution are pro- cedures for: 1. The filing of a recognition petition by an employee organization. 2. The City's response to a "Recognition Petition" filed. 3. Decertification of a recognized employee organization. 4. Determining appropriate bargaining units. 5. Modifications of established units. 6. Appeals to unit determinations. 7. Impasse procedures. At the current time, in the absence of an Employer -Employee Or- ganization Relations Resolution, there is no established pro- cedure for these processes. In the case of contract negotiations with employee organizations, if an impasse were reached, the City Council takes such action as it deems appropriate to resolve the dispute. It is staff's contention that this proposed EEOR resolutionis not intended to instill any benefit upon the employee organiza- tions which was not negotiatied for (i.e. arbitration, factfind- ing, etc.) but, rather, to provide a more orderly process for implementation of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. If the City Council reaffirms its direction to staff to proceed with implementation of an EEOR resolution, the employee organiza- tions will be notified and a hearing will be scheduled before the City Council in April. Respectfully submitted, '-r✓ifs •��.��-• •�-'.1�_�� Robert A. Blackwood Concur: Kevin B. North raft Personnel Director City Manager CITY MANAGER COMMENT: It appears that progress on the EEOR was stopped due to questions as to the legality of binding interest arbitration. If the Council concurs with staff that binding arbitration is unacceptable on the philosophical ground that it removes the elected body from a signi- ficant governmental decision, then the question of legality is moot. The January 27, 1987 Council direction to have impasse submitted to the Council following optional mediation is appropriate; approval of this recommendation reaffirms that direction. Law Offices of James P. Lough JAMES P. LOUGH January 7, 1987 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM 1605 WEST OLYMPIC BLVD. SUITE 9018 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90015 (213) 381-6131 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 13, 1987 TO: Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Bagley v. Manhattan Beach This memorandum is in response to the council's request for an opinion regarding the impact of Bagley v. Manhattan Beach, 18 Cal 3rd 22, 132 Cal Rptr 668 (1976), on the employee relations process within the city. The essential rule of the case can be stated as follows: When the Legislature has made clear its intent that one public body or official is to exer- cise a specified discretionary power, the power is in the nature of a public trust and may not be exercised by others in absence of statutory authorization... Although standards might be established governing the fixing of compensation and the city council might dele- gate functions relating to the application of those standards, the ultimate act of applying the standards and of fixing compensation is legislative in character, invoking the discre- tion of the council... Moreover, the Meyers- Milias-Brown Act provides for negotiation and permits the local agency and the employee organization to agree to mediation but not to fact-finding or binding arbitration. (Government Code, Sections 3505, 3505.2...) (18 Cal 3d at 24-26.) This case arose out of the request to put on the ballot an initiative measure which would require the City Council of Manhattan Beach to refer to binding arbitration all wage dis- putes and disputes dealing with the terms and conditions of employment if an impasse is reached between the city council and the employee group. When the city refused to place the matter on the ballot, the matter was taken to court and the city prevailed at the trial court level. The case went to the California Supreme Court where the Supreme Court affirmed the decision by a 5 to 2 vote. 13/SR0113A -1- REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 13, 1987 TO: Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Bagley v. Manhattan Beach The dissent argued that the people should be able to make decisions regarding how the City of Manhattan Beach resolves its disputes with its employees. Since the issuance of this opinion in 1976, the proposition that a city may not delegate its power to a third party arbitrator has not been changed. While this office cannot predict future results of the Supreme Court, it is safe to assume that a more conservative Supreme Court, which may emerge, would be inclined to uphold the Bagley decision if the same or similar facts were presented to it again. NOTED: GRE RY YER, City Manager JPLrgrr Enclosure cc: Hannon, Park & Lennon (with enclosure) Respectfully submitted, 13/SR0113A -2- S P. LOUGH, y Atto ney TY OF HERMOSA BEACH February 8, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 14, 1989 City Council Meeting of 1987-88 DRAFT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the 1987-88 draft financial statements. BACKGROUND A draft statement is being presented at this time. The City Treasurer and I requested that Grant Thornton include a review of the certificates of participation (including investment of proceeds, etc.) for Plaza Hermosa (Haagen Development) in the audit process. After the initial auditor review, it appears that the City may need to include in its financial statements, a section on the Parking Authority with information about the Authority's role in the issuance of the COP's even though there is no obligation on the City's or the Authority's part. Since statements from the trustee have never been sent to the City and they will not be available until the end of February at the earliest, staff decided the draft statement should be presented now. The information in the statement will not change - if necessary, disclosures and statements for the Authority will just be added. Except for this matter, the audit was complete and would have been presented in December. ANALYSIS In general, the picture presented by the 1987-88 financial statement is a good one. Since the General Fund is the main operating fund, the analysis will focus on that fund. Fund Balance The fund balance as of year end 1988 is $2,258,348 or 2270 higher than 1987. Of this, $974,672 was designated for certain purposes with $1,283,676 remaining. The actual fund balance differs from the estimated fund balance (given to City Council in July) by less than 2%. Exhibit A indicates the uphill battle it has been over the past five years to arrive at this amount of fund balance. Revenue Revenue for the General Fund shows moderate growth of 4% over 87-88, with the largest increase being in property taxes. The variance between actual and estimated revenue was .21% or less than 1%. Exhibit B shows a positive trend with some levelling off from 1986-87 to 1987-88. 1X 0) GA The climb from 84-85 to 87-88 results primarily from Hermosa Plaza and the Utility User Tax received directly into the General Fund. Expenditures Operating expenditures for 87-88 were 3% higher than 1986-87. There were no General Fund capital improvements in 1986-87 as compared to $174,407 in 1987-88. Expenditures were 6% under budget overall. As explained to the City Council in July, the largest variances were: DEPARTMENT UNDER BUDGET REASON Legal $ 53,840 Non -litigation measures used Retirement $ 62,354 Vacancies Police $105,858 Vacancies, Unpurchased equipment Community Resources $ 44,319 Vacancies, Unpurchased equipment CIP 602 $ 63,298 Reappropriated 88-89 CIP 604 $ 74,180 Change in scope CIP 606 $ 61,918 Reappropriated 88-89 Exhibit C shows the flat trend of expenditures for the past five years. Fixed Assets For decades, recording of a city's fixed assets has been required for an unqualified opinion from the independent auditor. As you know, the City's assets were appraised this fiscal year and added to the accounting system through use of a software application for fixed assets. This 1987-88 financial statement is the first financial statement ever produced by the City that has an unqualified opinion - quite an accomplishment for the City! Inclusion of the fixed assets this first year did create a lot of extra work and delayed the audit substantially, but was well worth the effort in order to gain the unqualified opinion and greater control, accountability and information about our fixed assets. Next year's audit should be presented earlier, barring unusual occurrences, now that the appraisal of fixed assets is complete and staff is more familiar with fixed asset accounting. In summary, the financial position of the city has improved in 1987-88. Exhibit D shows a marked difference in the revenue/expenditure/fund balance levels of 1987-88 as compared to 1983-84. A. Revenue has increased steadily while expenditures have been held level which is the formula necessary to increase the fund balance and create a more stable environment. Fund balances are neces- sary for economic uncertainties, liquidity and replacement purposes. Now that fixed asset records are available, replace- ment schedules can be developed for vehicles and equipment. Maintenance that was previously deferred can begin to be included in the next budget. Midyear Budget Review is scheduled for February 28, 1989. Audited fund balances for 87-88 will be incorporated into the budget summary so that the financial picture as of 12/31/88 can be reviewed by the City Council. Viki Copeland Finance Administrator Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager CITY MANAGER COMMENT: The attached graphs accurately reflect an improving financial picture for the City since a low point in 1983-84. This is a result of con- certed efforts by the City Councils and staffs over the past several years. A word of caution is appropriate, however. The improved position partially results from deferring needs that are "catching up" to us. These needs include capital projects (streets, storm drains, parks, public buildings), equipment (absence of equipment replacement account), competitive salaries (our rates average at least 1U% less than the means of survey cities), and any new goals (e.g., downtown street improvements, added parking, undergrounding utilities, Pier upgrade). Fiscally, the City is approximately half way towards soundness and heading the right direction. To finish the journey, we need to make as much progress in `the next five years as we have in the past half - decade. 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCE 1983-1988 IN THOUSANDS $2,258,48 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 EXHIBIT A 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 REVENUE/FUND BALANCE TRENDS 1983-1988 REVENUE GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCE MEM - - 1 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 IN THOUSANDS 1986-87 1987-88 EXHIBIT B OPERATING EXPENDITURES/FUND BALANCE 1983-1988 OPERATING FUND EXP BALANCE GENERAL FUND 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 -II Bong 'um. mlow 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 IN THOUSANDS 1986-87 1987-88 EXHIBIT C REVENUE/OPER EXPENDITURES/FUND BALANCE 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 1983-1988 OPERATING FUND EXP REVENUE BALANCE MIMI GENERAL FUND 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 IN THOUSANDS 1986-87 1987-88 ,! EXHIBIT D January 25, 1989 Ms. Viki Copeland City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Dear Viki: • or 3cx';8= _ i ne. CA 927:3 GrantThornton T Accountants and Management Consultants Member Firm Grant Thornton International Enclosed is an updated draft of the June 30, 1988 financial statements and report on internal control affecting the changes provided to us earlier. As we last discussed and pending the results of your consultation with legal counsel and the trustee associated with the Certificates of Participation, the financial statements, notes thereto and the report on internal control do not reflect any activity, disclosures or comments relating to the $6,400,000 Certificates of Participation. Please contact us at your earliest convenience regarding the enclosed, as well as advising us of your findings relating to the Certificates of Participation. Sincerely, D. Strom Manager mmc Enclosures cc: Mr. Kevin Northcraft Mr. Gary Brutsch THESE STATEMENTS DO NOT INCLUDE THE EFFECTS OF THE CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH June 30, 1988 PRELPICNARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE ASSETS City of Hermosa Beach COMBINED BALANCE SHEET - ALL FUND TYPES AND ACCOUNT GROUPS June 30, 1988 Account Groups Governmental Fund Types Proprietary Fund Types Fund Type General Total Special Internal General Long-term (Memorandum Only General Revenue Service Enterprise Agency Fixed Assets Debt (Note A4) Cash and short-term investments (notes A5, K and L) $2,265,505 $3,539,985 $1,074,561 $ 250,672 $ - $ - $ $ 7,130,723 Reimbursable grants - 85,535 - - - - - 85,535 Interest receivable 30,078 34,015 7,6976,592 - - - 78,382 Other receivables (note D) 485,533 42,717 21,269 - - - 549,519 Deposits- - 233,785 - - - - 233,765 Property and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation (notes A6, I and J) - - - 1,258,358 - 10,718,581 11,976,939 Amount to be provided for retirement of long-term debt (notes A8, C and G) - - - - - - 870,891 870,891 Investments in deferred compensation plan (note H) - - - 256,988 - - 256,988 Prepaid expenses - - 14,614 - - - - 14,614 Due from other funds (note K) 53,673 - - - - 53,673 Supplies 6,284 - - - - 6,284 Total assets $2,841,073 $3,702,252 $1,330,637 $1,536,891 $256,988 $10,718,581 $870,891 $21,257,313 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. -4- PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY City of Hermosa Beach COMBINED BALANCE SHEET - ALL FUND TYPES AND ACCOUNT GROUP June 30, 1988 Account Groups Governmental Fund Types Proprietary Fund Types Fund Type General Total Special Internal General Long-term (Memorandum Only General Revenue Service Enterprise Agency Fixed Assets Debt (Note A4) LIABILITIES Workers' compensation claims (note G) $ - $ - $ 483,577 $ - $ $ $ - $ 483,577 Accounts payable 288,598 190,613 21,827 97,972 - - - 599,010 Due to other funds (note K) - 53,673 - - - - - 53,673 Accrued wages and benefits (note A8) 161,503 9,540 - 34,659 - - 574,338 780,040 Obligations under capital leases (note C) - - - - - 296,553 296,553 Deposits (note B) 132,624 - - - - - 132,624 Due to other agencies - - - 9,400 - - - 9,400 Liability under deferred compensation plan (note H) - - - 256,988 - 256,988 General liability claims (note G) - 227,111 - - - - 227,111 Contracts payable (note M) 30,997 - - - - 30,997 Total liabilities COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (notes C, E. G and M) FUND EQUITY (notes A9, All, G, F, and L) Contributed capital Investment in general fixed assets (notes A6, I and J) Retained earnings - reserved Retained earnings - unreserved Fund balances Reserved Unreserved Designated Undesignated Total fund equity Total liabilities and fund equity 582,725 284,823 732,515 142,031 256,988 870,891 2,869,973 - 278,000 22,250 - - 300,250 - - - 10,718,581 - 10,718,581 - 50,000 14,846 - - - 64,846 - 270,122 1,357,764 - 1,627,586 - 10,370 - - - - 10,370 974,672 50,000 - - - 1,024,672 1,283,676 3,357,059 - - - - - 4,640,735 2.258.348 3.417.429 598,122 1,394,860 - 10,718,581 18,387,340 $2,841,073 $3,702,252 $1,330,637 $1,536,891 $256,988 $10,718,581 $870,891 $21,257,313 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. -5- PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE Revenues (notes A3, A5, A10 Property taxes Other taxes Licenses and permits Fines and forefeitures Use of money and property From other agencies Chargee for services Other Interest City of Hermosa Beach COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES Year ended June 30, 1988 and D) Expenditures (notes A3, C and G) Legislative and legal General government Public safety Community development Culture and recreation Public works Sanitation Debt service Interest Principal Capital expenditures Excess of revenues over expenditures Other financing sources (uses) Operating transfers in Operating transfers (out) Proceeds from capital leases (notes C and M) Excess of reveues and other sources expenditures and other uses Fund balance at beginning of year Residual equity transfer (note G) Fund balance at end of year (note F) over The accompanying notes are an integral -6- part of this statement. General $2,537,414 3,717,960 245,318 113,001 207,978 801,348 343,258 43,260 136.421 8.145.958 437,391 2,143,100 3,508,521 395,680 469,179 480,867 263,128 580 3,120 7,701,566 387,717 8,089,283 56,675 2,082,395 (1,839,189) 213.310 456.516 513,191 1,858,132 (112,975) $2,258,348 Special revenue $ 474,553 478,844 232,665 179,781 81,296 37,084 286,506 230,421 2.001.150 299,24- 5 442,26- 4 741,509 1,157,422 1,898,931 102,219 1,492,444 (1,016,366) 476.078 578,297 2,839,132 $3,417,429 Total (memorandum only) (note A4) $ 3,011,967 4,196,804 245,318 345,666 387,759 882,644 380,342 329,766 366,842 10,147,108 437,391 2,143,100 3,807,766 395,680 469,179 923,131 263,128 580 3,120 8,443,075 1,545,139 9,988,214 158,894 3,574,839 (2,855,555) 213.310 932.594 1,091,488 4,697,264 (112,975) $ 5,675,777 PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE Revenues (notes A3, A5, A7, A10 and D) Property taxes Other taxes Licenses and permits Fines and forfeitures Use of money and property From other agencies Charges for services Other Interest Expenditures (notes A3, A7, C and G) Legislative and legal General government Public safety Community development Culture and recreation Public works Sanitation Debt service Interest Principal Capital expenditures Excess (deficiency) of revenues over expenditures Other financing sources (uses) Operating transfers in Operating transfers (out) Proceeds from capital leases Excess (deficiency) of revenues and other sources over expenditures and other uses Fund balance at beginning of year Residual equity transfer (note G) Fund balance at end of year (note F) CHANGES City of Hermosa Beach COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL - ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES Year ended June 30, 1988 General fund Special revenue funds Totals (memorandum only) Budget Variance favorable Actual (unfavorable) Budget Variance favorable Actual (unfavorable) Budget Actual Variance favorable (unfavorable, $2,361,834 3,960,155 251,185 140,000 215,360 804,660 321,230 18,369 56,000 8.128.793 518,128 2,315,377 3,638,814 435,608 539,263 491,245 263,554 8,201,989 376,121 8.578.110 (449,317) $2,537,414 $175,580 3,717,960 (242,195) 245,318 (5,867) 113,001 (26,999) 207,978 (7,382) 801,348 (3,312) 343,258 22,028 43,260 24,891 136,421 80 421 8.145.958 17 165 437,391 80,737 2,143,100 172,277 3,508,521 130,293 395,680 39,928 469,179 70,084 480,867 10,378 263,128 426 580 (580) 3,120 (3,120) $ 516,806 $ 474,553 346,738 478,844 232,665 177,190 179,781 394,241 81,296 39,200 37,084 248,000 286,506 138,566 230,421 1.860.539 2.001.150 361,539 467,65- 6 299,24- 5 442,264 7,701,566 500,423 829,195 741,509 387,717 (11,596) 1,747,189 1,157,422 8.089.283 488.827 2.576.384 1.898.931 56,675 505,992 (715,845) 102,219 1,712,736 2,082,395 369,659 1,492,444 1,492,444 (1,839,189) (1,839,189) - (1,016,366) (1,016,366) - 213,310 213,310 - - (126,453) 456,516 582,969 476,078 476,078 $ (575,770) $ (42,053) 132,108 232,665 2,591 3/30+87945) (2,116) 38,506 91,855 140.611 62,29- 4 25,39- 2 87,686 589 767 677 453 818.064 $2,878,440 4,306,891 251,185 140,000 392,550 1,198,901 360,430 266,369 194,566 9.989.332 518,128 2,315,377 4,000,353 435,608 539,263 958,901 263,554 9,031,184 2,123,310 11,154,494 (1,165,162) - 3,205,180 - (2,855,555) 513,191 $1,088,961 $ (239,767) 578,297 $ 818,064 1,858,132 2,839,132 $ (112,975) (112,975) $ The accompanying notes are an integral -7- $2,258,348 part of this statement. $3,417,429 349.625 $ (815,537) $ (112,975) $3,011,967 4,196,804 245,318 345,666 387,759 882,644 380,342 329,766 366,842 10.147.108 437,391 2,143,100 3,807,766 395,680 469,179 923,131 263,128 580 3,120 8,443,075 1,545,139 9.988.214 158.894 3,574,839 (2,855,555) 213,310 932.594 1,091,488 4,697,264 $ 133,527 (110,087) (5,867) 205,666 (4,791) (316,257) 19,912 63,397 172,276 157776 80,737 172,277 192,587 39,928 70,084 35,770 426 (580) (3, 120) 588,109 578,171 1,166,280 1.324.056 369,659 213,310 582,969 $1,907,025 (112,975) $ $5,675,777 PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE City of Hermosa Beach STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS ALL PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES Year ended June 30, 1988 Internal Total Service Enterprise (Memorandum only) Fund Fund (note J) (note A4) Operating revenue (note A2) Charges for services $ - $2,448,831 $2,448,831 From other agencies - 299,691 299,691 2,748,522 2,748,522 Operating expenses (notes A2, E and H) Personal services 378,434 666,906 1,045,340 Contractor services 371,203 358,604 729,807 Supplies - 68,248 68,248 Repairs and maintenance - 16,474 16,474 Other 3,083 3,083 Depreciation (notes A6, I and J) - 32,528 32,528 749,637 1,145,843 1,895,480 Operating (loss) income (749,637) 1,602,679 853,042 Nonoperating revenue - interest 38,144 53,069 89,213 (Loss) income before transfers (713,493) 1,655,748 942,255 Other financing sources (uses) Operating transfers in 994,485 84,298 1,058,783 Operating transfers (out) - (1,691,665) (1,691,665) 994,485 (1,627,367) (632,882) Net income 280,992 28,381 309,373 Increase in reserve for self-insurance (note G) (50,000) - (50,000) Net change in retained earnings for year 230,992 28,381 259,373 Retained earnings unreserved at beginning of year before restatement 39,130 111,595 150,725 Change to appropriate accounting principles in the property, equipment and accumulated depreciation records (notes A6, I and J) 1,217,788 1,217,788 Retained earnings unreserved at beginning of year after restatement 39,130 1,329,383 1,388,513 Retained earnings unreserved at end of year $270,122 $1,357,764 $1,627,886 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. -8- PRELIlYIINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE City of Hermosa Beach STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION ALL PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES Year ended June 30, 1988 Internal Total Service Enterprise (Memorandum only) Fund Fund (note A4) Sources of working capital Income (loss) before other financing sources $(713,493) $1,655,748 $ 942,255 Transfers in 994,485 64,298 1,058,783 Depreciation - 32,528 32,528 Increase in long-term liabilities 500,688 - 500,688 Increase in contributed capital 362,974 - 362,974 Total sources 1,144,654 1,752,574 2,897,228 Applications of working capital Transfers out 1,691,665 1,691,665 Purchase of property and equipment - 50,848 50,848 Increase in long-term deposits 217,474 - 217,474 Decrease in contributed capital 359,974 - 359,974 Total applications 577,448 1,742,513 2,319,961 INCREASE IN WORKING CAPITAL $ 567,206 $ 10,061 $ 577,267 Increase (decrease) in elements of working capital Cash and short-term investments $ 751,114 $ (20,276) $ 730,838 Receivables 3,536 11,541 15,077 Prepaids, deposits and other (163,978) - (163,978) Accounts payable and accrued expenses 69,215 11,881 81,096 Accrued wages and benefits - 16,315 16,315 General liability claims 37,319 - 37,319 Workers' compensation claims (130,000) - (130,000) Due to other agencies - (9,400) (9,400) INCREASE IN WORKING CAPITAL The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement. -9- $ 567,206 $ 10,061 $ 577,267 PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE City of Hermosa Beach NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 1988 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES This summary of significant accounting policies of the City of Hermosa Beach (the City) is presented to assist in understanding the City's annual financial report. The financial statements and notes are representations of the City's management, which is responsible for their integrity and objectivity. These accounting policies conform to generally accepted accounting principles. 1. Description of the Reporting Entity and its Organization and Operations The City of Hermosa Beach (the City) was incorporated in 1907 in the State of California as a general law city. Included in the financial entity of the City is the Hermosa Beach Vehicle Parking District, Hermosa Beach Crossing Guard District, Hermosa Beach Parking Authority and Hermosa Beach Street Lighting District. Although these entities are legally separate from the City, the City has oversight responsibility and/or direct legislative authority through the City Council. The oversight responsibility is determined on the basis of budget adoption, taxing authority, special financial relationships, scope of public services and appointment of the governing boards. The financial statements of the South Bay Regional Public Communication Authority (SBCA) and the Hermosa Beach Civic Center Building Corporation are not included in these financial statements. These agencies either determine their own budget or have their own independently elected governing board and are not subject to oversight responsibility by the Hermosa Beach City Council. The City appoints one member of the five member governing board of SBCA, which determines the SBCA budget. The accounts of the City are organized and operated on the basis of funds and account groups, each of which is defined as a fiscal and accounting entity with a self -balancing set of accounts established for the purpose of carrying on special activities or attaining certain objectives in accordance with special regulations, restrictions or limitations. PRELIMINARY DRAFT U�c . SJ T i V Cd IAN V E -10- City of Hermosa Beach NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED June 30, 1988 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - Continued 2. Description of Funds and Account Group The accounting records of the City are organized on the basis of funds and account groups classified for reporting purposes as follows: Governmental Fund Types General Fund - Used to account for all financial resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund. Special Revenue Funds - Used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are legally restricted to expenditures for special purposes. Proprietary Fund Types Used to account for operations that are organized to be self-supporting through user charges. The funds included in this category are the Enterprise Funds and Internal Service Fund. Enterprise Funds - Used to account for operations that are financed and operated in a manner similar to private business enterprises where the intent is that costs of providing the services to the general public on a continuing basis be financed or recovered primarily through user charges. Funds included in this category are the City's Transit and Parking Funds. PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE -11- City of Hermosa Beach NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED June 30, 1988 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - Continued 2. Description of Funds and Account Group - Continued Proprietary Fund Types - Continued Internal Service Fund - Used to account for operations that are financing the goods and services provided by one department to other departments of the City on a cost -reimbursement basis. The fund included in this category is the City's Self -Insurance Fund. Fiduciary Fund Types Agency Fund - Used to account for assets which in substance are held by the City as an agent for individuals, private organizations and other governmental units. Account Groups General Long-term Debt Account Group - Used to record the principal amount of future minimum lease payments due under lease purchase agreements and to account for the unmatured portion of installment purchase contracts and other long-term debt. General Fixed Assets Account Group - Used to maintain control and cost information on capital assets owned by the City other than those accounted for in proprietary funds. PREL NARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE -12- City of Hermosa Beach NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED June 30, 1988 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - Continued 3. Basis of Accounting All governmental fund types and agency funds are accounted for using the modified accrual basis of accounting wherein revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they become measurable and available. Revenues considered susceptible to accrual include property and sales taxes and interest. Expenditures are recognized in the accounting period in which the liability is incurred, except expenditures for debt service (e.g., interest and lease obligations) which are recognized when paid. Proprietary funds are maintained on the accrual basis of accounting wherein revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they are earned and expenses are recognized in the period incurred. 4. Total (memorandum only) columns Columns on the accompanying combined financial statements captioned "Total (memorandum only)" are presented only to facilitate financial analysis. The data in these columns do not present financial position, results of operations, or changes in financial position in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Neither is such data comparable to a consolidation. Interfund eliminations have not been made in the aggregation of this data. 5. Cash and Short-term Investments The City pools cash resources of its various funds in order to facilitate the management of cash. Cash applicable to a particular fund is readily identifiable. The balance in the pooled cash account is available to meet current operating requirements. Cash in excess of current requirements is invested in various interest-bearing accounts and other investments for varying terms. Cash in the asset seizure and forfeiture fund is restricted in use for law enforcement purposes and is intended to supplement, not replace or reduce, normal appropriations for the operation of the City's police department. (See notes A9 and M). PRELIMINARY AFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE -13- City of Hermosa Beach NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED June 30, 1988 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - Continued 6. Fixed Assets At December 1987, the City conducted a complete physical inventory of its fixed assets for both governmental fund type operations, wherein such assets are accounted for in the General Fixed Asset Group, and its enterprise fund type operations, where such assets are accounted for in each fund. No inventory was taken of the City's public domain (infrastructure) general fixed assets, consisting of roads, sidewalks, sewage and flood control systems, in that such assets are of value only to the governmental unit and recording is optional. As part of this inventory process, the City also developed the historical cost or estimated cost of assets for the General Fixed Asset Group and the Enterprise Funds. The historical costs were obtained from actual cost data where available. Estimated historical costs were developed from current values indexed back to the date of purchase using inflation, population and other indexing techniques. Donated fixed assets were valued and recorded at their estimated fair values on the date donated. Service lives of all existing depreciable assets were reviewed and useful lives adopted to reflect current events and experience. As a result of the inventory and costing, adjustments were required to record the property and equipment accounts of both the General Fixed Assets Account Group and the Enterprise Funds wherein they would be in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. The adjustment to the Enterprise Funds (Parking Fund only) resulted in a correction to the opening balances of retained earnings and contributed capital in the form of increases of $1,217,788 and $22,250, respectively. Depreciation of fixed assets is provided on the straight-line method over the following estimated useful lives: Buildings and structures Improvements Equipment, machinery and vehicles General Fixed Enterprise Asset Group Funds 50 years 20 years 7-20 years 50 years 20 years 7-20 years PRELIMINARY DRAFT -14- SURF(' TO MANGE City of Hermosa Beach NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED June 30, 1988 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - Continued 6. Fixed Assets - Continued Depreciation of all exhaustible fixed assets used by the Enterprise Funds is charged as an expense against their operations. Accumulated depreciation relating to such assets is reported on the Enterprise Funds balance sheets. Depreciation of general fixed assets is calculated only for financial analysis and is not recorded in the accounts of the governmental type funds. Accumulated depreciation relating to such assets is reported in the General Fixed Assets Account Group. 7. Budgeting The City Manager submits a preliminary budget to the City Council for approval prior to May 15. The City Manager is authorized to transfer budgeted amounts between object accounts and departments within the same fund. All appropriations lapse at the end of the fiscal year to the extent they have not been expended or encumbered. Budget information is presented on the same basis as generally accepted accounting principles for the general and special revenue fund types. Budgeted revenue and expenditure amounts represent the original budget modified for adjustments during the year. 8. Compensated Absences City employees have vested interests in varying levels of vacation, sick leave and compensatory time based on their length of employment. The liabilities for these items are recorded as the obligations are incurred. These amounts are recorded as current liabilities of the appropriate funds and in the general long-term debt account group for governmental fund types. PRELIMpT A rY �� FT :.a S ROCT -15- 0 CHANGE City of Hermosa Beach NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED June 30, 1988 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - Continued 9. Establishment of Funds The UUT Railroad Right of Way, Fire Protection and Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Special Revenue Funds were established by City Council action on March 8, 1988, May 24, 1988 and May 10, 1988, respectively. The City created the funds for efficient financial administration. The Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Fund is required under guidelines set forth in Title 18 and 19 of the United States Code as well as Chapter 9 of the Health and Safety Code of California for assets seized by, or forfeited to, the City's police department. (See notes A5 and M). 10. Property Taxes Property taxes attach as an enforceable lien on property as of March 1, each year. Taxes are levied on July 1, and are payable in two installments no later than December 10, and April 10, of each year. The County of Los Angeles bills and collects the property taxes and remits them to the City in installments during the year. City property tax revenues are recognized when received in cash except at year-end when they are accrued pursuant to the modified accrual basis of accounting. The County is permitted by State law (Proposition 13) to levy taxes at 1% of full market value (at time of purchase) and can increase the property tax rate no more than 2% per year. The City receives a share of this basic levy proportionate to what it received in the 1976 to 1978 period. 11. Fund Equity The unreserved fund balances for governmental fund types represent the amount available for budgeting future operations. Unreserved retained earnings for proprietary fund types represent'the net assets available for future operations or distribution. Reserved retained earnings for proprietary funds represent the net assets that have been legally identified for specific purposes. PRELI1` NA RY Dr.ZAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE -16- City of Hermosa Beach NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED June 30, 1988 NOTE A - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - Continued 11. Fund Equity - Continued Reservations of fund balances of governmental funds are created to either (1) satisfy legal covenants that require that a portion of the fund balance be segregated or (2) identify the portion of the fund balance that is not appropriate for future expenditures. Specific reserves, of the fund balance accounts are summarized below. Reserve for Bike Path A reserve for $10,370 was created to represent the portion of the fund balance that is not available for expenditures because the City expects to use these resources within the next budgetary period. NOTE B - DEPOSIT LIABILITIES General fund deposit liability consists of amounts received by the City to assure compliance with City code requirements. NOTE C - OBLIGATIONS UNDER CAPITAL LEASES The City has entered into noncancellable, long-term leases for the acquisition of various items of equipment. The following is a schedule of future minimum rental payments relating to obligations under capital leases: Year ending June 30, 1989 1990 1991, 1992 Net minimum lease obligations Less amounts representing interest Present value of net minimum lease obligations Obligations under capital leases $164,685 82,005 50,946 39,844 337,480 40.927 $296,553 -17- PRELIMINARY MAMI SUBJECT TO CHANGE City of Hermosa Beach NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED Awiti June 30, 1988 NOTE C - OBLIGATIOS UNDER CAPITAL LEASES - Continued The City records ,the obligation under capitalized leases as a liability of the Long term Debt Account 4roup and capitalizes the cost of the leased property as an asset in the General Fixed Assets Account Group. NOTE D - LEASES RECEIVABLE The City leases portions of the Hermosa Beach Community Center to civic and cultural organizations. The future minimum rentals receivable under noncancellable operating leases are as follows: Year ending June 30, 1989 $112,040 1990 76,376 1991 27.074 $215,490 NOTE E - PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM Plan Description The City contributes to California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS), an agent multiple -employer public employee retirement system that acts as a common investment and administrative agent for participating public entities within the State of California. The City's payroll for employees covered by the system for the year ended June 30, 1988 was $4,575,684 from a total payroll during the fiscal year of $5,367,176. PREF , L _ ,71 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE -18- City of Hermosa Beach NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED June 30, 1988 NOTE E - PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM - CONTINUED All full-time City employees are eligible to participate in the system. The City contracts with the system separately for retirement plans for public safety employees and for employees not in the public safety category. Public safety and other public employees who retire at or after age 50 and 60, respectively, with 5 years of credited service are entitled to an annual retirement benefit, payable monthly for life, in an amount equal to 2% of their average salary during their last year of employment, for each year of credited service. The system also provides death and disability benefits.. These benefit provisions and all other requirements are established by statute of City ordinance. City employees are required to contribute a percentage of their annual salary to the system, however, the City, on behalf of the employees, makes this contribution. The City is required to contribute the remaining amounts necessary to fund the system, using the actuarial basis specified by statute. The employee contribution rates are as follows: Category Local miscellaneous members Local miscellaneous with benefits described under Article: 21252.01 21252.6 Funding Status and Progress Member rates as a percentage of wages 7% 9% 7% Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) No. 5 requires a disclosure of the standardized measure called the Pension Benefit Obligation (PBO). This measure is independent of the actuarial funding method used to determine employer contributions. 'The PBO is the portion of the actuarial present value of projected pension benefits (including projected future salary increases) estimated to be payable in the future as a result of employees' service to date. The measure is intended to help users assess the funding status of the system on a going -concern basis when due, and make comparisons among employers. PRELIMINARY DRAFT -19- SUBJECT TO CHANGE City of Hermosa Beach NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED June 30, 1988 NOTE E - PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM - Continued The PBO was computed as part of an actuarial valuation performed as of June 30, 1987, but reflects all plan amendments adopted through June 30, 1988. Significant actuarial assumptions used in the valuation include (a) rate of return on the investment of present and future assets of 8.5% a year compounded annually, (b) projected salary increases of 5% percent a year attributable to inflation, (c) additional projected salary increases of 2% a year attributable to seniority/merit, and (d) no post-retirement benefit increases. Total unfunded pension benefit obligation applicable to the City's employees was $2,681,831 at June 30, 1987 as follows: Penion benefit obligation Retirees and beneficiaries currently receiving benefits and terminated employees not yet receiving benefits Current employees Accumulated employee contributions including allocated investment earnings Employer -financed vested Employer -financed non -vested $ 8,580,793 3,115,111 4,272,647 196,970 Total pension benefit obligation 16,165,521 Net assets available for benefits at cost (market value = $16,881,580) Unfunded pension benefit obligation 13,483,690 $ 2,681,831 Contributions Required and Contributions Made PERS uses the entry age normal actuarial cost method which is a projected benefit cost method. That is, it takes into account those benefits that are expected to be earned in the future as well as those already accrued. PRELIMINARY D AFT SUBJEc T TO CHANGE -20- City of Hermosa Beach NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED June 30, 1988 NOTE E - PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM - Continued According to this cost method, the normal cost for an employee is the level amount which would fund the projected benefit if it were paid annually from date of employment until retirement. PERS used a modification of the entry age cost method in which the employer's total normal cost is expressed as a level of payroll. PERS also uses the level percentage of payroll method to amortize any unfunded actuarial liabilities. The amortization period of the unfunded actuarial liability ends on June 30, 2011. The significant actuarial assumptions used to compute the actuarially determined contribution requirement are the same as those used to compute the pension benefit obligation, as previously described. The contribution to the system for 1988 of $1,022,393 was made in accordance with actuarially determined requirements computed through an actuarial valuation performed as of June 30, 1988. The contribution consisted of (a) $846,130 normal cost (18.5% of current covered payroll) and (b) $176,263 amortization of the unfunded actuarial accrued liability (3.9% of current covered payroll). The City contributed $660,341 (14.4% of current covered payroll); the City, on behalf of the employees, contributed $362,052 (7.9% of current covered payroll). Trend Information Trend information gives an indication of the progress made in accumulating sufficient assets to pay benefits when due. Systemwide ten-year trend information may be found in the California Public Employees' Retirement System Annual Reports. For the three years ended 1986, 1987 and 1988, respectively, available assets were sufficient to fund 70.6%, 81.5% and 83.4% of the pension benefit obligation. Unfunded pension benefit obligation represented 102.2%, 63.7% and 58.6% of the annual payroll for employees covered by the PERS for 1986, 1987 and 1988, respectively. Showing unfunded pension benefit obligation as a percentage of annual covered payroll approximately adjusts for the effects of inflation for analysis purposes. In addition, for the three years ended 1986, 1987 and 1988, the City's contributions to the system, all made in accordance with actuarially determined requirements, were 18.6%, 17.0% and 14.4%, respectively, of annual covered payroll. -21- PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE City of Hermosa Beach NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED June 30, 1988 NOTE F - FUND EQUITY The composition of reserved and designated fund equity in the following funds at June 30, 1988 are as follows: Designated for Asset replacement Capital improvements Affordable housing Contingencies Open space/parks Reserves for Capital improvements Parking facility Bike Path Self insurance NOTE G - SELF-INSURANCE General Fund Special Revenue Funds $120,000 $ 239,753 46,831 368,088 200.000 50, 000 974,672 50,000 $974,672 10,370 10,370 Enterprise Fund Internal Service Fund $ _ $ imMO 9,592 5,254 14.846 $60,370 $14,846 50,000 50,000 $50,000 Effective in 1986, the City established an internal service fund to account for the City's general liability claim activities. In fiscal 1987, all current workers' compensation and other insured claims activity were accounted for in this fund. In fiscal 1988, certain other costs, such as legal fees to defend the City and its various departments against both general liability, as well as workers' compensation claims, were also accounted for in this fund. Workers' compensation obligations of,$359,974 that were outstanding at June 30, 1987 and which were recorded in the City's general fund as a liability with the balance recorded in the long-term debt group at that time were transferred to the self-insurance fund effective July 1, 1987. The general fund also transferred cash to fund the required obligation to be paid by the self- insurance fund. These activities have been reflected as residual equity transfers. PRELIMINARY DRAFT -22- SUBJECT TO CHANGE City of Hermosa Beach NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED June 30, 1988 NOTE G - SELF-INSURANCE - Continued The City is self-insured for individual workers' compensation claims up to $200,000 and for each general liability claim up to $100,000. The City is insured to a maximum of $9,900,000 through June 30, 1988. The City during fiscal 1987, committed to a three-year membership with the Independent Cities Risk Management Authority (ICRMA) for only general liability insurance coverage. The ICRMA is a joint exercise of powers authority organized and operating pursuant to the California Government Code. ICRMA was formed in 1980 pursuant to joint exercise of power agreement for insurance and risk management purposes, which as amended, enables ICRMA to provide programs of risk sharing, insurance and risk management services in connection with liability, property, and workers' compensation claims and to assist members in establishing financial reserves through the sale of Certificates of Participation. In January, 1987, Certificates of Participation in an aggregate principal amount of $30,210,000 were sold by ICRMA to fund the joint self- insurance programs, with $29,760,000 remaining outstanding at June 30, 1988. After costs of issuance and other expenses, the trustee has over $27,900,000 retained from the issuance at June 30, 1988. Under the coverage agreement, member cities are required to make basic payments to the trustee (an assignee of ICRMA), which amounts, together with certain amounts available therefrom under the trust agreement, are intended to be sufficient in both time and aggregate amount to pay, when due, the principal of and the interest with respect to the certificates. The participation percentage that the City has in ICRMA aggregates 3.36% for losses occurring on or after October 1, 1987, and 3.55% for losses occurring prior to that date. The City is liable for possible subsequent assessments and withdrawal costs under the terms of the membership agreement. The City has entered into contracts with service agents who supervise and administer the City's Workers' Compensation Insurance Program. The City believes that provisions for workers' compensation is sufficient to cover all claims incurred. PRELIM INA y MIAFT SUBJECT TD -23- City of Hermosa Beach NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED June 30, 1988 NOTE H - DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS AND INVESTMENTS HELD THEREIN The City offers its employees two deferred compensation plans created in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 457. The plans, available to qualified City employees, permit them to defer a portion of their salary until future years. Deferred compensation is not available to employees until termination, retirement, death, disability or other events as provided in the plans. All amounts of compensation deferred under this plan, all property and rights purchased with those amounts, and all income attributable to those amounts, are (until paid or available to the employee or other beneficiary) solely the property and rights of the City (without being restricted to the provisions of benefits under the plan), subject only to the claims of the City's general creditors. Participants' rights under the plan are equal to those of general creditors of the City in an amount equal to the fair value of the deferred account for each participant. It is the opinion of management that the City has no liability for losses under the plan but does have the duty of due care that would be required of any ordinary prudent investor. The City believes that it is unlikely it will use the assets to satisfy the claims of general creditors in the future. Investments in the deferred compensation plans are held primarily in various mutual investment funds through a contract agent. Participants are allowed to choose investment objectives. However, the investments selected are limited to those authorized by the Government Code. The investments are not insured by the contract agent nor federal or state regulatory agencies. The mutual fund investments are, however, backed by the particular securities invested in by the particular mutual fund. The market value of the investments approximates their cost at June 30, 1988. PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE City of Hermosa Beach NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED June 30, 1988 NOTE I - PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT Property, equipment and accumulated depreciation of the Enterprise Funds as of June 30, 1988 consists of: Parking Fund Transit Fund Total Property and equipment (estimated cost) Land $1,154,935 $ - $1,154,935 Improvements 91,430 - 91,430 Machinery and equipment 122,861 - 122,861 Vehicles 113,601 - 113,601 1,482,827 - 1,482,827 Less accumulated depreciation 224,469 - 224,469 $1,258,358 $ - $1,258,358 PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE City of Hermosa Beach NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED June 30, 1988 NOTE I - PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT - Continued Property, equipment and accumulated depreciation general fixed assets are as follows: Property and equipment (estimated cost) Land Buildings and structures Machinery and equipment Vehicles Improvements Construction in -progress (note M) Accumulated depreciation Buildings and structures Machinery and equipment Vehicles Improvements Balance July 1, 1987 Additions Deletions activity for Balance June 30, 1988 $ 7,578,013 $ - $ - $ 7,578,013 2,392,450 1,034,247 704,785 1,298,176 13,007,671 912,925 529,592 443,818 629,043 2,515,378 271,332 50,584 114.904 436.820 29,902 89,348 60,488 30.794 210.532 2,392,450 1,305,579 755,369 1,298,176 114,904 13,444,491 942,827 618,940 504,306 659,837 2,725,910 Net general fixed assets $10,492,292 $226,288 $ - $10,718,581 Included in machinery, equipment and vehicles are various assets accounted for under capital leases. PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANCE -26- City of Hermosa Beach NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED June 30, 1988 NOTE J - SEGMENT INFORMATION FOR ENTERPRISE FUNDS The City maintains two Enterprise funds which provide parking and transit services. Segment information for the year ended June 30, 1988 is as follows: Total Enterprise Parking Fund Transit Fund funds Operating revenue Charges for services $2,435,057 $ 13,774 $2,448,831 From other agencies - 299,691 299,691 Total 2,435,057 313,465 2,748,522 Operating expenses 785,301 360,542 1,145,843 Operating income (loss) 1,649,755 (47,076) 1,602,679 Nonoperating revenue 41,910 11,159 53,069 Other financial sources (uses) Transfers in - 64,298 64, 298 Transfers (out) (1,691,665) - (1,691,665) Net income - 28,381 28,381 Property and equipment - additions 50,848 - 50,848 Depreciation 32,528 - 32,528 Net working capital (3,473) 139,975 136,502 Total equity 1,254,885 139,975 1,394,860 Total assets 1,317,360 219,531 1,536,891 Charges for sevices in the Parking fund includes fines and forfeitures of $1,443,950. NOTE K - POOLED CASH OVERDRAFTS The City has recorded a receivable (due from other funds) and a payable (due to other funds) for the overdrawn pooled cash account for the Special Revenue Fund - Grant Fund as required by generally accepted accounting principles. PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE -27- City of Hermosa Beach NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED June 30, 1988 NOTE L - CASH AND SHORT-TERM INVESTMENTS The City follows the practice of pooling the cash and short- term investments of all funds with the Treasurer, except for certain restricted funds which are held and invested by independent outside custodians through contractual agreements. Such restricted funds include deferred compensation plan deposits (note H). The Treasurer's investment policy reflects the City's goal of obtaining the highest yield with the greatest safety and least risk. Accordingly, the investments made by the Treasurer are limited to those allowable under state statutes as incorporated into the City's investment policy. Each separate fund's claim to the pooled cash and investments detailed below is represented by the cash and cash overdraft balances presented in the combined balance sheet at June 30, 1988. The City's cash and short-term investments are detailed as follows: Demand deposits - banking institution Certificates of deposit - banking institution Securities firm Local Agency investment fund $ 104,802 1,987,000 1,468,921 3,570,000 $7,130,723 PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE City of Hermosa Beach NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED June 30, 1988 NOTE L - CASH AND SHORT-TERM INVESTMENTS - Continued The demand deposits and certificates of deposit held in the banking institution are insured or adequately collateralized by securities held for the benefit of the City in accordance with state regulations. Included in demand deposits and certificates of deposit is the City's share of seized money which it was entitled to under the Federal Forfeited Assets Sharing Program. This amount approximates $233,000 (see notes A5 and A9). Investments held at the securities firm consist of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation participating pool certificates (FHLMC securities) and medium-term corporate notes (Notes). The FHLMC securities have an aggregate face amount of $510,000 at interest rates ranging from 8% to 9.5%, payable monthly, maturing in the years 2016 and 2017. The market value of the FHLMC securities at June 30, 1988 aggregate approximately $439,000. The Notes have an aggregate face amount of $1,000,000 at coupon rates ranging from 8.35% to 9.1%, payable semiannually, maturing in the years 1990 and 1993. The market value of the Notes at June 30, 1988 aggregate approximately their costs. The securities and notes are registered in the name of the City, but held by the investment firm for the account of the City. The securities and Notes are not separately insured by the investment firm. Money not required immediately by the City is remitted to the State Treasurer for deposit in the Local Agency Investment Fund (L.A.I.F.). Money placed with the State Treasurer is not subject to impound or seizure by any State official or State agency. The City also has the sole discretion as to the length of time such money will be on deposit in the Fund. The State Treasurer is responsible for the control and safekeeping of all instruments of title of all investments of the L.A.I.F. fund. Earnings are distributed quarterly to the City. An amount equal to the reasonable costs of carrying out the activities of the L.A.I.F. not to exceed one-quarter of one percent of the earnings of the fund, are deducted from the earnings upon quarterly distribution. See note H for disclosures about investments associated with the City's deferred compensation plans. PRELIMINARY Y DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE -29- City of Hermosa Beach NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - CONTINUED June 30, 1988 NOTE M - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES In the normal course of business, various claims and suits have been filed against the City. In the opinion of City management, based upon information received from legal counsel, the recorded liability is sufficient to cover such claims and suits. The City is obligated under a construction contract for $148,962. As reflected in note I, $114,904 has been incurred through June 30, 1988. In February 1988, the City entered into a master lease, which provides for the delivery of computer equipment, police vehicles and other capital equipment. The items acquired through this master lease are accounted for as capital leases and recorded in the General Fund Fixed Assets Account Group with the related obligation recorded in the General Long-term Debt Account Group. The aggregate amount of the master lease commitment approximates $579,000, of which the City has already recorded approximately $213,000 at June 30, 1988. The City has entered into operating leases for various items of equipment. The following is a schedule of future minimum rental payments under such operating leases: Year ending June 30, 1989 $31,513 1990 27,743 1991 17,559 1992 5,016 1993 2,926 Total minimum payments required $84,757 Rent expense for operating leases for the year was $27,356. -30- PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE February 14, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 14, 1989 ITEM lx(1) 1987-88 DRAFT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Page 2 of this item included number references to certain CIP's. The CIP names are listed below for your convenience. CIP 602 CIP 604 CIP 606 Electrical Upgrade, City Hall Building Improvements, Various Locations Police Department Remodel Viki Cope and Finance Administrator SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 6, 1989 City Council Meeting of February 14, 1989 REPORT ON INTERNAL ACCOUNTING CONTROL AND MEMORANDUM OF ADVISORY COMMENTS (MANAGEMENT REPORT) 1987-88 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the draft Management Report for 1987-88 from Grant Thornton with response from staff. BACKGROUND As part of the audit process, the City requests that the auditors submit a report and recommendation regarding internal controls, accounting systems, compliance with laws and regulations or any other material matters that may arise during the course of the examination. As explained in the transmittal report for the 1987-88 audit, a draft report is presented at this time. It may be necessary to include information about the Parking Authority's role in the issuance of Certificates of Participation for the Haagen Development. When that issue is resolved, a final report will be issued. ANALYSIS Staff welcomes the opportunity to improve and comment on the areas identified by the auditors. A response to each item follows. Indirect Cost Allocation Plan The City Council approved the appropriation of $30,000 for an up -dated user fee study and cost allocation plan for fiscal year 1988-89. A request for proposals is being drafted. Electronic Data Processing Physical Security In response to the recommendation, a directive was issued to all City Hall General Services employees on November 30, 1988. This directive instructed that, effective immediately, all existing doors would remain locked at all times. In addition, a list of authorized personnel was provided with the instruction that no other persons be allowed in the computer room without prior clearance from either the Director or Computer System Manager. 1x w We concur with the observation that there is a security risk due to easy access through the windows. We will work with the Public Works Department to determine the most cost effective method to remedy this situation and will follow up with appropriate action. Computer Room and Tape Library Staff is well aware of the significant deficiencies in the computer room. A space allocation study of the entire City Hall Facility has been completed by the Public Works Department. Necessary improvements will be part of the upcoming five year capital improvement budget. Hopefully, the City Council will approve the funds needed. At the present time, the modem shelves have been replaced and a portion of the floor has been repaired by bolting down a metal plate to cover some of the holes. EDP Disaster Contingency Plan Staff included $10,000 in the 1988/89 preliminary budget for software to assist the city in preparing a formal Disaster Recovery Plan. This item was deleted from the final budget with comments from the City Manager that it was not cost effective. Efforts are being made to obtain formal contingency computer backup agreements with other entities. The System Manager attended a users meeting on December 7, 8 and 9. This subject was one of the topics of discussion. All of the users are municipalities with compatible hardware and software. Long Range Data Processing Planning We agree with this recommendation. With the concurrence of the City Manager, this will be addressed at a future Management Staff Meeting. It is imperative to receive input from the various departments to determine what their future needs will be. Policies, Procedures and Standards This is a continuing on-going priority. Every effort is being made to complete required documentation. r1/1-25LK4 Viki Copeland Gary utsch Finance Administrator Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager City Treasurer an Noon General Services Director THESE STATEMENTS DO NOT INCLUDE THE EFFECTS OF THE CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION REPORT ON INTERNAL ACCOUNTING CONTROL AND MEMORANDUM OF ADVISORY COMMENTS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH JUNE 30, 1988 PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE THESE STATEMENTS DO NOT INCLUDE THE EFFECTS OF THE CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION To the City Council City of Hermosa Beach, California We have examined the general purpose financial statements of the City of Hermosa Beach for the year ended June 30, 1988, and have issued our report thereon dated As part of our examination, we made a study and evaluation of the City's system of internal accounting control to the extent we considered necessary to evaluate the system as required by generally accepted auditing standards. The purpose of our study and evaluation was to determine the nature, timing, and extent of the auditing procedures necessary for expressing an opinion on the City's general purpose financial statements. Our study and evaluation was more limited than would be necessary to express an opinion on the system of internal accounting control taken as a whole. The management (i.e., City Council or designate) of the City of Hermosa Beach is responsible for establishing and maintaining a system of internal accounting control. In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of control procedures. The objectives of a system are to provide management with reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized use or disposition, and that transactions are executed in accordance with management's authorization and recorded properly to permit the preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Because of inherent limitations in any system of internal accounting control, errors or irregularities may nevertheless occur and not be detected. Also, projection of an evaluation of the system to future periods is subject to the risk that procedures may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the degree of compliance with the procedures may deteriorate. PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE THESE STATEMENTS DO NOT INCLUDE THE EFFECTS OF THE CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION Our study and evaluation made for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph would not necessarily disclose all material weaknesses in the system. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the system of internal accounting control of the City of Hermosa Beach taken as a whole. However, our study and evaluation disclosed no conditions that we believe to be a material weakness. Other comments and observations which came to our attention during our examination are set out on pages 5 through 8. These conditions were considered in determining the nature, timing and extent of the audit tests to be applied in our examination of the June 30, 1988 general purpose financial statements, and the report does not affect our report on these financial statements dated This report is intended solely for the use of management and should not be used for any other purpose. PRELIMNA Y DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE Irvine, California THESE STATEMENTS DO NOT INCLUDE THE EFFECTS OF THE CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION OTHER COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE THESE STATEMENTS DO NOT INCLUDE THE EFFECTS OF THE CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION Some of the following recommendations were included in our prior year report dated September 28, 1987. Internal control procedures implemented during the past year in response to our prior year recommendations have been noted, where applicable. Indirect Cost Allocation Plan The City currently does not have a formalized indirect cost allocation plan that would conform to federal regulations. Recommendation The City should develop a formal plan which conforms to existing federal regulations. This will assist management in determining costs not only on federal programs, but also those associated with other state and county programs on a consistent basis. Electronic Data Processing Physical Security During the course of the review, entrance and exit into the data processing facility appeared generally unrestricted. The door leading to the General Services area was found to be unlocked, although City employees were in the area to question entrance by apparently unauthorized personnel. This door is next to an interior window through which permits are issued and other City business conducted with the public. In addition, the door leading directly into the computer area was unlocked. Although this door was accessible only through the Systems and Programming Manager's office, no physical restraint existed and the office was not always occupied. It was also observed that a door at the rear of the General Services area was propped open for ventilation during warmer days, since the office is not air conditioned. It was also noted that windows opening on the outside of the General Services area were unsecured and that entrance could easily be gained through either forcing a window latch or breaking a window. These windows are not highly visible to observation on that side of the building since they are partially obscured by a half wall surrounding that side of the structure. Other windows, including those in the Finance department located two floors above are of the same construction and have similar potential defects regarding security. PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE -5- THESE STATEMENTS DO NOT INCLUDE THE EFFECTS OF THE CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION Recommendation Securing the computer operations area and adjacent staff offices primarily requires appropriate utilization of doors and locks already in existence, as well as adherence to procedures which deny access to all but authorized personnel. The unobserved or unchallenged entry of individuals without authorization possesses a potential threat to the continued operation of the data processing function, violates commonly accepted standards of access control and security and provides a potential target to individuals who might do the facility harm. Outside windows should also be examined and appropriate measures taken to reduce the potential for unauthorized entry. The City is open four days per week, and the computer installation is left unattended when the City is closed. The use of security screens, alarm systems, etc. would help safeguard the computer resource during the time of unattended operation. Although the Police Department is on the other side of the Civic Center complex, entry can easily be achieved without detection under the current situation. The minimal expense of a motion detector which sounds an alarm in the Police Department would be a prudent investment since a considerable dollar value is represented by the computer hardware and software located in the General Services area which is potentially vulnerable to loss or damage. Computer Room and Tape Library The computer room is a small room (approximately 8' by 10'), which houses the HP 3000 computer configuration, a total of 7 modems, three tape racks holding approximately 300 reels of magnetic tape, and assorted manuals, paper products, and other material necessary to the operation of the computer. The computer room floor had several holes through the floor and subfloor which were located in the area around the disk drives. It was reported that the shelves upon which the modems had rested had recently collapsed, resulting in modems stacked one upon another on the floor and on a disk drive with connecting cables in a mound on the floor. Replacement shelving was in the process of being installed but had not been completed at the time of this review. A heat and smoke detector was installed and is monitored by the City Fire Department, located in an adjacent building. One wall of the computer room apparently experienced water seepage from a planter located on the outside of the wall. A water detector was installed near that wall to monitor such seepage. This detector sounds an alarm in the Fire Department, and appropriate members of the General Services must then be notified to correct the problem. ELI DUNA V DRAFT Jim II Kms/ 3 1, -6- :2 "�e.. F GLS THESE STATEMENTS DO NOT INCLUDE THE EFFECTS OF THE CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION The air conditioning unit does not automatically reset and continue operation after an electrical power interruption, which generally causes the unit to shut down. When the computer is operating in unattended mode and this situation occurs, the computer room overheats. This results in an alarm being activated which results in telephone notification of appropriate data processing personnel to investigate and correct the situation. It is necessary for someone to enter the computer room, allow the room to cool down to a temperature less than the alarm trip temperature (approximately 80 degrees), and restart the air conditioning unit. An additional concern results from the potential of high ambient humidity as a result of both the seepage and condensation. Electronic data processing equipment must operate within specified temperature and humidity ranges to prevent damage to the machinery. Should these tolerances not be met, a potential exists for damage to the equipment and voiding of the maintenance agreements which require appropriate environmental conditions. Recommendation The current computer room site has significant deficiencies regarding space, location, environmental controls, and the ability to provide an appropriate environment for continued computer operation. The City should consider either relocating or making considerable modifications to remedy the problems addressed in this section. EDP Disaster Contingency Plan Based on conversations with Joan Noon, Director of General Services, the City of Hermosa Beach does not have formal EDP disaster contingency plans. The City does have, however, informal agreements with the City of El Segundo and the City of Visalia for contingency computer backup. Both of these cities have similar computer hardware and applications software, but there appears to be no formal mechanism by which hardware or operating system changes, upgrades, or modifications are coordinated among these installations. Recommendation We recommend the EDP disaster contingency plan be formalized, implemented, and tested. This plan should describe general procedures for potential interruptions involving fires, electrical power outages, telecommunication failures, flooding, and hardware, software, and application failures. Specific plans should cover such areas as protection of computer data, data center operations, vital user records, backup of data, hardware, documentation, and supplies, and insurance. In addition, this plan should be tested and periodically updated to reflect changes in hardware, software, and application systems. PREL! ' NA a DPAFT THESE STATEMENTS DO NOT INCLUDE THE EFFECTS OF THE CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION To the extent possible, the City should formalize contingency computer backup agreements with entities possessing compatible computer hardware. This formal agreement should specify hardware configurations, available hours of operation, fees and charges, and required support to enable the City to process for an extended period of time. Long Range Data Processing Planning The General Services department has informally formulated long range data processing plans intended to address the next several years growth of the data processing function within the City. These plans need to be coordinated with overall City plans to enable appropriate and timely support. One issue involving specific support is the ability of the current computer configuration to provide adequate levels of service with the addition of several applications, including payroll. Recommendation The data processing planning should be formalized and should reflect the goals and objectives of the 5 year CIP being developed on a City-wide level. This will enable the data processing function to order/upgrade appropriate computer hardware, acquire, install, and/or modify applications software, and provide appropriate documentation and training to those affected. Policies, Procedures, and Standards Although some progress has been made in the documentation of policies, procedures, and standards, all areas of the data processing environment have not yet been fully addressed. Recommendation Policies, procedures, and standards for all aspects of the City computer services should be developed and documented. This documentation is necessary for the consistent on-going operation of the data processing environment and continued support of users. P EL!M . , Y PPAFT C; SUBJECTL NGE F� 6, -8- Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council February 7, 1989 City Council Meeting of February 14, 1989 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS February 28, 1989 Aviation Blvd. traffic Safety review Monterey speed limit Revenue and Expenditure reports - January Resolution of 86-87 Federal grant for bus service City Treasurer Report - January Use of Greenbelt parking area for sewer construction project Trash enclosure enforcement Consideration of a "press pass" for parking purposes Resolution on green, yellow and white zones Sidewalk inventory and maintenance report Public Hearings To consider amending Section 4-8, HBMC establishing an off -leash dog exercise and training area at the property commonly known as the Greenbelt/Railroad R -O -W Municipal Matters Mid -year Budget Review Future plans for Old Prospect School - 1 - Responsible Agent Public Works Director Public Works Director Finance Administrator Planning Director City Treasurer Public Works Director Building Director General Services Director Public Works Director Public Works Department General Services Director CM/ACM/Fin. Community Resources Dir. 1 C Council Items Air Quality Management Plan March 14, 1989 Flag Ceremony by Camp Fire Girls Proclamation for Camp Fire Birthday Week Appointment of Mayor City Council Reorganization Consent Calendar RFP for audit firm Resolution ordering preparation of report - Street Lighting District Resolution ordering preparation of report - Crossing Guards District Accept Community Center air condi- tioning as complete CIP 88-610 Award Pier Storm Damage Repair contract CIP 88-614 March 28, 1989 Accept slurry seal as complete CIP 87-170 Accept traffic signal improvements as complete CIP 85-138 April 25, 1989 Street Lighting District Assessment a) Resolution approving report b) Resolution setting public hearing Crossing Guard a) Resolution b) Resolution District Assessment approving report setting public hearing July, 25, 1989 Review of City Goals Planning Director Finance Administrator Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director City Manager ***************************************************************** Upcoming Items Not Yet Calendared RFP for cost allocation plan Contract for 1988-1989 audit Report on problems with campaign contribution ordinance. Recreational Vehicle ordinance Development of design standards and criteria by which to review projects for EIRS Adoption of Uniform Fire, Building and Plumbing Codes Fire Sprinkler Ordinance Ordinance amending provision against selling gasoline and alcohol at same location Accept Highland Ave. as complete Accept Pier repair damage as complete Award traffic signal pre-emption contract Award contract Community Center smoke detection Finance Administrator Finance Administrator City Clerk General Services Director Planning Director Public Safety/Building Public Safety Director City Attorney Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director Public Works Director ***************************************************************** Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council February 6, 1989 City Council Meeting of February 14, 1989 MONTHLY STATUS REPORT OF INACTIVE PUBLIC DEPOSITS FOR HERMOSA BEACH Attached is a report of all Inactive Public Deposits for the month of January 1989• Respectfully submitted, / Gary Br tsch City Treasurer NOTED: Kevin Northcraft City Manager 1d INSTITUTION TOTAL INVESTMENT REPORT - JANUARY 1989 DATE OF INVESTMENT DATE OF MATURITY INTEREST LAIF BALANCE 1/01/89 Investment Investment Investment Investment Withdrawal Withdrawal Balance 1/31/89 $2,920,000.00 250,000.00 500,000.00 200,000.00 400,000.00 (500,000.00) (500,000.00) $3,270,000.00 CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT: Founders S & L Investment $ 99,000.00 Westwood S & L Investment $ 99,000.00 Butterfield S & L Investment $ 99,000.00 Investment $ 99,000.00 Huntington S & L Investment $ 99,000.00 Columbia S & L Investment $ 99,000.00 1/3/89 1/9/89 1/11/89 1/13/89 2/4/88 2/5/88 2/18/88 2/24/88 2/25/88 3/3/88 1/16/89 1/26/89 2/3/89 2/3/89 2/22/89 2/23/89 2/24/89 2/27/89 8.45% 8.625% 8.50% 8.20% 8.0% 7.85% 7.4% Western Federal Investment $ 400,000.00 3/31/88 3/17/89 Union Federal S&L Investment $ 500,000.00 9/22/88 9/22/89 Union Federal S&L Investment $ 500,000.00 10/27/88 10/1/89 Community Bank Investment $ 500,000.00 12/8/88 12/8/89 Community Bank Investment $ 500,000.00 1/26/89 7/25/89 CORPORATE NOTES: Ford Motor Credit Co. Investment $ 500,000.00 5/19/88 5/20/93 Merrill Lynch & Co. Investment $ 500,000.00 6/30/88 1/2/90 - Summit Bancorporation Investment $ 500,000.00 9/15/88 10/16/89 7.75% 8.50% 8.40% 9.00% 9.15% 9.10% 8.35% 8.90% BANKERS ACCEPTANCES: Marine Midland Investment $ 489,829.72 1/18/89 4/10/89 9.12 FHLMC: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. Investment Investment $ 248,733.64 $ 249,320.88 TOTAL BALANCE $8,751,884.24 Respectfully Submitted, Vary Bruts City Treasurer 3/26/87 5/26/87 3/1/17 8/2/16 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council January 23, 1989 Regular Meeting of February 14, 1989 SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REGULATION AND GUIDELINES INITIATED BY STAFF Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution. Background The City Council, at their meeting of January 24, 1984, approved Resolution No. 84-4677 which adopted the guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Resolution 84-4677 references several section of CEQA verbatim which have subsequently been amended. Resolution No. 84-4677 is very outdated; amendments to CEQA occur annually. History/Analysis HISTORY -- CEQA was enacted by the state legislature to require environmental review of all discretionary actions, public or private. CEQA's basic purpose is to disclose the potential environmental impacts of a project, suggest mitigation measures to those impacts, and to discuss alternatives to the project. In general, there are three basic steps to the environmental analysis process: 1. Determine if the project is subject to CEQA regulations. If not subject to CEQA, a Notice of Exemption is prepared. 2. If the project is subject to CEQA regulations, an initial study is conducted. If the initial study shows there will be no "significant" impacts, an Environmental Negative Declaration is prepared. 3. If the initial study shows the project may have significant impacts, an Environmental Impact Report (E.I.R.) is prepared. ANALYSIS -- The attached Resolution will repeal Resolution 84-4677 and adopt the current CEQA guidelines as required by the State. The proposed Resolution will not specifically reference any provision of the CEQA guidelines verbatim, thereby, allowing for amendments to the guidelines, for the most part, without affecting the City's Resolution. Since the City must comply with 1 111 all provisions of CEQA, a resolution should be adopted which will allow for said amendments. The attached Resolution will also redefine the Environmental Review Committee which conducts initial studies of proposed projects. Presently, Resolution 84-4677 states that the Committee shall consist of representatives from seven departments including Planning, Building, Public Works, Police, Fire, General Services, and Recreation. Staff is recommending that this Committee be redefined to include representatives from only five departments. The representatives from General Services and Recreation Departments should be excluded from the Committee since enviromental impacts do not generally affect these departments. It should be noted that representatives from these two departments have not attended Environmental Staff Review meetings in months. The attached Resolution will also redefine when the Environmental Review Committee shall meet. Presently Resolution 84-4677 states that the Committee shall meet weekly. The attached Resolution will require the Committee to meet twice a month as presently conducted. A provision will also be added to allow the Committee to schedule emergency meetings if needed. Also included in the attached Resolution is a time -table for implementation of the CEQA review procedures. The State Guidelines allow local jurisdictions some flexibilty for review periods. Also, the attached Resolution requires that the City conduct a public hearing for the granting of any Negative Declaration or Certification of an Environmental Impact Report. However, it should be noted tbat the CEQA guidelines do not require public bearing for Negative Declarations or E.I.R.'s•, only the City's implementing Resolution will require the public bearings. Attached is a flow chart which outlines the CEQA process. It should be noted that this chart merely illustrates the CEQA process. The language contained in the Guidelines controls the procedures and sets the regulations. Attachments 1. CEQA Flow Chart 2. Resolution No. 89- 3. Resolution No. 84-4677 CONCUR: % Micha Schubach Planning Dir/-/ectpr J Kevin B. Northc`raft City Manager 2 Respetful-T Submitted, c ( ( And e7 Pea Associat\Planner c • C CEQA PROCESS FLOW CHART Public agency determines whether the activity is a "project" Project Public agency the project is Not exempt determines exempt Not a project if — Statutory exemption — — — Categorical exemption — Public agency evaluates project to determine if there is a possibility — No possible significant _ that the project may have a sig- effect nificant effect on environment Possible significant effect Determination of lead agency where more than 1 public agency is involved Responsible agency Respond to informal consultation Respond to Notice of Pre- paration as to contents of draft EIR Comments on adequacy of draft EIR or Negative Declaration Lead gency` —Consultation —Consultation Lead agency prepares study 1 I I — — H initial l Lead agency decision to prepare EIR or Negative Declaration Negative Declaration EIR No further action required under CEQA Lead agency pends•Notice of Preparation to responsible agency Lead agency prepares draft EIR 1 —Consultation Decision making body considers final EIR or Negative Declaration prepared by lead agency Findings on feasibility of reducing or avoiding significant environ- mental effects !Decision on project / \ State agencies Local agencies File Notice of Determi- nation with Office of Planning and Research File Notice of Determination with County Clerk Lead agency files Notice of Com- pletion and gives public notice of availability of draft EIR Public review period Lead agency prepares final EIR including responses to comments on draft EIR. Consideration and approval of final EIR by decision making body Findings on feasiblity of reducing or avoiding significant environ- mental effects Decision on Project Local agencies State agencies File Notice of Determi- nation with Office of Planning and Research t Lead agency gives public notice of availability of Negative Declaration Public review period insideration and approval of Negative Declaration by otcision making body / / File Notice of Determination with County Clerk NOTE: This flow chart is intended merely to illustrate the EIR process contemplated by these Guidelines. The language. contained in the Guidelines controls in case of discrepancies. -3- Revised/Effective January 1985 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 84-4677 AND ADOPTING THE REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIROMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AS AMENDED. WHEREAS, Section 21082 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California requires that all local jurisdictions adopt the objectives, criteria, and procedures for the evaluation of projects and the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports and Negative Declarations pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing with Public Resources Code 21000; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 84-4677, which previously adopted the CEQA Guidelines, contains verbatim references to previous Guidelines which have now been amended, therefore, making said Resolution outdated; and WHEREAS, this Resolution will not specifically reference any section of the CEQA Guidelines verbatim, thereby, allowing for amendments to said Guidelines with little or no effect upon this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the'City Council finds that adopting of the CEQA Guidelines with the following provisions is necessary to assure due protection to the environment for present and future citizens of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby adopt the CEQA Guidelines, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000, pursuant to Section 21082 of the Public Resources Code with the following method of implementation: 1. The initial studies shall be conduct by the Environmental Review Committee. Said Committee shall consist of representatives from five (5) departments including Planning, Building, Public Works, Fire and Police. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a. Said Committee shall meet twice a month, on the Thursday following a Planning Commission meeting and/or when necessary. Alternative meeting dates may be scheduled for holidays. b. Emergency meetings may be called by the Environmental Review Committee when needed. 2. The Planning Commission and/or City Council, which ever is appropriate, shall be the governing body to adopt any Negative Declaration or to certify any Environmental Impact Report prior to the approval of any discretionary project. a. Determination for approval of a Negative Declaration or Certification of an E.I.R. shall occur at a Public Hearing which has been noticed in the following manner: 1. The project site must be posted with information regarding said hearing a minimum of 10 days before said meeting. 2. The meeting shall be publicly noticed in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Hermosa Beach pursuant to Section 6061 of the Government Code. 3. Notification of the meeting to adjacent property owners within a 300' radius shall be by direct mailing. Said notification must be mailed a minimum of twelve (12) days before the meeting. Projects requiring hearings only may, at the option of the Planning Commission and/or City Council, require direct mailing, otherwise, no direct mailing is necessary. b. Approval of Negative Declarations granted or certification of an E.I.R. by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. Said appeal must be received by the City Clerk within ten (10) days of approval. 3. The time frames for completing review and approval of Negative Declarations or E.I.R.'s shall be the maximum allowed by the CEQA Guidelines. a. The time -limits may be extended if compelling circumstances justify additional time and the project applicant consents thereto. 4. Review periods to allow members of the public to provide comments to proposed Negative Declarations or Draft Environmental Impact Reports are as follows: a. Negative Declarations -- 30 days. b. Environmental Impact Reports -- 45 days. 5. This Resolution supercedes Resolution No. 84-4677. -5- 1 2 3 4 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED TO IRM: ATTOR agccrscega 9 10 11 12 13. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council FROM: Andrew Perea, Associate Planenr SUBJECT: Resolution No. 84-4677 CEQA Implementation Resolution DATE: February 6, 1989 Resolution No. 84-4677 has not been attached with this staff report because staff has attempted to keep photocopy costs down.The document is very lengthy; Resolution No. 84-4677 is 49 pages. The document will, however, be on file with the Planning Department for review. 7 February 6, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of February 14, 1989 TRAFFIC SAFETY EVALUATION OF CITY'S TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAM Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council review and then receive and file the attached Traffic Safety Evaluation conducted by the Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley. Background: After discussing with our Public Safety and Public Works Depart- ments, I requested some time ago a audit of the City's traffic safety program by the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. The Institute has for many years received State funding to perform audits of local agencies' traffic safety programs. Their evaluations are uniformly found to be constructive and lead to an improvement in an agency's traffic safety programs. The evaluation is provided at no cost to the local agency. This is one of our many efforts to review the cost effectiveness of our programs, as provided in this year's budget. Traffic safety is a particularly significant service to review, as traf- fic accidents statewide are averaging $6,700 in cost to the citizens of California per accident. In Hermosa Beach, the 1987 statistics indicate that a Hermosa Beach citizen is 1.8 times more likely to be injured as a result of a traffic accident than he or she is as a result of a general crime being committed. The intent of the audit is not to find fault, but to indicate areas where a city's resources could be better maximized in improving its traffic safety program. The evaluation is performed by a comparison of the statistics with statewide averages, and by ap- plying the considerable background of the engineering and police experts that perform the evaluation. Funding sources for im- plementing parts of the recommendations are also suggested as part of the evaluation. Analysis: The evaluation has nine specific recommendations contained in its enforcement evaluation which begins on Page 1. There are ten specific recommendations contained in the engineering analysis, which begins on Page 32. Recommendations regarding funding sources are contained on Page 59. The statistics indicate that the City of Hermosa Beach ranks 211 out of 478 agencies in terms of traffic accidents per capita, with number 1 being the poorest record. - 1 - 1 0 Staff will be reviewing the report and the recommendations and implementing those recommendations as appropriate and feasible the remainder of the current fiscal year. It is anticipated that a follow up visit will be requested prior to the end of the cal- endar year, so that our progress in improving our traffic safety program can be charted and reported to the City Council and the public. /�/_.t-'s , i Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager KBN/ld Concur: Steve Wisniewski Public Safety Director lti Anthony Antic Public Works 'rector February 6, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of February 14, 1989. RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND CITY GOAL NO. 3 RELATED TO GROWTH MANAGEMENT Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council amend City Goal No. 3 "Growth Management/Density Reduction" to reflect the Council and Planning Commission's compatible concern to reduce bulk in new structures. Background: The City Goals were established by the City Council at their meeting of July 12, 1988, and reviewed in November, 1988 by the Council. Goal No. 3 currently reads "Growth Management/Density Reduction; continue methods designed to reduce density." At the City Council and the Planning Commission's joint session on January 31, 1989, it was a clear consensus of the two bodies that the City's growth management goal should include an equal concern for reducing bulk in buildings, now that the lot merger and down - zoning efforts have had a significant impact on the potential densities allowed within our community. Analysis: In order for the Council and Planning Commission's current em- phasis on reducing bulk to be reflected accurately in the City's Goals, it is appropriate to amend Goal No. 3 to so reflect. The suggested revision is as follows: Goal No. 3, Growth Management/ Density and Bulk Reduction; continue methods designed to reduce density and look at ways in which to reduce bulk and increase the feeling of open space in new construction. Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager ;'1 ael chubach Planning Director KBN/ld 1p January 11, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council February.l4, 1989 ACCEPT WORK AS COMPLETE AND FINAL PROJECT ACCOUNTING FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT REMODEL, FIRST FLOOR, CIP 87-606 Recommendations: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Accept as complete CIP 87-606, Police Department Remodel, First Floor, and terminate the contract with Stuart Construction Company. 2. Authorize staff to: a) Withhold the full retention amount of $14,814.93. b) Release Stuart Construction Company from the Faithful Performance Bond and the Labor and Materials Bond. c) Grant authority to the Public Works Director to notify the bonding company of the contractors failure to perform 100% of the work. 3. Accept as complete inspection services provided by Joncich, Sturm & Associates (JSA). 4. Authorize staff to file a Notice of Completion. Background: On April 12, 1988, City Council awarded a contract to Stuart Construction Company in an amount not to exceed $148,962 for renovation of the first floor of the Hermosa Beach Police. Department including the dispatch room. Analysis: The analysis is divided as follows: 1. Construction A. Built According to Plans & Specifications B. Final Construction Cost C. Project Delay D. Liquidated Damages E. Damage of Computer Equipment by Contractor F. Notice of Completion G. Release of Bond 2. Inspection Services 3. Final Project Cost 1. Construction A. Built According to Plans and Specifications About $399 of minor punchlist items were not completed by Stuart Construction Company. The contractor failed to complete this work even after repeated requests by Public Works staff. The work was finally performed by Public Works crews. Besides the minor punch list work, the project has been built according to the plans and specifications prepared by JSA and approved by City Council. JSA has inspected the project for compliance with the design and found it to comply with the drawings, specifications and changes as directed by the City. •Staff concurs with JSA. B. Final Construction Cost Below is a summary of construction •costs, including retention, for Stuart Construction Company: Original Contract Amount Change order #1 Added drywall #2 Plaster restrooms #3 Replace waste pipe #4 HVAC main duct #5 New rear door #6 Electrical #7 Electrical #8 Cabinets #9 New sink #10 Cabinet Work #11 Electrical Total Change Total Less: Final Orders Contract Amount Withheld Retention Contract Amount Contract Amount Not to Exceed $135,420.00 $696.00 417.00 570.00 0.00 850.00 2,263.67 2,998.50 4,190.11 217.80 287.98 238.25 $12,729.31 $148,149.31 < 14,814.93> $133,334.38 $148,962.00 Per the contract, ninety percent (90%) of the contract cost has been paid; a 10% retention is being withheld. 2 C. Project Delay Below is a summary of the project schedule. Start Date 5/13/88 Original Contract Completion Date 7/27/88 Days added by change orders 27 Adjusted Contract Completion Date 8/23/88 Date of Substantial Completion 10/17/88 Days Exceeding Adjusted Contract ' Completion Date 55 Substantial completion of the project occurred when beneficial occupancy of the area was obtained, that is, when Police staff moved equipment and furniture into the first floor. Slow completion of punch list items, problems with the existing heating and ventilation system, contract change order negotiation and liquidated damages have delayed the •submittal of this agenda item to City Council. D. Liquidated Damages The contract with Stuart Construction allowed the City to assess $500 per calendar day in liquidated damages from the contractor for each day past the contract completion date. The calculated liquidated damages are: Total: 55 days X $500 per day = $27,500 Less: Withheld Retention 14,815 Liquidated Damages Not Retained $12,685 The City attorney is investigating the feasability of filing an action to recover liquidated damages not retained. E. Damage of Computer Equipment by Contractor On May 16, 1988 Stuart Construction Company damaged (due to power outages and water spillage) computer equipment in the Hermosa Beach Police Department during construction. The Police Department estimated the replacement and repair of the equipment at $5,000. An insurance claim was filed through the City's insurance company for the damaged equipment on January 23, 1989. F. Notice of Completion Staff will file a Notice of Completion with the County of Los Angeles upon acceptance of this work as complete by City Council. G. Release of Bond Pending City Council authorization staff will release Stuart Construction Company from the Faithful Performance Bond and Labor and Material's Bond. Bonding Company: Original Bond Amount: Amount to be released: Bond No.: United Pacific Insurance Company P.O. Box 81068 San Diego, CA 92138 Attention: Ron Page $135,420 $135,420 U68 89 66 2. Inspection Services Joncich, Sturm & Associates, provided the following inspection services for this project: •a. Services during bidding b. Shop drawing review c. Construction observation d. Reviewing change orders, answering questions e. Preparing and reviewing the punch list Their work was satisfactorily completed. 3. Final Project Cost Accounting Below is a summary of final project costs * separated by design, construction, inspection and fiscal year: % of Total Project Total FY 87-88 FY 88-89 Design 9.2 $15,543 $15,543 $ -0- Construction 87.7 148,149 92,690 55,460 Less: Retention <14,815> <9,270> <5,546> Inspection 3.1 5,243 -0- 5,243 Total 100.0 $154,120 $98,963 $55,157 Funding Source: General Fund, Designation for Capital Improvements. * Rounded to nearest dollar Alternatives: Other alternatives considered by staff and available to City Council are: 1. Do not accept the work as complete. Respectfully submitted: Brian Gengler Concur: Airhdny Ah is Assistant Engineer Director of Publ Works Concur: 7 Kevin B. Northcaft City anager Steve Wisni-wski Public Safety Director Attachments: Project Schedule cc: James P. Lough, City Attorney ty/pdr Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator CONSTRUL...ON SCHEDULE PROJECT NAME : 1st Floor Police Department Remodel-CIP 87-606 ACCOUNT NUMBER : LEGEND TENTATIVE SCHEDULE : eimmimesummi ACTUAL SCHEDULE X : 100% COMPLETE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I TASKS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC I 1 1 1• 1 1 1 1 Final design approval before advertisingululIIII111U for construction Prepare advertisement & set bid opening"1"1"1"1 date Advertising period (issue addendums as necessary) Accept sealed bids & public bid opening Review bids Award contract Sign contract (bonds,insurance & workers comp. cert.) Preconstruction meeting procedure Issue "Notice to Proceed" Construction Period Monitor progress & maintain records Progress payment and change order procedure Acceptance of work as complete Issusing and recording a "Notice of Completion" Retention Payment Project close out I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1171111111 11111 In 1---- 11nn•1i I I 111111, 0 111nu1J • 11111111111 • 11111 O I I 11111111111111111111111l 1 I 1 111111111111111111111111 I 111 I I1111111111/1 UInlnihII I I I I I 1 1 III 1 1 1 I 1 111111111111111111 February 2, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council February 14, 1989 APPROVAL OF SPRING RECREATION PROGRAM APPROPRIATION RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council appropriate $7,500 from the General Fund unappropriated balance to the Dept. of Community Resources for a Spring Recreation Program and the Youtn Easter Week Program of Activities. BACKGROUND The last time the City offered its own recreation classes was in 1982. At that time enrollment was not sufficient to continue the majority of classes due to the competition from adjacent cities. It was also determined at that time, that the entire program was to be self supporting through user fees. In order to do that the fees were higher than neighboring cities and it was suggested that was why the enrollment was so low. In view of all that it was determined that the City could still be offering classes, in a manner of speaking, by renting out its various recreational facilities to private individuals who would offer classes to the community. Those instructors would tnen pay a rental fee to the City. Witn that method, the City did not incur any administrative costs, but still generated revenue for the City and still had classes operating out of its facilities. Some of those classes that operate by that method are: Aerobic Dance; Dog Obedience Classes; Jazzercise; Pre/Postnatal exercise classes; Super kids (youth gymnastics); Tennis classes. The directive of the City Council now is for the City to become a direct provider of recreation classes for both adults and youth. ANALYSIS Attachment A reflects the classes that will be offered as part of the Spring Recreation Program and the Easter Week Program. The fees collected will cover the costs of the instructors only. The remaining costs, advertising and programs materials (just for Youth Easter Week Activities) will be borne by the City. The other option would be to increase the fees charged for the classes. If that is done, we would no longer be competitive with the surrounding cities. Our fees are based on the going rate in the area. Other cities' costs are not covered by fees collected. The advertising will consist of the printing of a flyer that will be mailed to every household in the City. Flyers will a=lso be distributed to each school in Hermosa and at the Library. Cable T.V. will publicize the program as well as the City Marquee. 1 lv The flyer will also contain information about the upcoming Childrens Theatre Series that the City has been offering for the last three years; the upcoming Summer Recreation Programs for children and all the special events that will be taking place during the summer, i.e. pro and amatauer volleyball tournaments, surf festival, power lounging contest, concerts on the green, etc. This will be the first time the City will be doing an in-depth advertising flyer for the entire community. The Easter Week of Activities is a very new concept and was developed in response to the Hermosa School being on vacation the entire week before Easter Sunday. The only costs for that week will be for program materials. Each activity will be staffed by the department's in-house staff. The Easter Egg Hunt will be co-sponsored by the Hermosa Jaycees, the same as last year. Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager 2 Respectfully submitted, Alana Mastrian-Handman Director Dept. of Community Resources Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator February 2, 1989 Easter Week Schedule of Activities Attachment A Monday, March 20 Movie Matinee Fee: $1.00 Tuesday, March 21 Easter Crafts Sack Lunch Break Videos Wednesday, March 22 Easter Egg Dying Sack Lunch Break Basketball Shootout Thursday, March 23 Movie Matinee Fee: $1.00 Saturday, March 25 All City Easter Egg Hunt SPRING RECREATION PROGRAM The following programs will be offered to both adults and youth. All classes will begin the week of March 27th. Computer Classes at Valley School Acting/Theatre Classes at the Community Center Karate Classes at the Community Center Dance Classes: Jazz for Youth/ Ballroom for adults at Clark Building Cooking Classes: Youth only. At the Clark Building kitchen. Volleyball Classes: at the beach Tennis Classes: at the Community Center Courts February 6, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 14, 1989 RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND ORDERING VACATION OF TWENTY-FIRST STREET AT LOMA DRIVE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council: Adopt Resolution No. 89- , a resolution amending the General Plan and ordering the vacation of a portion at Twenty -First Street. BACKGROUND: Orr November 22, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 88-5199, a Resolution of Intention to vacate a portion of Twenty -First Street and setting a Public Hearing on the matter for the January 10, 1989 Council Meeting. On December 6, 1988 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing, receiving testimony that there was a potential public use for an improved walkway within the right-of-way. The Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the General Plan Amendment and the vacation be denied. Notice of the City Council's Public Hearing was given by publication in the Easy Reader, by posting at the subject location and by mailing to all residents and property owners within a 300 foot radius of the location. A Public Hearing was held by City Council on the following two issues: 1. A General Plan Amendment removing the subject right-of-way from the circulation element of the General Plan and designating the land use as low density residential. 2. Vacation of the right-of-way. Upon conclusion of the Public Hearing, the City Council postponed the matter to the February 14, 1989 council meeting and directed that the appropriate resolution be prepared for the General Plan Amendment and for ordering the vacation of the described portion of Twenty -First Street. 11 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 6, 1989 Page 2 ANALYSIS: This analysis is divided into the following sections: 1. Authority 2. Description of Proposed Vacation 3. Utility Consideration 4. Negative Declaration 5. Title Considerations 1. Authority The authority for vacation of public rights-of-way is found in The Street and Highway Code, beginning with Section 8300. The City Council, upon conclusion of the Public Hearing, has the authority to approve the subject vacation. City Council may approve the proposed vacation by adopting the resolution amending the General Plan and ordering the vacation and making the following findings; based upon their investigation and consideration of information, reports and testimony received on the matter. A. That the right-of-way is not necessary for present or future public uses. B. That the proposed vacation is consistent with the General Plan. (The General Plan Amendment contained in the proposed resolution would permit that finding.) 2. Description of Proposed Vacation The portion of Twenty -First Street right-of-way that is proposed for vacation is particularly described in Exhibits "A" and "B" contained in the proposed Resolution. The area is an unimproved section of right-of-way just east of Loma Drive and bordering the west end of the improved portion of Twenty -First Street (about 120 feet west of Power Street). Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 6, 1989 Page 3 The ground cover is sparse natural vegetation, and the terrain is best described as a very steep sloped terrain. An existing driveway, block wall, and carport are encroaching into and possibly beyond the northerly half of the right-of-way from the property to the north on Loma Drive. There is evidence of at least some foot traffic between Loma Drive and the existing improvements on Twenty -First Street at the bottom of the slope. The proposed vacation would not adversely impact vehicular circulation, since the right-of-way is currently unimproved and carries no traffic. Although evidence of minor foot traffic exists, there is a fence along the Loma Drive frontage which discourages such foot traffic. 3. Utility Considerations All known utility companies and agencies were notified of the proposed vacation and no utility has expressed any present or future need for easements. Letters were received from the following listed utilities indicating specifically that they have no facilities within the proposed vacation and no future need for easements. A. L.A. County Sanitation District B. L.A. County Department of Public Works C. California Water Service D. Southern California Edison 4. Negative Declaration The Staff Environmental Review Committee met on November 3, 1988, to consider the submitted environmental information forms for the subject vacation and has recommended that a negative declaration is appropriate. Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 6, 1989 Page 4 5. Title Consideration Title reports were obtained from Ticor Title Insurance Company. They confirm that the underlying fee title to the right-of-way proposed for vacation rests with the owners of the adjacent parcels to the north and south as follows: Parcel 1 Lot 6 of tract 1868, Otto Palmer Parcel 2 Lot 34 of Tract 1868, Dennis L. Anderson The proposed vacation will result in the abandonment of the right-of-way, from center line, to the respective adjacent parcels, 1 and 2. ALTERNATIVES: The other alternative considered by staff and available to Council is: 1. Denial of the vacation. Respectfully submitted, Edgar E. Edwards Harris & Associates hermosa\21st.59\recommb.ee Noted: ony Antich Director of Public /Works Concur: Kevin Northcraft/ City Manager 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND ORDERING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF TWENTY-FIRST STREET IN SAID CITY. WHEREAS Resolution No. 88-5199, a resolution of intention to vacate a portion of Twenty -First Street, was adopted on November 22, 1988, and; WHEREAS, a public hearing after due notice has been held upon said General Plan Amendment and resolution of intention to vacate the hereinafter -described street, and all persons having had the opportunity to be heard, and the City Council having determined, pursuant to Section 8324 of the Streets and Highways Code, that the hereinafter -described street is unnecessary for present or prospective public use, including use for non -motorized transportation facilities, and; WHEREAS, the Staff Environmental Review Committee met on November 3, 1988, to consider the environmental information check list for the subject General Plan Amendment and street vacation; and recommended that a Negative Declaration is appropriate, now therefore; BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, as follows: - 1 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 1. That the removal of the portion of Twenty -First Street, hereinafter described, from the circulation plan, and the proposed vacation thereof would result in no significant environmental impact; and a Negative Declaration is hereby approved. SECTION 2. That the General Plan is hereby amended as follows: A. The hereinafter described portion of Twenty -First Street is deleted from the circulation element of the General Plan. B. The Land Use Element of the General Plan is amended to designate said portion of Twenty -First Street as Low Density Residential. SECTION 3. That the public interest and convenience require the vacation of that certain portion of Twenty -First Street in the City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, more particularly described as follows,, and the same is HEREBY VACATED AND ABANDONED: A portion of Twenty -First Street shown as `Portland Street' on that certain map entitled Tract No. 1868 recorded in Book 26 at page 21, Los Angeles County Records, being a 40 foot wide strip of land more particularly described as follows: - 2 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22, 23 25\ 26 27 28 Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 34 of said Tract 1868; thence South 22° 00 East 40.52 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 6 of said tract 1868, thence North 77° 10 30" East 101.13 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 6, thence North 24° 30 30" West 40.85 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 34, thence South 77° 10 30" West 99.31 feet to the Point of Beginning. SECTION 4 . That said vacation and abandonment is conditioned upon the following: A. That no more than three houses, in total, be placed by the owner, Otto Palmer, upon the three southerly adjacent lots (Lots 6, 7, and 8 of Tract No. 1868). That the maximum square footage of any house constructed upon said southerly adjacent lots does not exceed 3,200 square feet. C. That a full and complete title report and guarantee is obtained showing the underlying fee ownership of the vacation to be vested with the owners of the immediately adjacent lots. /1/10 „ x) -Z P,% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 D. That all costs, including title search, title guarantee, and all City costs involved with the vacation are borne by the applicant, Otto Palmer. SECTION 5. In effecting this order and determination, the City Council has made the following findings: A. That said portion of Twenty -First Street is unnecessary for present or prospective public use. B. That the vacation and abandonment of said portion of Twenty -First Street is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Hermosa Beach, as herein amended. SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution, shall enter the same in the book of original resolutions of said City, shall make a minute record of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the City Council of said City in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted, and shall cause a certified copy, thereof, attested by the City Clerk, under the seal of said City, to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County, State of California. - 4 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and the MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY - 5 - February 8, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 14, 1989 INCREASE IN CONTRACT AMOUNT FOR SLURRY SEALING, CIP 87-170 AND ASPHALT STREET REPAIRS, CIP 87-171, FY 88-89 Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Increase the contract amount for construction with Roy Allen Slurry Seal, Inc. at a cost not to exceed $169,028. (No additional appropriation is necessary) Background: On October 25, 1988 City Council awarded a construction contract to Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. at a cost not to exceed $141,737. The contract is for asphalt repairs and slurry sealing of all asphalt streets east of Ardmore Drive. Analysis; The streets were surveyed approximately one year ago. Additional asphalt street repair areas have been identified, by Harris & Associates, the inspection firm on this project. These areas must be repaired before a slurry sealant can be placed. Fiscal Impact: CONTRACT AMOUNTS NOT TO EXCEED Administration Total Construction & Inspection Bid Amount. $147,810 $128,852 $18,958 Anticipated Increase 24,810 24,810 -0- Contingency 18,210 15,366 2,844 Not to exceed $190,830 $169,028 $21,802 AMOUNT BUDGETED Budget FY 88-89 Expenditures from previous project Estimated Balance Available PROJECT COSTS Construction Inspection Total Estimated Cost SUMMARY Estimated Balance Available as of 12/31/88 Less Total Es- timated Cost Estimated Balance After This Pro- ject Total $287,255 (61,804). $225,451 $169,028 21,802 $190,830 $225,451 (190,830) $ 34,621 Respectfully submitted, Brian Gengier Assistant Engineer Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager ty/ssasr Slurry Sealing CIP 87-170. $137,500 Asphalt Street Repairs • CIP 87-171 $149,755 -0- (61,804) $137,500 $87,951 $93,620 14,500 $75,408 7,302 $108,120 $82,710 $137,500 $87,951 (108,120) $ 29,380 Concur: (82,710) $ 5,241 r A, fug., Aeurip Anthony Antich w Director of Pu•lic Works Noted for Fiscal Impact: 62_,644)e -f -de -Lee-) Viki Copeland Finance Adminstrator January 18, 1989 City Council Meeting January 24, 1989 Mayor and Members of the City Council ORDINANCE NO. 89-974 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADDING THERETO SECTION 19-33.1 TO CHAPTER 19 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, PERTAINING TO EMERGENCY RESPONSE COST RECOVERY FEES. Submitted for adoption is Ordinance No. 89-974 relating to the above subject. At the meeting of January 24, 1989, this ordinance was introduced by the following vote: AYES: Simpson, Williams, Mayor Rosenberger NOES: Creighton ABSENT: Sheldon ABSTAIN: None Also attached is a copy of the Legislative Counsel's Opinion regarding Emergency Response # 6416, which was referenced at the last meeting. Respectfully submitted, Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk Concur: Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ORDINANCE NO. 2Q- 9751 An ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adding thereto section 19-33.1 to Chapter 19 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, pertaining to emergency response cost recovery fees. THE CITY COUNCIL OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Chapter 19, titled Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code shall be amended by adding thereto the following subsection: Section 1. Section 19-33.1, Emergency Response -Cost Recovery. Definition: "Expense of an emergency response" means those incurred by the City of Hermosa Beach in making appropriate emergency 15 response to the incident, and shall be comprised of all costs 16 directly arising because of the response to the particular 17 incident, including, but not limited to the cost of providing 18 police, fire fighting, rescue, and emergency medical services 19 at the scene of the incident, as well as salaries of the 20 personnel responding to the incident. 21 Emergency Response Cost Recovery Program. 22 Pursuant to the authority vested in the City of Hermosa 23 Beach by statesstatute, each person who is under the influence 24 of an alcoholic beverage: or any drug, or the combined influence 25 of an alcoholic beverage and any drug, whose negligent 26 operation of a motor vehicle, boat, vessel, or aircraft caused 27 by that influence proximately causes any incident resulting in 28 an appropriate emergency response, or whose intentionally 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 wrongful criminal act proximately causes any incident resulting in appropriate emergency response, shall pay to said city the expense of such an emergency response. In no event shall a person's liability under this section exceed the maximum allowable under state statute, and all costs assessed pursuant to this section shall reasonably relate to the actual cost of the expense incurred by the city. Collection of Costs. The expense of an emergency response shall be charged against the person liable for the expenses under this section. The charge constitutes a debt of that person to the City of Hermosa Beach, and is collectible by said city in the same manner as in the case of an obligation under a contract, expressed or implied. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and operation from and after thirty days after its final passage and adoption. Section 3. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach. Sectiont4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance; shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city; shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council, and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach ATTEST: CITY CLERK 22 23 4 24 25 26 27 28 APPROVED A FO TY ATTORN JACK 1. MORrON ANN MACKfY CHRDOt*1,T*3 JAMES L Asmpomo J ERRY L OAff[77 STANLEY M. LOw1sORf .10494 T. 3TIAE.AKa JmMMUE W.mo DAVID 0. ALVEI J OHN A. CORL►t C. DAVID DICKa$ON ROOMY C LLIN Ducar RO.ERT 0. GRONA(f SHERWIN C. MACKIN:DS. JR. TRACY 0. Powfu II MAROuotm R0TN PRfrCwAL Dmnvr a 3021 STAY' CAM'OL SACRAMENTO. CA 95614 (B 161 445-3067 0011 STATI BUILDING 107 SOUTH BROADWAY LAS ANGELES. CA 90012 (2131 620.2690 G151ALD ROSS ADAMS MARY1m L ANOog0N P AHA ANry.LA "sltale Tounrl1. ,} s DANA 3. APPUNGRANSOM P. 01111JSUI gr 'Ck,\.- of Tattlantta ,...y -......,,,,,,,,,,,- .---; ,,-/4/1!., .i(-14) , .., 94. c,, C,•Y '989a 0 D RAM 9. bra APIELA 1. BIRD EAaN J. BUXTON HORN J. CONTWAS COALS 1 A 0•LAND 4 PP ON J. DEWfl Honorable Jack O'Connell 2141 State Capitol Dear Mr. O'Connell: BION M. GREGORY �, Y �� {c'�,ej4 9°°eh \-,„/ J f R. HaSDt NSOC HAIL .1. Ka.TLm ,i DOUGLAS Roman. S. LYNN* KLEIN VICTOR KOLA. KI EVE B. K5011NG01 D IANA G. Lam RoutA.0 1. LDVQ JAMES A. MARSALA FRANCISCO A. MARSH PETER MELMCOS ROBERT G. MLJJDI J014.1 A. MOGER VIR NE L OUVER EUGENE L PAINE MICHAEL 9. SALERNO MARY SHAW WIWAM K. STARK MARX FRANKLDN TERRY J E/R Thom MICHAEL N. UPSON RICHARD B. WOADENG DANISL A. WCTZMAN THOMAS D. WH .AN JANA T. WMROROVE OSIRA .1. Zo ITCH CmmurromaneLRK.2 DEBITS. Sacramento, California October 18, 1988 Emergency Response - #6416 OUESTION Did the provisions of Chapters 713 and 897 of the Statutes of 1987 enlarge the scope of expenses which are reimbursable to a public agency under Article 8 (commencing with Section 53150) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code by including expenses which are incurred by a public agency as a result of an arrest of a person for operating a vehicle, boat or vessel, or civil aircraft while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or drug, or combination thereof, where that arrest did not involve an emergency response to an incident? OPINION The provisions of Chapters 713 and 897 of the Statutes of 1987 did not enlarge the scope of expenses which are reimbursable to a public agency under Article 8 (commencing with Section 53150) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code by including expenses which are incurred by a public agency as a result of an arrest of a person for operating Honorable Jack O'Connell - p. 2 - #6416 a vehicle, boat or vessel, or civil aircraft while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or drug, or combination thereof, where that arrest did not involve an emergency response to an incident. ANALYSIS Article 8 (commencing with Section 53150) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code, makes any person liable for the expense of an appropriate emergency response on the part of a public agency where that person is under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or any drug, or the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug, and his or her negligent operation of a motor vehicle, a boat or vessel, or a civil aircraft caused by that influence proximately causes any incident resulting in an appropriate emergency response. Any person whose intentionally wrongful conduct proximately causes any incident resulting in an appropriate emergency response, is similarly liable for the expense of an emergency response to the incident by a public agency (see Secs. 53150, 53151, and 53152, Gov. C.). A person's liability is limited to $1,000 for a particular incident (see Sec. 53155, Gov. C.). The statutes imposing the liability under Article 8 clearly contemplate the occurrence of an event involving the negligent operation of, among other things, a motor vehicle which causes an "incident" resulting in an emergency response by a public agency (see e.g., Sec. 53150, Gov. C.). We think that, in studying the legislative history of these statutes, the use of the word °incident" was used to mean the occurrence of an accident or an event involving more than simply an arrest. Legislative intent is the primary and controlling consideration, and the statements in legislative committee reports which are in accordance with a reasonable interpretation of a statute will be followed by the courts to assist in the interpretation of legislative intent (In re Marriage of Bjornestad, 38 Cal. App. 3d 801, 805). The Senate Committee on Judiciary in its report on Senate Bill No. 735 of the 1985-86 Regular Session, as introduced, commented regarding the purposes of the legislation adding Article 8, that according to the City of Orange, traffic incidents caused by those driving under the influence of Honorable Jack O'Connell - p. 3 - #6416 alcoholic beverages usually require the response of several police, fire, and paramedic units, as well as emergency public works personnel to complete immediate repairs of traffic signals, signs, or roadways. The purpose of the bill as introduced (which was unchanged by later amendments), therefore, apparently was to provide that the cost of an emergency response to these types of incidents should be placed on the persons responsible (Senate Committee on Judiciary, Report on S.B. 735, 1985-86 Regular Session, as introduced). The Assembly Committee on Judiciary in its report on S.B. 735, as amended June 12, 1985, made a similar statement regarding the purposes of the legislation. Accordingly, the purpose of Article 8 was to, among other things, allow public agencies to recover their costs when providing an appropriate emergency response, to an incident proximately caused by a person due to the person's negligent operation of various forms of transportation while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs. While the term "incident" is not defined in Article 8, that article does include a definition of "expense of an emergency response" in subdivision (a) of Section 53136 of the Government Code, which provides as follows: "53156. As used in this article: "(a) 'Expense of an emergency response' means reasonable costs incurred by a public agency in reasonably making an appropriate emergency response to the incident, including the costs of providing police, firefighting, rescue, and emergency medical services at the scene of the incident, but shall only include those costs directly arising because of the response to the particular incident. As can be seen from the above definition, it is envisioned that the response to an "incident" will entail more than an arrest. The items of expense claimable by a public agency include various types of emergency services at the "scene of the incident" and are limited to those costs directly arising because of response to the incident. Thus, we think that an ordinary arrest for driving under the influence where no emergency response to an incident is involved, would not come under the expense reimbursement provisions of Article 8. Honorable Jack O'Connell - p. 4 - #6416 In 1987, Section 1203.1i was added to the Penal Code by Chapter 713 of the Statutes of 1987 (A.B. 1612 of the 1987-88 Regular Session) and Section 1203.1 of that code was amended by Chapter 897 of the Statutes of 1987 (S.B. 355 of the 1987-88 Regular Session). Section 1203.1 was amended to provide, among other things, that the court in the order granting probation shall consider whether the defendant as a condition of probation shall make restitution to a public agency for the costs of the emergency response pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 53150) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Government Code. Section 1203.1i was added to the Penal Code to specify conditions which must apply when the court makes the order of restitution. Section 1203.1i states that the probation department shall obtain the actual costs for the emergency response from the public agency, but it does not enumerate the costs which may be included in computing the amount of the restitution order. There is no suggestion, however, under the terms of Section 1203.1i or Section 1203.1, as amended, or in Article 8 that the costs of arresting a person for driving under the influence may be recaptured by a public agency where the arrest was not in connection with an emergency response to an incident. Therefore, it is our opinion that the provisions of Chapters 713 and 897 of the Statutes of 1987 did not enlarge the scope of expenses which are reimbursable to a public agency under Article 8 (commencing with Section 53150) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code by including expenses which are incurred by a public agency as a result of an arrest of a person for operating a vehicle, boat or vessel, or civil aircraft while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or drug, or combination thereof, where that arrest did not involve an emergency response to an incident. Very truly yours, Bion M. Gregory Legislative Counsel By Thomas R. Heuer Deputy Legislative Counsel / -, TRH:nes V /� TO: Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager DATE: February 7, 1989 SUBJECT: Estimate of costs of billing for DUI FROM: Steve Wisniewski Director of Public a e y ******************************************************************************* ******************************************************************************* In accordance with Council request to estimate the costs of billing for the DUI cost recovery ordinance, I have calculated the various costs that might be expected to do a single billing. The salary and benefits of a Records Clerk equates to approximately .254 per minute. It is estimated that each billing should take an average of 30 minutes to pro- cess. Materials and mailing costs are estimated at approximately $2.75 per bill if they are sent by registered mail. This totals $10.25 per billing. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 2 a February 6, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council February 14, 1989 (Continued from 1/24/89) SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SECOND FLOOR AND FIRST FLOOR ADDITION WHICH ENCROACHES INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK LOCATION: 576 21ST STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE EASTERLY 25' OF LOT 43 AND THE WESTERLY 30' OF LOT 44, TRACT 1868 APPLICANTS: RICHARD AND RENEE GALLAGHER 576 21ST STREET HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the proposed variances. Background This matter has been continued from the City Council meeting of January 24, 1989, because the Public Notices were never mailed by the applicant. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of December 6, 1988, denied the subject variances. Analysis The proposed variances are to add a second story addition over a structure with a 3' 2" side yard setback rather than the required 5' setback. The applicant is also requesting to extend•a first floor nonconforming wall with a bedroom addition. The proposed project will also require a variance to Section 1309 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding additions to nonconforming structures. The Planning Commission and Staff are unable to determine findings which justify approval of these variances. The site is not unusual in size, shape, or topography. A variance should only be granted when strict interpretation of a zoning code cannot be met because of physical conditions of the subject property, not because of existing nonconformities of a structure. The applicant has submitted a list of structures in the vicinity that have nonconforming setbacks and indicates that variances have been granted in similar cases to his. Staff has researched building permit records and does acknowledge that the City has in 1 the past granted variances in similar instances. Also, there are other structures with the nonconforming setback which were built before side yard setbacks were established. Additional background is provided in the attached staff report of December 6, 1988. Alternatives 1. Determine applicable findings which justify approval of the variances. 2. Direct staff to prepare a study to determine if the Zoning Code should be amended to allow for additions to existing structures to maintain nonconforming setbacks. It should be noted, however, that allowing older buildings to add without conforming to the new requirements will reduce the recycling of older buildings and further restrict light, air, and ventilation. Attachments 1. Resolution No. 89- denying the variances 2. Resolution No. 89- approving the variances 3. Resolution P.C. 88-103 4. P.C. Staff Report of 12/6/88 5. Appeal letter 6. Application 7. Public Notice Affidavit 8. Public Correspondence CONCUR- Michael ONCUR; Michael S• Libach Planning Diregtor , Kevin B. North`craft City Manager a/pcsr576 2 Andrew Associate a lanner 4J 1+4 I r N 77 %O 30 E. '133UYd s33rsns _' 40 35 'ti ,e 36 Ji 37 til 2/ • 38 27 I /3 ti., /a 4J za 39 40 40 ® 41 N . 40 /251 275 I I (1-5) i54 I I /251 275 11 35 I O 42 , h 35 i/S N /S 1/0 r /0 40 © 45 , :, ,0 40 O h SS � .55/i 1 I I 461 53.69 ti 6'0VI 92 0, O n h 60 9/ 41 t ^) : 55 I 417 hl 1 I : 68 /4 . nn 60 1 59 58 n•I 57 .. 20' 56 .. 1 27 55 .4 T,,4 25 j y 53 25 I IIS ti /5 /4 40 52 40 40 r6 5I 40 • 1/2 /2 28 I • I 01\4/e 150 ° �� I 1 28 27 I I I 30 48 I 46 /4 I I5 01 X370• I s3371 Z h 27 I I i I 1 49 50 I I hi I I 60.6 20TH f C . W J ¢ M.8. TRACT NO 26 /8 68 ST. W J 7 40 :+o 7 cso N� I 51.:5+�.� < =c-„ 311. +'tl C� 'r 027q32 471S� * 30 i W d. , b` w r N 17 7 • 7o CI ` • `• � a 4 _LO T- L-0T� LI 3 9 -1 - . . int NU. 'SLSr„„, Lt t & TPc-< • tS 10E_ (� AL) LJ L: t N ; fCt F._ FESS/pM^. , C2793" Y � oRIGmm !40'5--- 7-�O rAOC' eR Mo s A e/i 4.I/ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONCURRING WITH THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SECOND STORY AND FIRST FLOOR BEDROOM ADDITION WHICH WOULD ENCROACH TO WITHIN 3' 2" OF THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 5' AND A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1309 REGARDING ADDITIONS TO NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AT 576 21ST STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE EASTERLY 25' OF LOT 43 AND THE WESTERLY 30' OF LOT 44, TRACT 1868. WHEREAS, the City .Councilheld a Public Hearing on January 24, 1989 and February 14, 1989 to receive oral and written testimony and made the following Findings: A. The Planning Commission, at their 'meeting of December 6, 1988, denied the proposed variances; B. The project requires variances to the side yard setbacks and to Section 1309 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding expansion of nonconforming structures; C. There are no unusual features of size, shape, or topography which justify granting a variance for this property. The property is rectangular, relatively flat, and large, approximately 5500 square feet; D. The variance is not necessary to obtain or preserve a property right possessed by other property owners in the area since a large addition can be made to the existing structure which will conform with zoning regulations; E. The variance will not be detrimental to the general public since an encroachment into the sideyard setback will only affect the neighboring property; F. The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the General Plan; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11' 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby concur with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny variances to side yard setbacks and to Section 1309 of the Zoning Ordinance at 576 21st Street. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this ' day of.January 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: a/pers576 CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ON APPEAL VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SECOND STORY AND FIRST FLOOR BEDROOM ADDITION WHICH WOULD ENCROACH TO WITHIN 3' 2" OF THE SIDE•PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 5' AND A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1309 REGARDING ADDITIONS TO NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AT 576 21ST STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE EASTERLY 25' OF LOT 43 AND THE WESTERLY 30' OF LOT 44, TRACT 1868 AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a Public Hearing on January 24, 1989, and February 14, 1989 to receive oral and written testimony and made the following Findings: A. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of December 6, 1988, denied the proposed variances; B. (This section to be completed if the City Council can justify Finding to approve the variances.) C. D. E. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby approve variance to side yard setbacks and to Section 1309 of the Zoning Ordinance at 576 21st Street and an Environmental Negative Declaration subject to the following Conditions: 1. (Conditions to be added pending approval of the variance.) 2. 3. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of February, 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: p/ccrs576 CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 88-103 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SECOND STORY AND FIRST FLOOR BEDROOM ADDITION WHICH WOULD ENCROACH TO WITHIN 3'- 2" OF THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 5' AND A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1309 REGARDING ADDITIONS TO NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AT 576 21ST STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE EASTERLY 25' OF LOT 43 AND THE WESTERLY 30' OF LOT 44, TRACT 1868. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on December 6, 1988 to receive oral and written testimony and made the following Findings: A. The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a new second story and a first floor bedroom addition which would maintain an existing nonconforming 3' 2" sideyard setback rather than the required 5' setback; B. The project will also require a variance to Section 1309 of the zoning ordinance regarding expansion of nonconforming structures. Additions to nonconforming structures are only permitted when the proposed addition adheres to all codes; C. There are no unusual features of size, shape, or topography which justify granting a variance for this property. The property is rectangular, relatively flat; and large, approximately 5500 square feet; D. The variance is not necessary to obtain or preserve a property right possessed by other property owners in the area since a large addition can be made to the existing structure which will conform with zoning regulations; E. The variance will not be detrimental to the general public since an encroachment into the sideyard setback will only affect the neighborhing property; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 F. The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby deny the variances to encroach into the sideyard setback and to allow an addition to a nonconforming structure which does not meet all zoning requirements at 576 21st Street. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Edwards,Ingell,Chmn.Peirce NOES: Comm.Ketz ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm.Rue CERTIFICATION I hereby )certify tha the foregoing Resolution P.C. 88-103_is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, at their regular meeting of December 6, 1988. Jbhes Peirce, Chairman Mic el Sc ubach; Secretary Date a/pers576 November 29, 1988 Honorable Chairman and Members of the. Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission December 6, 1988 SUBJECT: VARIANCE VAR 88-9 LOCATION: 576 21ST STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE EASTERLY 25' OF LOT 43 AND THE WESTERLY 30' OF LOT 44, TRACT 1868 APPLICANTS: RICHARD AND RENEE GALLAGHER 576 21ST STREET HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUEST: 1. A VARIANCE TO CONSTURCT A NEW SECOND FLOOR AND FIRST FLOOR ADDITION WHICH ENCROACHES TO WITHIN THREE FEET TWO INCHES (3' 2") OF THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED FIVE FEET (5'). 2. VARIANCE TO SECTION 1309 OF THE ZONING CODE REGARDING ADDTIONS TO NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the subject variances. Background The Staff Environmental Review Committee, at their meeting of September 22, 1988, recommended that the Planning Commission approve a Negative Declaration for the subject variances. The Board of Zoning Adjustments, at their meeting of April 15, 1985, approved a variance to allow an addition to an existing bedroom which encroaches into the required sideyard. The original variance request was also to allow construction of a breakfast nook which also encroached into the required sideyard, however, the BZA denied this variance. The applicants appealed the Board of Zoning Adjustments' decision. The City Council, at their meeting of May 28, 1985, denied the appeal and concurred with the decision of the BZA. Project Details -- Zoning: R-1 General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Lot Size: 5500 sq. ft., 55' by 100' Present Use: Single Family Dwelling Analysis The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a second story addition directly over a structure with walls, which encroach to within 3' 2" of the side property line rather than the required 5'. Also, the applicant is requesting to construct a first floor bedroom addition which would also maintain an existing nonconforming sideback of 3' 2". An additional variance is also required for Section 1309 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding nonconforming structures. This section allows for expansion of existing structures with nonconforming setbacks provided the new construction meets current code. The existing dwelling is approximately 1705 sq. ft. The proposed addition will add over 1200 sq. ft. of living area. The proposed second story includes three bedrooms, two baths, and a deck. In 1985, the Board of Zoning Adjustments approved a variance which allowed an addition to a first floor bedroom which maintained an existing nonconforming setback. The Findings listed in the resolution approving the variance were studied. The Findings listed in Resolution BZA 154-585 do not address any unusual physical features of the property. Rather, the variance was approved because of the location of the existing structure. Staff is recommending denial of the subject variances. There are no unusual features of size, shape, or topography. The lot is large, approximatley 5500 sq. ft., it is not unusually shaped, the lot does not have unusual topography, nor is the property owner denied any substantial property right; a second story addition can consturcted within required setbacks. The variance is requested because the owner desires to maintain existing setbacks; however, alternative designs are available which would allow for a substantial addition within required setbacks. A letter submitted by the applicant (attached) states that eight other property owners in the vicinity have been granted similar variances. However, building records indicate only two of the properties listed had variances approved. These two parcels have unusually shaped lots. A variance should only be granted when strict interpretation of a zoning code cannot be met because of a physical condition of the property involved, e.g., small lots, steep topography, etc. A variance should not be approved because of existing nonconformities applicable to the existing structures. A substantial addition can be constructed on this lot which would meet all codes. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of these variances. c CONTINUED -- Variance: 576 21st Street CONCUR: Michael Sch back Planning Director Attachments: 1. Resolution P.C. 88-103 2. Zoning Analysis, 3. Survey 4. Staff Review Minutes of 9/22/88 5. Letter from Applicant 6. Resolution BZA 154-585 7. CC Resolution 85-4837 8. Application 9. Affadivit of Public Notice a/pcsr576 r Andrew—P-rea Associate Plann Tgatitgr II It ttb air .ttt15 c RESIDENTIAL ZONING ANALYSIS Project Address: S"769 2I ST. Legal Description: Vj 7_51 L6-1-- 613 6-„,,J L -h rg Type of Project: �p��l\« No. Units: 1 Property Owner: Applicant(s): Designer: <-. PA L-4 I\ C-9 1--k r -Y' _ Daze of Plans: Zoning: e)b-4-/e)E5 Analysis Prepared by: ******************************** General Plan Designation: Maximum Dwelling Units per Acre Allowed (DU/AC): R-1 13.DU/AC 1 Dwelling Unit per Lot 'R-2 25 DU/AC 1 Unit per 1750 sq. ft. of land R-3 33 DU/AC 1 Unit per 1320 sq. ft. of land Lot Area: �SOC� ( 5 boa' Proposed Density -Dwelling Units/Acres NCD r„16,c--; Maximum Allowable Lot Coverage: 65% Proposed Lot -Coverage: Minimum Unit Size: a) 1 bedroom - 900 sq. ft. b) 2 bedroom - 1100 sq. ft. _ c) 3 bedroom - 1400 sq. ft. d) 4 bedroom - 1600 sq. ft. Proposed Unit Size(s):--m-03-0669 241?;0_`PR,011JED Useable Open Space Required. a) R-1 - 400 sq. ft., minimum dimension of 10' 75% ground - 25% balconies, open to the sky b) R-2 & R -2B - 200 sq. ft., minimum dimension of 7' c) R-3 - 200 sq. ft., minimum dimension of 7' d) R -P - 200 sq. ft., minimum dimension of 7' - (3 - •. n•.':.x� b.fi.Gt�kr iriFi Yl.�i.N1L1� 'R�A+bAid/1yy.'p{wt' < < C Condominium developments requires 100 sq. ft. of additional private open space, minimum dimension of 7'. Each condominium development of five (5) units or more requires 100 sq. ft. of common open space per unit. Open Space per Unit: Required Proposed 4c)c)f I1(- 16 Private: Common: ****************************a**-** Maximum Allowable Height a) R-1 - 25 feet, maximum 2 stories b) R-2 & R -2B - 30 feet, maximum 2 stories c) R-3 - 35 feet d) R -P - 35 feet, maximum 3 stories Condominium developments located along walk streets shall not exceed the maximum height of 25 feet within the front half of the lot. Proposed Building Height: Note: Height shall be verified by the Building Department during Plan Check. ******************************* Building Setbacks Where garages or parking stalls front on a public street or alley, the minimum setback shall be 17 feet provided roll -up doors are installed; a minimum of 20 feet shall be required shere standard doors are installed. Setbacks - continued Front: Rear: Side: Requi ed I0� 5/ Propo ed / �� U ********************************* Parking a) Two parking spaces per unit, minimum dimension of 8 1/2 _.feet wide by 20 feet deep -enclosed, 8 1/2 feet wide by 18 Total Required: b) One guest space for each two units (round up; e.g. 3 unit site must provide 2 guest spaces)• One guest space shall also be required for each on -street parking space eliminated because of new driveways or curb cuts. Total Required: -feet-open. Parking Proposed: a) Spaces per Unit - 2- b) Guest Parking - Z Required Turning Radius Proposed Turning Radius 1e (,cam v. o **********************-*********** Required Sound Insulation Required: a) The minimum wall insulation rating between units shall be 52 STC. b) The minimum floor/ceiling rating between stacked units shall be 58 STC. Proposed Sound Insulation k.\ Note: Sound Insulation requirement shall be verified by the Building Department during plan check. Storage Area Required per Unit: -a) 200 cubic feet -of storage area per unit c Storage Area Proposed per Unit - Location of Trash Faclities - Staff Comments: c no cOLv1Z REVISED - September n87 c c VARIANCE TO ALLOW NEW SECOND STORY AND FIRST STORY ADDITION TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND TO ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 576 21ST STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 29, 1988. The Board of Zoning Adjustments, at their meeting of April 15, 1985, approved a variance to allow the addition to an existing bedroom which encroaches into the required sideyard. The original variance request was also to allow construction of a breakfast nook which also encroached in the required sideyard; however, the BZA denied this variance. The applicants appealed the decision of the BZA. The City Council, at their meeting of May 28, 1985, denied the appeal and concurred with the decision of the BZA. This project is located in the R-1 zone and has a general plan designation of low density residential. The lot size is 5500 square feet, and the present use is as a single-family dwelling. The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a second -story addition directly over a structure with walls which encroach to within 3 feet, 2 inches of the side property line rather than the re uired five feet. Also, the applicant is requesting to construct a first - floor bedroom addition which would also maintain an existing nonconforming setback of 3 feet, 2 inches. An additional variance is also required for Section 1309 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding nonconforming structures. This section allows for expansion of -(7 P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 c. c existing structures with nonconforming setbacks, provided the new construction meets current code requirements. The existing dwelling is approximately 1705 square feet. The proposed addition will add over 1200 square feet of living area. The proposed second story will include three bedrooms, two baths, and a deck. In 1985 the Board of Zoning Adjustments approved a variance which allowed an addition to the first floor bedroom which maintained an existing nonconforming setback. The findings listed in the resolution approving the variance were studied. The findings listed in Resolution 154-585 do not address any unusual physical features of the property. Rather, the variance was approved because of the location of the existing structure. Staff recommended denial of the subject variances. There are no unusual features of size, shape, or topography. The lot is large, approximately 5500 square feet, and it is not unusually shaped. The lot does not have unusual topography; nor• is the property owner denied any substantial property right. A second -story addition can be constructed within the required setbacks. The variance is requested because the owner desires to maintain existing setbacks; however, alternative designs are available which would allow for a substantial addition within the required setbacks. A letter submitted by the applicant states that eight other property owners in the vicinity have been granted similar variances. However, building records indicate only two of the properties listed had variances approved. These two parcels have unusually shaped lots. A variance •should only be granted when strict interpretation of a zoning code cannot be met because of a physical condition of the property involved; i.e., small lots, steep topography, and so on. A variance should not be approved because of existing nonconformities applicable to the existing structures. A substantial addition can be constructed on this lot which would meet all codes. Therefore, staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the variances. Mr. Schubach replied, in response to a question from Chmn. Peirce, that he did not know which two properties had received variances. Public Hearing opened at 8:20 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Richard Gallagher, 576 21st Street, applicant, addressed the Commission. He gave a history of his home as well as past additions and plans. When he first moved in, he applied for an addition and remodel of the kitchen and a slight extension of the bedroom. At the time, two variances were requested, one on each side of the house. The variance for the bedroom was granted. All that did was extend the nonconforming wall an additional five feet. He stated that at that time, his justifications were approved by the BZ A. The variance to expand the kitchen, however, was denied. Mr. Gallagher stated that he would like to expand to add a second floor with two additional bedrooms. When he purchased this home, he purchased it not because of its size, but because of its location. It was planned to remodel the home in the future. Mr. Gallagher stated that when he applied for the variance to continue with the work, he did not anticipate any problems. He has already had one variance granted for a nonconforming wall. This house was built in the 1950's. Along this street, 80 percent of the houses are nonconforming in terms of the new ordinance. He stated that when the _f'- P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 C. C last variance was approved, the BZA determined that this lot had unusual circumstances, and there were no problems. At that time three feet was added onto the bedroom. Now he would like to add an additional eight feet, which is not for the bedroom, but for the stairwell. The addition will involve less than 18 percent of the wall. Mr. Gallagher stated that when he received the staff analysis, he was dismayed to find that there were problems. He stated that he went to the Building Department and obtained paperwork showing that 13 other houses had received similar variances, rather than the two asserted in the staff report. Mr. Gallagher passed out copies of the paperwork he had culled from the records in the Building Department. He also incli ded in the handout copies of the plot plans. Mr. Gallagher continued his presentation by discussing the plot plans. Mr. Gallagher stated that the other homes which have received sideyard variances are on very large lots and are all very similar to his home. Mr. Schubach stated that the records obtained by Mr. Gallagher are not actually variances. Mr. Gallagher stated that he showed the plans to his neighbors, all of whom signed the plans to = designate their approval of this project. He passed out the plans with the signatures. Mr. Gallagher stated that his previous variance application was approved because the • BZA found that the nonconforming wall qualified as an unusual or exceptional • ' circumstance. He stated that nothing has changed from 1985 until 1988. He understood the reason the City wanted to prevent overgrowth in the City. Mr. Gallagher showed photographs depicting his home. He continued by explaining the nonconforming side wall in question and stated that it abuts the driveway of his neighbor. The distance between the homes is now over 13 feet. There would still be ten feet between the home if he were allowed to go straight up with his wall. Chmn. Peirce commented on the paperwork presented by Mr. Gallagher, noting that some of the projects are quite old, one of which was done in 1956. Mr. Gallagher explained that some of the applications were double stamped, however. He noted that the majority are from 1978 and on. Mr. Gallagher noted that it was quite difficult to obtain all of the materials necessary for him to make his presentation. Mr. Gallagher stated that his 1985 variance met all four necessary findings. He stressed that nothing has changed since that time. Larry Hyler, 580 21st Street, neighbor of the applicant, stated that the Gallaghers have been good neighbors who complete their projects on time. He stated that he approved of the plans. He felt that the proposal would be a positive benefit to the neighborhood. He suggested that the Planning Commission approve the variance request. He stated that he received a similar variance, and he has received no complaints. (i— P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 C C Richard Doyle, 2030 Springfield, stated that the applicant's past projects have beautified and enriched the neighborhood. He stated that he tried to obtain a variance two years ago, but he was unsuccessful since three nonconforming walls were involved. Since this project has only one nonconforming wall, he asked that the Commission approve the request. Pat McCarroll, 586 21st Street, stated that most houses on this street were built to the required three-foot setback requirements then in force. The requirement is now five feet, which means when there is a second -story addition, the project must jog inward at least two feet in order to comply with the setback requirement. When one must jog in, the outside walls cannot be used as load bearing walls. Such construction adds considerably to the cost of a project. Therefore, he suggested approval of the request. He noted that the only impact would be to improve the neighborhood. Denial of the variance would also have an impact, that of making the applicant's home less attractive to the neighbors. John McIntyre, 579 21st Street, supported the comments made by the other speakers. He stated that this project would improve the neighborhood. He felt that there should be a grandfather clause to allow existing properties to build to the standards in effect at the time they were constructed. Gary Catona, 589 21st Street, characterized the Gallaghers as reasonable, responsible, and tasteful. He said that the work they have done to date has enhanced the neighborhood, and he expected the current proposal to add even further enhancements. Public Hearing closed at 8:36 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce complimented Mr. Gallagher on his research and presentation. He felt that this is a difficult case because the City is in the process of upgrading, and the argument for conforming sideyards has been levied on smaller lots than this one in the City. He noted that in recent years, the Planning Commission has been denying variances to allow additions to nonconforming sideyards. Comm. Ketz could not see how requiring a second floor addition to conform to the setback requirement of five feet when the main building has only a three-foot setback would accomplish the purpose of a setback. She noted that such a requirement does not create any additional usable open space. Chmn. Peirce asked staff what he believes would be accomplished by requiring a five- foot setback on the second -floor versus an addition which would be 3.6 feet. Mr. Schubach replied that the main issue is whether or not to grant a variance. He stated that if the Commission feels the ordinance to be incorrect, the ordinance should be changed, rather than granting variances each time this issue comes before the Commission. He stated that the granting of such variances to some people is not fair to others who make an effort to comply with the requirements. Chmn. Peirce stated that even though the house might have complied when it was built, it does not comply now; and if the owner tore it down and wanted to rebuild, it would have to comply to the current setback requirements. He noted that the five-foot setback rule was adopted because it decreases the bulk of a building. He said that this is a fairly large lot of 5500 square feet. P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 Mr. Schubach stated that the five-foot setback requirement was adopted also to add increased light, air, and ventilation. Further, by allowing older buildings to add without conforming to the new requirements, recycling of older buildings will be reduced. He also noted that legal findings must be made in order to grant a variance; in this case, he could not make the required findings. Mr. Schubach again suggested that, if the Commission finds the ordinance to be in error, there should be a text amendment to change it. Mr. Schubach stated that he reviewed the materials submitted by the applicant regarding the number of.,other variances which have been approved. He clarified that only two variances have been granted, not eight as the applicant asserted. Chmn. Peirce stated that he could not see how the BZA made the proper findings in 1985, explaining that he did not feel them to be adequate. He stated that he would have read the code differently had he been on the BZA at that time. Rene Gallagher, 576 21st Street, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that if the variance is not approved, she would be denied a substantial property right enjoyed by others in the neighborhood. She stated that each variance request should be looked at• separately from all others. She stated that some projects have extenuating circumstances. She continued by noting that the original letter she submitted contained the addresses of eight properties in the neighborhood which were granted variances. Comm. Edwards stated that if the code is inadequate, there should be a text amendment to change it. He stated that requiring second -floor additions to jog in to comply with the setback requirement makes the building look odd. Mr. Schubach suggested that if a text amendment is desired, this variance be denied. If and when there is a text amendment, the applicant could then proceed. Mr. Lough cautioned, however, that there is no guarantee that the City Council will adopt a text amendment. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Inge11, to approve staff's recommendation as written, Resolution P.C. 88-103, to deny the variance at 576 21st Street. • Chmn. Peirce stated that it would be very difficult to make Findings 1 and 2 as required by law, noting that this is a fairly large lot. Comm. Edwards agreed that the necessary findings cannot be made in this case. He did note that the neighbors had no objection to the proposal. He suggested that this particular code section be studied in the future to determine whether a text amendment would be desirable. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Chmn. Peirce writing to the Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Chmn. Peirce Comm. Ketz None Comm. Rue stated that all decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed by City Council within ten days. P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 C (»z7 C-nwat._ ic 7tnee V file dee'/J e 07 i f etc Pla,,,✓fi?i vl� S A sde , t 1 1 ,'ou/d //Ia (o,?1/ 2/f )/(171 Sr, /C 7- S, 7?OSy-1-_cccv), 7z5Y Ac j 1`-C& lo/le.na cpm Dpt SURVEY OF EXISTING STRUCTURES IN THE 500 BLOCK OF 21ST STREET 595 21ST Irregular lot 73' X 101', no side yard encroachment. 590 21st St. Irregular lot 60' X 100' has a 4' side yard setback with a fireplace encroaching another 2'. 585 21st. St. Irregular lot 73' X 225' has no setback to the west. 586 21st St. 580 21st St. 576 21st St. 575 21st St. 570 21st St. 565 21st St. 560 21st St. Regular lot 55' X 100' with a 2' side yard setback to the east and a 3' side yard setback to the west. Regular lot 50' X 100' with zero side yard clearance to the east and a 3' side yard set- back to the west with a fireplace encroaching another 2'. A side yard variance was granted in 1982 for a second story addition. Regular lot 55' X 100' with a side yard setback of 5' to the east and 3' to the west. A side yard variance was granted in 1985 to allow an extension of a nonconforming wall. Irregular lot 73' X 233' with a 3' setback to both the east and the west. Regular lot 50' X 100' with zero side yard setback to the east and a 3' to the west. Irregular lot 73' X 255' with 4' setback to both the east and the west. Regular lot 85' X 100' with a 4' side yard setback to the east and a 5' setback to the west. 553 21st St. Irregular lot 60' X 255' with a 2' setback to the west and a 3' setback to the east. 545 21st St. Irregular lot 40' X 277' no side yard encroachment. TT OF wERMosa rACI ' PROJECT ADDRESS 576 21st Street tcl Project Name (If applicable) Renee Wright Gallagher/ Richard Gallagher Residence LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 43 (Parcel 5) Tract 1868 ZONING R - 1 APPLICANT INFORMATION: Name(s) Renee Wright Gallagher/ Richard Gallagher Phone (213) 376-4916 Mailing Address 576 21st Street Hermosa Beach, Applciant's Relationship to Property California 90254 Owners APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE PROJECT REQUEST Conditional Use Permit -Commercial Conditional Use Permit -Condominium Number of Units Development Agreement Environmental Staff Review *Final Subdivision (Parcel/Tract Map) General Plan Lot Line Adjustment Lot Split Parking Plan Precise Plan Specific Plan Specific Plan Amendment Tentative Subdivision (Parcel/Tract Map) Zone Change /.t. Zone Variance (sideyard) TOTAL FEES 4 5t42-1-.-2 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY- Date of submittal: 7 Received by: L DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Proposed second story addition of three bedrooms and two baths to_an existing one-story single family residence. (attach additional pages if necessary) OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT* b/I yYte, MAW L 60,E /being duly sworn, depose and say that _we/I aie/arh the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are true and. -correct to the best of our/my knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn before me this 0d of „;;L , 19 Sir . Signed / ddress: OFFiciAI. s 6 2 s Street LOIS R. P ach Ca . Te1tph`bge (213) 376-4916 F `£' (.OS ANGELES COUNTY My CoMmi`;sin Expires Sept 16. 1988 Z`2 NOTA•Y PUBLIC in and for the County of • State of California. C * Signature required from current property owner. not nwnnr in enernt.r. Commissioner, We are requesting a variance be granted for the property at 576 21st Street, Hermosa Beach, allowing us to maintain a nonconform- ing westerly side yard of 3'2" in lieu of the 5'0" required side yard for a second story addition. The proposed addition will continue a pre-existing 43.' nonconforming wall 8' (19%). This 8' continuation is needed to allow stairway access to the second floor. Justifications for granting such a variance are: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi- tions applicable to the property involved, due to a large 43' existing nonconforming wall, 38' of which pre -dates current setback requirements. 2. That such a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone because: a. The proposed expansion is to a size enjoyed by many properties in the area. b. Our family has out -grown the existing house, 2 bedrooms 1 bath, and does not want to leave the neighborhood. c. 80% of the homes in the 500 block of 21st Street do not meet the present side yard setback requirements. d. The following homes in our immediate vicinity have been granted variances for side yard setbacks; 1. 560 21st Street 2. 576 21st Street 3. 580 21st Street 4. 566 24th Street 5. 575 20th Street 6. 1907 Valley Park 7. 1927 Valley Park 8. 2130 Power Street 3. That granting of such a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone be- cause: a. The variance is for a very minor continuation (8'). b. The neighbors do not object. c. The proposed construction is adjacent to the neigh- bor's driveway, creating an open space greater than the current side yard setback re- quirement. d. Fire department access is not restricted. e. The current side yard setback has existed for 35 years and has not affected the neighborhood adversely. f. Conforming to current set back requirements would produce an unsightly exterior configuration inconsis- tent with the surrounding area, detrimental to the public welfare. 4. That granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan in that the residence will remain a single family residence and does not affect it's designation of Low Density Residential. Thank you for your consideration, 41/1•1,1t1 fi rt�tf� City Council Hermosa Beach Civic Center 1315 Vally Drive • Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Mrs. Lorraine Roterts Pcst Office Box 594 Hermosa Beach, California 90254 6 February 1989 FEB 6 1989 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Deny Variance 526 -Twenty-First Street, Hermosa Beach Dear Mayor and Council, This is a letter of support for the Planning Commission denial of the variance at 526- 21 Street, Hermosa Beach, California and in opposition to the appeal. The stateiposition of the council is one in favor of low density; therefore it seems time for the council to support the actions of the Planning Commission in an attempt to limit construction on non -conforming structures. To approve this appeal allowing an encroachment into the sideyard setbacks world be but another sad example of increasing the density in our town. In my opinion, it is time to simply enforce our existing ordinances. Sincerely, Laurie Roberts January 17, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council January 24, 1989 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHICH EXCLUDED ADULT VIDEOS ADDRESS: 1312 HERMOSA AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 8 AND 9, BLOCK 34, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT APPLICANT: SCOTT M. GALLAGHER 1600 ARDMORE AVENUE #205 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUEST: APPROVAL TO ALLOW VIDEO SALES AND RENTALS -- ADULT, "X" RATED VIDEOS INCLUDED Recommendation Planning Commission recommends that the City Council concur with their adopted Conditional Use Permit. Staff recommends that the City Council consider the legality of not permitting adult videos and if the City Council agrees with the City Attorney, the attached Resolution is recommended which will permit adult videos subject to specific conditions. is Background The Planning Commission, at their meeting of December 6, 1988, approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow video sales and rentals within a C-2 zone, however, the Planning Commission denied the sales and/or rental of any adult, "X" rated videos. On December 14, 1988, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. Analysis The City Attorney has determined that the total exclusion of adult videos in commercial zones which permit other video rentals is not possible. The City Attorney states that California Apellate Courts have determined that an adult use refers to the "predominant" use of a business. The occasional sale of videos, books, or magazines which have been considered harmful to minors does not make a business an adult business. The City may not prohibit a use protected by the First Amendment, however, the City may place limitations to the use, i.e., limit the percentage of adult videos permitted. The P.C. Resolution 88-102 approving a Conditional Use Permit for video sales and rentals does not specifically state that adult 1 videos are prohibited, however, our Zoning Code does state that adult videos are prohibited. The attached Resolution will allow adult videos, however, they shall be limited to a maximum of 20% of the total inventory. The conditions will also control the display and location of the adult videos. Additional analysis is provided in the attached Planning Commission staff report of December 6, 1988, and the memo from James P. Lough, City Attorney, regarding restrictions on adult business and video stores. Attachment 1. Resolution No. 89- 2. Resolution P.C. 88-102 3. P.C. Staff Report of 12/6/88 4. Memo from J. Lough, City Attorney 5. Background a. P.C. Minutes of 12/6/88 b. Staff Review Minutes of 10/20/88 c. Appeal Letter d. Application e. Public Notice Affidavit CONCUR: Mic "ael Schubach Planning Director "4/ Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager a/ccsrl312 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Respe 1 An.rew 'ere., Associate P1 nner tted. The City Attorney's opinion raises clear doubt as to the appropriate- ness of the Planning Commission's decision. The risk could be worth- while if a significant public purpose outweighed the potential infringement of Constitutional rights. However, the Public Safety Department reflects no problems with other existing video stores as a result of their x -rated tapes. Since they are available in town, attempting to prohibit them in the neighborhood and restricted commercial zones has the adverse impact of increasing the length of the two trips required to rent and return tapes. Unless there is a belief that our City must take this philosophical stance on the national issue of x -rated media, I would recommend the Council approve the attached resolution. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 i 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW VIDEO SALES AND RENTALS, ADULT VIDEOS INCLUDED, AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1312 HERMOSA AVENUE LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 8 AND 9, BLOCK 34, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on January 24, 1989 to receive oral and written testimony on this matter and made the following findings: A. .The proposed. use is compatible with surrounding neighborhood and is consistent with the General Plan; B. Adult Video sales and rentals may be permitted in a C-2 zone when the adult use is an accessory use to general video sales and rentals and not the "predominant" use. C. The imposition of conditions of approval will mitigate any significant problems. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit and an Environmental Negative Declaration to allow video sales and rentals, adult video sales and rental included, at 1312 Hermosa Avenue subject to the following conditions: 1. The establishment shall not adversely affect the welfare of residents and/or commercial establishments nearby. 2. The business shall provide adequate management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of patrons outside the business orin the immediate area. 3. The business shall validate its customer's parking. 4. The adult video selection shall be limited to 207 of the total videos available for rental and sale. 5. The interior layout shall be as shown on submitted plans and any changes to the interior shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director; and revised plans shall be submitted indicating the following modification within 30 days of the Planning Commission approval and subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. a. The area designated for adult videos shall be partitioned off and accessible only to adults, and an "adult only" -3 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 sign shall be conspicuously located at the entrance to the designated adult area. 6. Any violation of the conditions of approval and/or violation of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code may be grounds for the issuance of a citation or public hearing for revocation of the conditional use permit. 7. Sign copy, including window signs, shall be limited to advertising the business in general and not specifically X-rated tapes; display of X-rated tapes shall be prohibited except in designated areas. Said designated area must be distinctly separated from the display area of the general videos. a. All sign copy shall.be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director for compliance. 8. A manager or clerk who is aware of conditions of the conditional use permit shall be on the premises during business hours. a. Each manager shall be given a copy of the conditional use permit and shall acknowledge by signature that the conditional use permit has been read and understood. b. All employees shall be a minimum of eighteen (18) years old. 9. Prior to a conditional use permit being in effec, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department, a signed and notarized "Acceptance of Conditions" form. 10. The Planning Commission may review the conditional use permit and may amend the conditions or impose new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental effects on the neighborhood resul ing from t e s ect s 11. here shall be a review of the conditional use permit every six months. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: a/pcsrl312 CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 4' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 88-102 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW VIDEO SALES AND RENTALS, AT 1312 HERMOSA AVENUE. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 6, 1988 to receive oral and written testimony on this matter and made the following findings: A. The proposed use is compatible with surrounding neighborhood and is consistent with the General .Plan; B. The imposition of conditions of approval will mitigate any significant problems. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED.that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby approve 'a Conditional Use Permit and an Environmental Negative Declaration to allow video sales and rentals, at 1312 Hermosa Avenue subject to the following conditions: 1. The establishment shall not adversely affect the welfare of residents and/or commercial establishments nearby. The business shall provide adequate management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of patrons outside the business or in the immediate area. 3. The business shall validate its customer's parking. 4. The interior layout shall be as shown on submitted plans and any changes to the interior shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director; and revised plans shall be submitted indicating the following modification within 30 days of the Planning Commission approval and subject to review and approval by the Planning Director: 5. Any violation of the conditions of approval and/or violation of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code may be grounds for the issuance of a citation or public hearing for revocation of the conditional use permit. 6. All sign copy shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director for compliance. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C. C 7. A manager or clerk who is aware of conditions of the conditional use permit shall be on the premises during business hours. a. Each manager shall be given a copy of the conditional use permit and shall acknowledge by signature that the conditional use permit has been read and understood. 8. Prior to a conditional use permit being in effect, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department, a signed and notarized "Acceptance of Conditions" form. 9._ghe Planning Commission may review the conditional use permit and may amend the conditions or impose new conditions if deemed necessary to• mitigate detrimental effects on the neighborhood resulting from the subject use 10. There shall be a review of the conditional use permit every six months. VOTE: AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Peirce NOES: Comms. Edwards ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Rue CERTIFICATION . I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 88-102 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of December 6, 1988. es Pierce, Chairman Date Michael Schubach, Secretary November 29, 1988 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission December 6, 1988 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-8 ADDRESS: 1312 HERMOSA AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 8 AND 9, BLOCK 34, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH APPLICANT: SCOTT M. GALLAGHER 1600 ARDMORE #205 HERMOSA BEACH, CA. 90254 REQUEST: APPROVAL TO ALLOW VIDEO SALES AND RENTALS (adult, "X" -rated included) Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a Conditional Use Permit and a Negative Declaration subject to the conditions listed on the attached Resolution. Background Project Details Zoning: C-2, Restricted Commercial General Plan Designation: GC, General Commercial The following is a chronological listing of the enforcement efforts that resulted in the subject CUP application: 4/1/88: Hermosa Video was mistakenly issued a business license for a video rental store. 5/23/88: The Business License Department sent a notice to the applicant requesting that he apply for CUP immediately. 7/6/88 : The Business License Department sent a second notice to the applicant. 8/11/88: Following inspection the Planning Department sent a third notice of violation to the applicant. 8/24/88: The Planning Department issued a citation. 8/30/88: The Planning Department sent a fourth notice of violation. 9/13/88: The applicant submitted a CUP application. -7- < < Analysis The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to continue operating a video tape sales and rentals business (adult, X-rated included). The site is approximately 1000 square feet in size and provides only two employee parking spaces in the rear of the property. However, there is on -street parking in front of the business and the City parking lot is located across the street. It should also be noted that Hermosa Video currently validates any of its customers parking. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition of approval require that this practice continue. The current C-2 zoning standards permits videocassette tape sales and rentals, subject to a Conditional Use Permit. However, adult, "X" rated type videos are prohibited under current code. The City Attorney has determined that the exclusion of adult, "X" rated videos in a zone which permits other video rentals is unconstitutional. However, the City may limit the quantity to 20% of the total product. Staff is recommending a 207 limitation as a condition of approval and the physical separation of such videos. It is staffs belief that the imposition of the conditions of approval will mitigate any significant problems. CONCUR: Mic ae Schubach Planning Director -g Alex Hernan.ez Assistant Planner North Raymond Avenue ,uute 708 Pasadena. Calif 91103-3930 James PG.lough Attorney at Law October .31, 1988 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James P. Lough, City Attorney RE: Restrictions on Adult Businesses and Video Stores Telephone 818) '92-1728 "818)792-47 6 This memo is in response to the Council's request for a public opinion on restrictions placed on certain types of adult businesses. Under Section 8-2 (Neighborhood Commercial Zone), the permitted uses in the C-1 zone are listed. Video stores are defined under this permitted use list as follows: "Videocassette tape sales and rentals, except Adult "X" rated type; conditional use permit required subject to Section 10-2;..." (p. 496). Under this section, businesses that sell adult products as the predominant purpose of their business would be prevented in the C-1 and C-2 zones. However, businesses in the C-1 and C -2G zones may sell some adult products without being considered an "adult" business under the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code or the federal Constitution. This is one of the reasons behind the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process for video stores. The CUP process allows regulation of a video store that sells some "adult'" type videos so they are not displayed or available to minors. The limits placed on businesses in the CUP process must be consistent with other businesses and the federal Constitution. JPL/gp ,Respectfully su mitted; J S P. LOUGH, City Attorney TY OF HERMOSA BEACH cc: Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager Michael Schubach, Planning Director Kathleen Midstokke, City Clerk 31/SR1031 Eathgrouttb tt: r rttt X COMMUNICATIONS�FROM THE PUBLIC Tom Morley, 516 Loma _Drive, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission a about the status of the enviro iment_al impact report for the oil dr' es. He asked when the public hearing would be held. Mr. Schubach stated that th months. earing will be held in a mately two to three CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VIDEO SALES AND RENTAL (ADULT INCLUDED) AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1312. HERMOSA AVENUE, HERMOSA VIDEO Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 29, 1988. He stated that this project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to continue operating a video tape sales and rental business, including adult X-rated. The site is approximately 1000 square feet in size nd provides only two employee parking spaces in the rear of the property. However, there is on -street parking in front of the business, and the City parking lot is located across the street. It should be noted that Hermosa Video currently validates its customers' parking. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring that the validation practice be . continued. The current C-,2 zoning standards permit videocassette tape sales and rentals, subject td- . a conditional use permit. However, adult X-rated videos are prohibited under the current code. The City Attorney has determined that the exclusion of adult X-rated videos in a zone which permits other video rentals is unconstitutional. However, the City may limit the quantity to 20 percent of the total product. Staff is recommending a 20 percent limitation as a condition of approval and the physical separation of such videos. It is staff's belief that the imposition of the conditions of approval will mitigate any significant problems. Mr. Schubach recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit and negative declaration, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Mr. Lough explained that the current code prevents adult uses as defined by the California legislature in certain zones such as residential and manufacturing. Adult uses are allowed only in the C-3, zone but with a distance requirement. The key issue at hand is whether or not this business is an adult use; and the occasional sale of videos, books, or magazines which have been considered harmful to minors does not make a business an adult business. This is based on California Supreme Court decisions on the matter. The key issue is whether or not the predominant use of the business is as an adult business. He did not feel that in this instance the predominant use would be that of an adult business. He further noted that the purpose of a conditional use permit is to allow the City the ability to periodically check on the business in the event it, over time, gradually changes to a use which is not permitted in the zone. P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 Chmn. Peirce asked about the word "predominant." He asked what the code says in this regard. Mr. Schubach stated that video stores with 20 percent adult videos are allowed in the C-3 zone with a conditional use permit, such as the Wherehouse and Music Plus. Such use is prohibited by code in the C-2 zone., Under the current code, however, up to 20 percent adult use must also be allowed in thr, C-2 zone, according to the City Attorney. Chmn. Peirce commented that the current code allows no video stores in the C-2 zone. Mr. Schubach clarified that videos are allowed in the C-2 zone, but not adult videos. Mr. Lough stated that the code spec;ifies no "adult uses." The California Supreme Court has determined that an adult use means the "predominant" use of a business. He continued by discussing the appeal:, case of Pringell versus the City of Covina which addressed the occasional showing ,;f X-rated films and the fact that such occasional screenings does not qualify a theatcr to be considered an "adult theater" and therefore requiring it to be relegated to a certain part of a city. He noted that the main issue is one of usage. Chmn. Peirce noted that that part' :-ular case, however, is not directly applicable to the issue at hand. He asked whether th re are other cases directly applicable to this case. Mr. Lough replied in the affirmati\gee, stating that the main issue, though, is the amount of usage. • Chmn. Peirce stated that occasiona.` usage would be the sale of adult videos on a sporadic basis; the daily availability of st:ch videos would qualify as a continuing, but not • _ predominant, use. Mr. Lough continued by giving exz•mples of various types and amounts of usage. He stated that there are not many cases on this particular issue; therefore, cities must abide by what is _currently on the books. Mr. Lough stated that the purpose of a CUP is to allow the City to monitor the usage of such businesses. He stressed th,_it the purpose of the Planning Commission is to determine the amount of usage; net to totally preclude such use in the City, which is considered a protected right under t he First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Lough discussed a past instance when the City attempted to preclude a fortune teller from locating in town; however, that case went to Federal Court, and the use was allowed. In the eyes of the Suprer€e Court free speech issues as well as religious issues are protected. Mr. Lough stated that predominan;:iy adult uses are currently allowed in the C-3 zone only, and with the distance require,nents. The issue now is whether or not to allow adult uses which are not predominantly adult in the C-1 and C-2 zones. Comm. Ingell discussed "predomindnt" use and asked how the City arrived at the 20 percent figure. Mr. Lough stated that staff and the applicant agreed that 20 percent and under is acceptable for designating a business as not predominantly adult. Court cases, other than one in Michigan, haye not spec;fied a certain percentage. 1/ ` P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 a" Public H6iihng opened at 7:45 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. William Clark, attorney representing the applicant Scott Gallagher, addressed the CommissI. He stated that the applicant is in agreement with the staff recomm6ndations, and the applicant would abide by the conditions as he has seen them in writing. e. he In response to a question by Chmn. Peirce as to how Mr. Clark would interpret a code specifying'no adult uses in the C-2 zone, Mr. Clark stated that he would abide by the City Attorney's comments on the matter. ar: Mr. Clark stated that the main purpose of Hermosa Videos is not to sell or rent X-rated or adult iieos. He stated that the store Is fairly new, and only three percent of the total stofrk is devoted to the rental of adult videos. Of the total store inventory, less than tenakrcent is adult. Mr. Clarketroted that the applicant has agreed to have no advertising for the adult videos or anythEFg else which would be offensive, such as posters. The adult area would be blocked off from the rest of the store so that it is not visible, and the area would be monitored by a sales clerk. There would also be a sign op the door advising that people must beMM8 or over to enter that portion of the store. He stated that the applicant is not intereste8`in becoming an adult store, but rather in being a good neighbor in the City. Comrril Itigell asked why the allowable percentage is 20 ,percent when only 3.2 percent adult videos are being offered for rental. Mr. ClaM stated that the applicant did not ask for the 20 percent; that figure was recommended by staff. In response to a question from Comm. Ingell regarding whether the applicant would have a probleiii with the percentage being reduced, Mr. Clark responded that he would need to discuss that issue with Mr. Gallagher. Mr. Schubach stated that, since there were no clear-cut guidelines on the matter, staff felt 20 percent would be a fair and reasonable figure. Mr. Clatit; in response to a question from Comm. Ingell, stated that the ages' 'of patrons are verified by the store clerk by checking driver's licenses. Jeanette- Bachelor, 631 Longfellow, opposed changing the current city code for the benefit of: -adult videos. She stated that after talking to other video store owners, she has determined that such stores rent about 50 percent adult videos, especially on the weekends. She further opposed, stating that people become addicted to pornography. Mike Mitchell, 715 3rd Street, noted concern over whether the City would be able to enforce the age requirements for the rental of adult videos and whether the City would properly monitor such a business. He stated that he opposed adult -videos. Tim Pertonius, 827 14th Street, opposed approval of the CUP for several reasons, mainly because adult use is not allowed in the C-2 zone under the current code. He continued by reading Code Section 87-905 aloud. He believes that the Council's intent was quite clear in regard to not allowing such use in the C-2 zone; therefore, he opposed approval of the conditional use permit. He did note that the sale and rental of adult videos is allowed in the C-3 =zone, so they re not totally prohibited in the City. He requested that the - 1Z- P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 4 . c Commission respect and uphold its own earlier recommendations on this issue. He also opposed adult videos based on the fact that their viewing contributes to the problems of troubled people, and there is much crime associated with such materials. He stated that he would not oppose this store if there were no adult videos. Polly Schneider, 157 Ardmore, opposed approval of the CUP for all the reasons given by the previous speakers. Mr. Clark clarified for the benefit of the audience that the sales clerks on duty are always 18 years or older. Mr. Clark stated that this proposed use is not much different from that of a liquor store which sells adult magazines, explaining that the sale of such magazines is a very small portion of the total business of a liquor store. He stressed that ID's will be checked, and the store will be monitored by the CUP enforcement officer. Mr. Clark stated that the applicant intends to run the store properly and according to the guidelines established by the City staff. Public Hearing closed at 7:58 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce noted that video sales by themselves are allowed in the C-2 zone with a conditional use permit. He stated that the controversial aspect of the application is that of the adult videos. Chmn. Peirce, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz, stated that the issue of predominant use was not discussed at the time the ordinance was passed. He felt that the intent at the time was to allow no adult uses at all in the C-2 zone. Comm. Edwards asked, based on the testimony and past court decisions, whether the City Attorney feels the City ordinance is in conformance with the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Lough. felt that the ordinance is in conformance, explaining that staff revised approximately one hundred uses requiring CUPs in order to achieve conformity. He did not feel there is a problem because videos are allowed in the C-1 and C-2 zones. He noted that not every, single issue was discussed at that time, however. Mr. Lough saw no problem in the ordinance with the C-1 and C-2 zones because videos are allowed on the permitted use list. He did note, however, that the ordinance possibly could have been more clear because the average person may have difficulty understanding the ordinance. Chmn. Peirce stated that, since the ordinance is constitutional, the Planning Commission can restrict adult videos in the C-2 zone. Mr. Lough replied that that assertion is incorrect, explaining that the ordinance is constitutional if it is interpreted in a way which matches all of the cases. Therefore, interpreting a use as a video store includes within it all of the laws of the State of California and the U.S. Constitution, which state that it is a video store so long as the predominant use is not an adult use. Mr. Lough, in response to a question by Chmn. Peirce, explained that the case which addressed predominant, rather than occasional, use was that of Pringell versus the City of Covina. He explained that this is not his own interpretation, but rather the court's - 13- P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 interpretation of the issue. Based on the court's language, he did not feel there could be a total elimination of all possible adult uses in video stores. Chmn. Peirce noted that adult videos are allowed in the C-3 zone; therefore, they are not totally restricted in the City, so the ordinance cannot be construed to be restrictive since they are not allowed in the C-2 zone. He asked why their use cannot be restricted. Mr. Lough explained that the adult uses can be restricted only so long as another location in the City can be found for them to operate. He noted that by virtue of the conditional use permit, a business can be monitored to see whether it is becoming a predominantly adult -type business. He referred to the cases of American Mini Theaters versus the City of Detroit and -The City of Renton versus•Playtime Theaters. Mr. Lough responded to a question by Chmn. Peirce by stating that he is basing his opinion on the case of Pringell versus the City of Covina. He continued by explaining the defense used in that particular case. Comm. Ingell noted that adult video rentals are allowed in the C-3 zone because they are included on the permitted use list. The reason adult video rentals are not allowed in the C-2 zone is because they are not on the permitted use list. He stated that when non *X • - rated videos were included on the list of permitted uses in the C-2 zone, the intent was quite clear that no adult videos were desired in that zone. In this way, a different type of business was actually created, that of a video store with no adult videos. Mr. Lough stated, however, that this use does not fall under the heading of predominantly . adult use. Chmn. Peirce stated that he intended to vote to approve the conditional use permit for the video store; however, he would vote against the rental/sale of adult videos. He felt it was the intent of the Planning Commission and City Council to prohibit adult videos in the C-2 zone. He respectfully disagreed with the City Attorney's opinion in regard to the case cited. Comm. Edwards commented that the City Attorney not only feels that the adult use is allowable, but also that it is constitutionally protected and should be allowed. Even though there are people who do not like having adult uses, there is obviously a demand for this type of material. He felt that it is not the function of the Planning Commission to enforce issues of morality on people in the City. For these reasons, he stated he would support the CUP as recommended by staff. Comm. Ingell felt that allowing adult videos in the C-2 zone could create a larger problem because then it would be necessary to determine the threshold of when a store becomes a predominantly adult use. He noted that video stores without adult videos were specifically included on the C-2 permitted use list. If no videos were desired at all in the C-2 zone, that portion would have been deleted, and their use would have been restricted solely to the C-3 zone. Comm. Ketz agreed with Comm. Ingell, stating that the ordinance is specific on this point, and the issue was specifically addressed as to what was desired in the C-2 zone. She felt that this is a specific use on the permitted use list. P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 F c MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-102 as written by staff with the modification that all s_to_adult videos be deleted: in the title of the resolution, Sections 4, 5(a) and 7. Condition 7(a) would then be-- comms. Comm. Ingell noted concern over Condition 3: "The business shall validate its customers' parking." He asked whether this condition has ever before been included in a CUP. Mr. Schubach explained that it has not been required before; this was an innovative way to ease parking problems in the City. Comm. Ingell questioned what would happen if the lot is no longer available for parking. He questioned whether the loss of the parking lot would invalidate the CUP. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Ingell as. second, and agreed to by Chmn. Peirce as maker, to add the standard condition that a copy of the CUP shall be available `7: for the manager on' duty and shall be signed to acknowledge his awareness of the CUP. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Peirce NOES: Comm. Edwards ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Rue Chmn. Peirce noted that all decisions of the Planning Commission• can be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. Comm. Edwards stated that if there are problems in the current° code, it should be addressed in the future in regard to whether it is in conformance with the Constitution. He suggested that there be clarification either by the City Attorney or City Council ori this particular section of the code. VA NCE TO ALLOW NEW SECOND STORY AND FIRST STORY ADDITIOWTO EN�H INTO THESETBACK SIDE YARD SE ACK AND TO ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE a CLARATION AT 576 21ST STREET Mr. Schubach ga staff report dated November 29, 1988. T Board of Zoning Adjustments, at thei eeting of April 15, 1985, approved . 'ariance to •allow the addition to an existing • - droom which encroaches into t - required sideyard. The original variance request was Iso to allow construction a breakfast nook which also encroached in the required sideya • • however, the BZ enied this variance. The applicants appealed the decision o e BZ . The City Council, at their meeting of May 28, 1985, denied the appeal and concuy with the decision of the BZA. This project is located in the R-1 zofe and has a g eral plan designation of low density residential. The lot size is 55 0. -square feet, and th resent use is as a single-family dwelling. The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a second-stor addition directly over a structure withrwalls which encroach to within 3 feet, 2 inches of t side property line rather than,the re uired five feet. Also, the applicant is requesting to struct a first - floor bedroom addition which would also maintain an existing nonconforming etback of 3 feet, -2 inches. An additional variance is also required for Section 1309 of t Zoning Ordinance regarding nonconforming structures. This section allows for expanse r:•f - 15- P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 • west property lines, revision of the guest parking space tur radiu requirement of a traffic study, and a drainage •.y and noted th• it is the applicants responsibility to • • ide public improvementsneeded. Mr. Antich seconded, • asked that planning prepare ist of conditions. No -•sections, so ordered. g PROJECT ZON 87-12 ZONE CHANGE FOR AREA 10 ON R-2 TO R-1, AR R-2,& AREA 12 FROM : TO C-3. 11 FROM R-3 TO Mr. Grove •e a motion to recommend a Negative Declara Pere conded. No objections, so ordered. . Mr. .PROJECT CUP 88-8 (CONTINUED) Applicant not present Mr. Grove recommended that 20% of the video be allowed as adult videos. Mr. Perea motioned to recommend a Negative Declaration CUP with a mitigating measure limiting the adult videos to 207. He further recommended that the floor area for adult videos be partitioned off and accessible only to adults. Mr. Osekowski seconded. Approved, noting Mr. Antich's objection, so ordered.. Mr. Perea moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Grove, no objections, so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and. -- complete record of the action taken by the Staff Review Committee at their regular meeting of October 20, 1988. An 'erea, - a rman - 16 - Date 1/3/6f /3/fig Sfy / l�'e ccs, (OVA WILLIAM F. CLARK 222 NORTH SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD. SUITE 1690 EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA 90243 TEL.: (213) 322-8923 FAX: 1213) 322-8324 December 14, 1988 City' Clerk City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 4 `. \>)". ) . r rI '7 J- ,7 _, el il Al f i. 0;111. 1,t City 0, Cit Cle elkvCi r \� To°0 Beach A moi' Re: Appeal of Hermosa Video to Planning Commission Decision of December 6, 1988 To Wham It May Concern: This letter shall serve as an appeal to the Planning Commission Decision,_ regular meeting of December 6, 1988. The applicant, Scott M. Gallagher, appeals the denial of a "Conditional Use Permit" to allow video sales and rental (including adult, X-rated videos). The subject address of the business in question is Hermosa Video, 1312' Hermosa Avenue, legally described as Lots 8 and 9, Block 34, First Addition to Hermosa Beach. -4/editage- gvn.t2-4/64 e/,,f 09. Please respond to the undersigned with any and all requirements to present this appeal to the Hermosa Beach City Council as well as the date for the upcoming hearing. Your cooperation is appreciated. William F. Clark Attorney for Scott M. Gallagher WFC/dg cc: Gallagher ¶YOF HERM®SA BEAT / J C, . ' PROJECT ADDRESS ✓ Nrt �/ /9V Project Name (If applicable) 4/er 1,5a V/Vec7 LEGAL DESCRIPTION APPLICANT INFORMATION: j�j (1-4/ / �7 l/�//(• G �tfIerPhone(?/3.93 / -/ f Name(s) G� Mailing Address/l ld /4ft1/2/z9i/ ;?-677c"—�%ni%'l�S zga. 1 C?, APPLICANT' S SIGNATURE , L_,Aiff /iis/. DATE 13 i rr ZONING Applciant's Relationship to Property PROJECT REQUEST VConditional Use Permit -Commercial Conditional Use Permit -Condominium Number of Units Development Agreement Environmental Staff Review Final Subdivision (Parcel/Tract-Map) General Plan Lot Line Adjustment Lot Split Parking Plan Precise Plan Specific Plan Specific Plan Amendment Tentative Subdivision (Parcel/Tract Map) Zone Change Zone Variance TOTAL FEES SSD FOR OFFICE USE ONLY- Date of submittal: Received by: DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Q 4N` (attach additional pages if necessary) OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT* Ply Commission Exp. Apr. 15, 1992 WV ..Jerome Hess being duly''SWotrtr.ittepo'sG' - that _we/I are/am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are true and/correct to the best of our/my knowledge OFFICIAL SEAL !! ! PPC;C!PAL OFFICE IN LOS ANCELES COUNTY and belief. Subscribed and sworn before me this 12th day of Oct. , 19 88 • NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the County of State of California. current property ownerLnotowner,,,,,i Los Angeles * Signature required from Signed Owner's Ad Z3 res • 6“-17 li Z �' i? .$' Te ephone Mr. Jack Gallagher Jan. 16, 1989 Hermosa Beach City Council Hermosa Beach, Ca Dear Ladies and Gentlemen; My son Scott opened a video store at 1312 Hermosa Avenue about 7 months ago and has struggled to build his customer base to about 900 members. Scott has owned Manhattan Video in Manhattan Beach for 6 years and has over 4000 members. Scott has been contributing to the Manhattan Beach community for over 6 years. Since Scott lives in Hermosa at 1600 Ardmore he wanted to open a store in Hermosa and operate the same as he had at Manhattan Video. Scott opened his store and was granted a business license to operate. It is difficult enough operating a business in downtown Hermosa Beach, which has been pointed out in numerous newspaper articles, but more difficult when you have to spend profits for fines and attorneys for the right to operate the way a video store should operate. The City Attorney recommended, with certain restrictions (eg: Maximum of 20% of inventory being adult tapes) that the Planning Commission grant Scott's Conditional Use Permit. The City Attorney made this recommendation because he was aware of the unconstitutional provisions of the non X -Rated tape clause in the zoning law. Scott is not looking to promote pornography. He is looking to operate his business on a profitable basis and Adult tapes are part of his overall profit structure. Out of the 850 tapes in the store only 85 are adult. I am enclosing a most recent case involving the City of Whittier, which lost to the Pussycat Theaters over the zoning issue. Scott would like to operate his store and to hopefully build the Hermosa Video Store to the size and success of Manhattan Video. We hope that this hearing before the City Council will permit Scott to operate Hermosa Video as was recommended by the City Attorney to the Hermosa Planning Commission. I have pledged my support to my son to pursue this matter as far as we have to to insure his rights. T k You, L.- Mr �Mr ack Gallagh WILLIAM F. CLARK sizes. 222 NORTH SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD, SUITE 1690 EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA 00245 TEL.: (213) .322-8923 FAX: (213) 322-8324 December 14, 1988 City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center . Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Appeal of Hermosa. Video to Planning Commission Decision of December 6, 1988 To Whom It May Concern: This letter shall serve as an appeal to the Planning Commission Decision, regular meeting of December 6, 1988. The applicant, Scott M. Gallagher, appeals the denial of a "Conditional Use Permit" to allow video sales and rental (including adult, X-rated videos). The subject address of the business in question is Hermosa Video, 1312 Hermosa Avenue, legally described as Lots 8 and 9, Block 34, First • Addition to Hermosa Beach. Please respond to the undersigned with any and all requirements topresent this appeal to the Hermosa Beach City Council as well as the date for the upcoming hearing. Your cooperation is appreciated. William F. Clark Attorney for Scott M. Gallagher WFC/dg cc: Gallagher {44. dw.IMi woryt* M'M"# 4•4:4.0. �iirclwn0'0x e1 Y Ii+ara'+h'iM rNeNl.. 'w -y1 v+10 h,4Mi1M, NRRfii{${ I i f Rad 7 tidacd ?O, g,teaa ei,e4 D. Scita4* Zaeci G /i4 4 Atka 7/€,Se444, saa .50s Vomiftedit Peetp 600-ffaC Sate Down, (?a4Va4. 'OWE (803) P734,500 Fr.:Ity, Novr ztcr ll, lrt.Sb - ____— ' I , r _ pr,} i7 .'--cele}, s.= ex- rat -ode Rrc:hcr the y^vc:n:,cnt'i a5ti- c'.ste n(.iC.;t R er ix�-d oa 11dt ir.,:btc �rs.;1.sy. FERGUSON, Circuit Judge, concurring: i cone -Jr in Judge Gcodv•in's opinion, but write separately on an issue presented only at oral argument. Section 8$I(a)(') permits forfeitures of ta)1t real properly - ... r,;cc , or lnrendtd ro be used tfor s violation of Title 211." 21 U.S C. § 881(aX7) (,,;tphaf.is added). Yet when the golf. trot -nen; commenced federal forfeiture proceedings 2cainst Ja'':'ee's proferty on Ortoter 16. 1985. Jaffee was no longer grov-irg marijuana on his land; state authorities had previ- ously seized the plants in August while executing a search warrant. Nor docs any eyidcnec suucst that Jaffee intended to use his property in the future for marijuana cultivation. It appears to me, however, that federal forfeiture proceed- - int s are timely ccint need if initiated shortly after filing. but prior to termination. of state court criminal proceedings. :Since OreLon crimic.al proceedings were still pending against Je ce at the time of the fe.drral forfeiture action in October, the forfeiture of Jaffee's property finds support in section 8S 1(aX7). CONSTI' UTIONALr LAW A .,I inert' T=Ean O"dirx1.^.ce Void ft -,T. l err4-dues Cite es C Day 3a_trc21 D.A.R. 14127 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WAtr"rt.T Pacp_xnt. lt+c., to C+lifornia ccrporatioa; and V o*cZ HI Mtr.Ast».. Pianntjt-Appellees, Crry \ rirriaa;M.D.IC.vxrort; R.L,1-1L ERso*r; LA. STRONG; JAMES BALL, as Chief of Police, City of Whittier, I. Ro-ta.T ft..A.Norkicr., as City Attorney, City of Whittier, and Wr+trst,x CLTY Cour:at., . Defenda nts•,{ p;ellanrs. WAL*+trr PAULA:MS., INC., 2 Czliferria corp.?ration, 6/7::'tl'intil:.-{�?e!ree. No. 86-5645 D.C. No. CV -81-2262-R No. 87-5743 I 4 1 2 7 D.C. No. J. ROeenT FUJiDRJCx; JA1' Ate; . CV -8i S067 -R One or W 3irrT1 . ; W rt til i ER CErY Courrcu; and ELvrN Pox tit, Dcfer,.dar,Cs-Appellants. t - WA1.h'71: PAOPERTwEs, INC., Ji California corporation; and VtNcrNT M,tR&NDA, Plainrifjs-,t ppelltes. V. Ctrror• Wrtirtira; M.D. 10.AxroN, R.L. HEnDERSON, L.A. SrROrro, p GENE CHANDLER, and Y.A. LOPEZ, as Members of the Whittier City Council; 3A Es BkLE, as Chief of Police of the City of WI-ittier, and J. ROBERT' FtxywR,cx, as City Attorney of the City of Whittier, befcndii'as-Appellants. Nos. 87.5859; 87-5956 D.C. Nos. CV -3I -2262-R CV -81-2262•R-3 OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Manuel I-... Real, District Judge. Presiding Argued and Submitted December 10, 1987—Pasaden4, California Filed November 9, I988 Bcforc; James R. Browning. Procter Hug, Jr. and Stephen P.rinhardt. Circuit Judges_. Opinion by Judge Hug COUNSEL J. Robert Flandrick and Virginia Pesola, City Attorneys and Burke,. Williams & Sorensen, Los Angeles, California, for the - defendart!s-appellants_ S � $lanky Fleishman, Los Angeles, California, -for the plaiotiffs- appd!ees. OPINION HUG, Circuit Judge: In this action, Walnut Properties, Int. ("Walnut") chal- lenges the constitutionality of a municipal zoning ordinance which regulates the location of adult businesses- The city of Whittier, Califcrnia (-City") adopted an ordinance prohibit -t jog. among other things, the fi>cation of adult businesses within 1,000 feet of 2 church. Walnut's adult "Pussycat" The- ater violates that provision_ At issue is whether enforcement of the ordinance would Gtptive Walnut of its First Amend trent tights. This case also involves issues of abstc:titcn and immunity. We affirm the district court's finding that the ordi- nance is unconstitutional on the basis that it faits to QroYide _2Z_ =d r _ for Zl;�Ht�;F1=i•t..l =iIHL:�H =r_?.T c"�, �.., r'-Y.r„,te FACT'S 1977, Walnut briar: operation or its theater and exhibited "adult' films. In June, 1977. the City enacted an eureency” ordinance imposing locational restrictions on adult businesses. Tne ordinance allowed the City's planning dcp 3nment time to study the problems associated with adult businesses and toconsidcr potential zoning remedies. A study vias conducted. and it revealed that. at that time, 13 adult besincsses were located within the city boundaries; these operations included massage parlors, nude model studios, adult bookstores, and 2n adult theater (Walnut's Pussycat Theater). According to the City, thc study indicated several undesirable secondary effects associated with these adult businesses. r'oIlowing, the study, the City reenacted the ordinance 14V - r21 times, The City brought an action against Walnut in Los Angeles Superior Court seeking to enjoin Walnut frog., oper- ating its theater because it violated the restrictions. The course. of proceedings.. at the state level has not yet ended; instead, those proceedings have been stayed pending resolu- ticn of the federal proceedings, The present action arises from the City's adoption .:f Ordi- nznce NO. 2257, on March 24, 1981. Like the preceding ordi- nan:es, that ordinance allowed adult businesses in commercial erclal a_nd industrial zones, but imposed certain separa- tion requirements. The ordinance prohibited adult busi- nesses within 500 feet or residential lots and estzbiishments holding liquor licenses, and with -in 1,000 feet of schools, churches, park, or other aduh businesses. • On May 7, 1981, Walnut filed an action in federal district court .coking an injunction to restrain the City from enforc- ing the ordinance on the basis that it was unconstitutional_ The district court held Invalid that part of the ordinance pro- hibititeg the location au) adult business within 1,000 feat of s church. The court tcstcd its holding on the basis that there were insufficient facts to prove that the prohibition furthered Compelling state interest, end that a motivating factor in enacting the ordinance was the desire. to restrict Walnut's exercise_ of First Amendment tights. Less tan one week after the Findings of Fact and Conclu- sions of Law sere rendered by the district court declaring the ordinance unconstitutional, City Attorney Flandrick advised the city council that it Would be appropriate to consider rea- doption of that portion of the ordinance held uncoostitu- tioea! if sufficient evidence were present to support the provision. In response, the City held public hearings on the separation requirement, and the City's planning director, Mr. Porter. began gathering evidence to remedy the deficiency found by the district court. Specifically, Mr. Por.cr wrote to st'cral ministers of churches located in the City soliciting comments that would develop St factual basis for the ordi- nante. The responses from mihir.crs s,•trr compiled in an April 9, 1584 staff report along with artic:es discussing the effects Of adult businesses on children, lax review- inlets r_vicuicg adult business ordinances, and studies of similar or dle ar,ccs in other cities. The report recommended readopt- ing the 1,000 -foot seperation requirern ens between churches, _ . _ • - —Z3 - r-ri?ay. tiet-r::.-.5er 1I. Igsb The city council did to, enacting Ordinance No. 2327 on May 2-2-t 1983. That ordinance essentiaily amounted to i see eacirricnt of the previous ordinance held unconstitutional by the districtcclun just two months earlict, but the city coun- cil justified the Fczr,anmc_-ton the basis that the recent study remedied the eridentizry shortfalls of thc prior ordinance. In response to this reenactment, Walnut filed another Action in the district court on July 10, 1984, attacking the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 2327_ Walnut sought the following: (1) a declaration that the ordinance was invalid insofar as it prohibited an adult theater from operating within 1.000 feet of church; (2) an injunction against enforcement of the ordinance; and (3)'darnages ateainst the City, City Attorney Plaodrick, and Planning Director Porter, nilcging that the reenactment of the ordinance violated hs constitu- tional rights.. Walnut filed a motion fur partial summary judgment declaring Ordinance No. 2327 unconstitutional. Defendants Porter and P'landrick filed a cross-motion for summary judg- mient or, in the altcrnativ'e, partial summary judgement, assert- ing that Ordinance No. 2327 was constitutional and that, in, any event, they were entitled to absolute immunity or, alter- natively, qualified immunity. The district court denied the defendants' motion and granted partial summary judgment to Walnut declaring the ordnance unconstitutional. Apptial was tzl:tn by the City from both of the district court: decisions. For simplicity's sake, we refer to the first. action—that regarding Ordinance No. 7257—as Wobiul 1; wt refer to the second action—involving Ordinance No. 2327—as Walnut 2. The district courts decision in Walnut I was glrr:ed by this circuit, Walnut Properties, Inc r. City of firhuttiet, Nos. 84-5755, 84-6087 (9th Cir. 1985Xmem.) [762 F.2d 1020 (Table)]. The Supreoae Court, however, summarily vacated our judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of City of Penton v Playtime Mecum Ina. 47$ U.S. 41, 106 S. Ct. 925, reg denied, 475 U.S. 1132 (198&); City of Whittier r. Walnut Properties, The.. 473 U.S. 1042 (19E6Xmtrn.). We then va^sted the district court's decision and instructed the court on remand to consider the evident in Iight of Renton. Walnut Properties, Inc. r. City of 15'hlttier, 808 F.2d 1331;• 1333 (9th Cir. 1986). The district court again found the ordi- nance unconstitutional and this appeal was taken by the City. Wet ,vr. jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1982). We tendered our decision in Walnut 2 following our con... siderationof Walnut 1 upon remand from the Supreme Court. Walnut Properties, The. s. City of Whittier. No, 85-. 6112 (9th Cir. 1986)(order). We felt it oe-.cssary to vacate the district court's decision ark Walnut 2. because. in deciding, that Ordinance No. 2327 was unconstitutional, the district court - had relied upon our original decision in Walnut I. vrtakh Was later vacated by the Supreme Court. We remanded Walnut .2 for reconsideration in light of Renton and this circuit's cion on re stand in 33'atnut I. On rerEnd, the district eourtj conch ded that, even it? light of those de-:isions., Wainut was' entitled to partial summary judgement dxtsricg upconstltn-1 tional the separation requiremtitt be: -e a i chur,ch,,>l-.4 41- y ,.. � - -•-,, -,.t.4:111-1...1c:,+- -- :- - - � .�_ � _r _ • is `1iJ ; flHl, t1 -1: ti �i _31:I r •� properly cr1 to invoke the 3 ,^vnttr in order for a federal Cour; ro� Y iri and denied the City's r, orlon for soden arylv¢L- 3 of gine state judicial the Yo n is: :e C -x; 1+ abstention doctrine: "() 5 sect[. This r4 p is from that portion of the district court's 2 in ;ir.3tion of to important state interest in the proceed- , -n Porter and F2andriek immunity. Our jurisdic• {) p f a aceto r oriuniti to rust federal pr ce es- r:.'tr denying ud ment on an lags; and (3) ata q' pp oa ova A dcp�I of motion for zUmr: any) B tions in the proceedings? ` J�- toot or immunity is established b hfitchtll r Forsyth, 472 1.9. c y 51 1. 530 (1985) We ba c ca soi:dated Walnut I and We cevir.v de novo m refusal to abstain under Younger. Id.i 141nuui 2. at 1081. Under the circumstances at hand, the district court. akcs several arguments_ First, it quite pr,perly procrded with the case and issued a decision' On appeal, t rite City s under our mandate, 'Tire City's argument. fails on IhC basis Loser -Ls c -Or. tet t the c`i co dun erred in at the district court that the first requirement for abstention was not met. The» :tato rd h vtiooaL abstained frSecond, i[ xercisi jurisdiction in the state Court proceedings to this cast were not -orcotng" when' ;;hood have abstained frame exercising its 3' the district court rendered its second d :_-inion. The California: ii S:loCc 2Gd on remand, uvea that the ordinance was the Court of Appeals had remanded the state action to enc trial' su,�jctt of the disOr,trict s:2te proceeding.' Third, the city Coerce, and the s:att trial court had stayed the remand pra- �t-.S that lite dlSll7ct cct:rt tried in finding that Porter and tecdin€s ptadittg resolution of the federal proceedings_ Thus,' • cedi 83 federal case was is the district court as temand i monik h' e not entitled i0 either absolute ecian in Walnut there thewerd rattru'ongoing- i theprodistrict Chico would and r i or;,�; 5 d. s( a� rm the district trout' p lied u I. Sz,�G find that the ordir.ancc �zs uncor.StittrtiGn3} asap - tify abstention. See Andrea Theaters v. Theater Confections,. jus - Walnut, and that t: e district court properly exercised jt ri: iotiGil FIGwtYGf. we r^ -verse the district court s in I;raJrur 2 beau �`acQ Imcve rzuti y forhat tFcirrter nd actions. We rick utrc entitled to qoa .fi' atToolt t, of the attarneyz' fees avrards made in connection with both actions. its Inc_, 787 F.2d 59, 63-64 (2d Cir. 1986). decision Abstention Initially, we address the threshold issue of abstentionon. The City contends that, in view of the state procctding California court, the district court should have abstained • from exercising Caddon're i acid. See Younger urisdic-tion in Walnut Ha b s 01 V S. 37 oth io the first t_.;s.sncc a (1971). This contention eras no merit. First, it is far too late to challenge the district court's ecu-isio►a to proceed initially with the case The first judgment of the district court was appealed to this circuit and then to • the Supreme Court -lithe City wished to challenge the district .court's refusal to abstain, it should have door so at the time of the original 2ppC2ls. A review of our initial dispositroo .:fir oing the district court, and or our opinion t:o`Iowrng ter and front the Supreme Court, indicates The City che absten- tion bsteot - tion issue wogs never raised on sppoad' challenge the first decision of the district court on Younger grounds when it failed to confront us With that ecce rt ssue e last times the case Cis before us. Ste, e.g., P ick. 815 F.2d 1061, 1062-63(5th Cir. 1987) (state defendants vol::rttarily submitted to adjudication in a federal forum whin they did not raise abstention arguments on appea 3. Midkls'v. Torn, 702 F.2d 782. 803 (9th Cir. 1983)(Poo e concurring). Obviously. since we remanded the cast following Supreme Court review, we reit that abstention was not appropriate. Out view hos not chanied. ThoQ h Younger abstention has been extended to civil proceedings in which, irnportant state interests are irnptic:ted, abstention rernatns the exception,. -rather than the rule. World Famous Drinking, c i r. City of Ternoe. 820 E-4 79►eCir. t987)as amended): 'Absent significant countcrvoiling interests, the ��':=d to^crcist their jurisdiction.- Id_ .:hick muse r,c c,tt The City misconstrues the nature of Your.ger abstention. -That dcetrine is propelled by concerns of federalism and comity. See Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. 11odory,: 433 11,S. 471, 479 (1977). Thou concerns are not present where a state court has stayed its own proceedings pending resolution of the esti in a federal forum. In Such an instance, federal prootedings do not "'unduly interfere with the Icgiti- tma:e activities oft c States.' " Id. {Citatiot?s omitted)- lithe state court voluntarily cboose3 to have the C 3C decided by a federal court. -priociplcs of comity do not demand that the federal court force the ease back into the state's coon system?: Id. at 4Z0. Moreover, a decision to abstain at this late date would result in such duplicious litigation and waste of reso', rtes that it would gready frustrate our interests in judi- cial economy, with no apparent justification_ Constitutionality of the Ordinance V, hen we remanded Warrior Ito the district court after the Supreme Court vacated our earlier disposition, wt instru.•ted the district court to evaluate the ordinance in light of the print- - - tiples elucidated in Renton. Ste Walnut Properties. 808 F.2d st 1333. The court did so, and stilt found the ordinance unCoris:it;rtional in three respects. first, it foun3 that the ordinance presumptively violated the First Amendment because it was enacted for the predominant purpose of 5up- pressing, Watnues First Amendment rights- Second, it fourd that the ordinance did not further a substantial governmental interest. Finally, it found that the ordinance denied Walnut a reasonable opportunity to operate its theater within the City. Because we affirm on the third basis, we need not address µ'hither the district court was correct in holding thc ordi- nancC unconstitutional on the f:rt two Founds. In Renton. the Court beld that an ordinance regulating, the location of adult th aters violates the First Amendment if it "efreetivety dcnjicsj jtbeater o•hncr5j a reasonable opportu- nity to open and operate an adult theater within the city..... Renton,. 475 U.S_ m 53.54, 106 S. Ct. at 932.1n finding that the City's ordinance did not allow Walnut a reasocabkt • - opportunity to operate its adult theater, the district court acrrst:d the icstiroony of��'�lnut's rz-ect'Artr2tss that only • 12 t -.;Cs 'z: 2ta:t='_'.: 10 2'!'--`'L•Cii ess.ts t3'., et ti.0 O:di- r,ar.rc. The COUrt t!so noted L. the ordinance -makes it ie.:possible 10 operate At adult tt.caier is the antral district . of Whittier." Morco.er, the court found that `since Walnut ' has the en!), theattr in the City exhi;,itrrg adult films its elimi- nation would leave the City without any theater showing such filrns, and tate ordioan;c's effect would thee be a total exclu- sion of adult theaters in the City." We must accept the district court's factual findings unless we 2rc tell with a firm conviction that they are clearly erroneous. Johnson v. United States Portal Sery., 756 F.2d 1461, 1464' (911a Cir. 1985). Of these findings, the City stri- ov'sly disputes only the district court's dctcrtninztion of avail- able a_rczgc left to adult burin -sacs. At trial, the city planning director. Nit'. Pont:, and Walnut's expert witness, Mr. Met- calfe, diszgeted about the availability of certain sites for an adult business under the ordi:,enne. This resulted in a dis- rcpency in their tsti:,,ations ofavailabtc zcrca_e. Mr. boner testified that the ordinance left 99.5 acres available for adult businesses while Mr_ Mctc:a-Jfe estimated that o;,Iy 12 a;7 -es were available. Wt need not decide, however, whether the district court's acccpraece of Mr. Metcalfe's figure was clearly erroneous, as the difference in actc?ge has no impact on the resat we reach. For the purposes of zrgt_;Xcrtt we shall use the eviden:c most faYorabic to the City, that is, the 99.5•ncre fig- ure.. We review de ro;d the district total's determination tf ai the ordieance did not allow Wale RI a z asonzbie oppor- tunity to ince ate its theater elsewhere. United Sic:ej v. McCcnney. 728 F.2d 1195, 1201 (9th Cir.Xcn bane), cert. z'er;rd, 469 U.S.. 824 (1984). Our inquiry focuses on the num- ber of potential sites the ordinance leaves available for the location of adult businesses. We first note that, under the terms of the ordinance in question. Eh estimation of total avzi'.zbl: tentage is next to meaningless. This is nota case in which a greater Amount of acreage would nCeesssrity allow a . greater number of sites for adult businesses- Instead, this ordinance imposes s 1,000 -foot separation requirement between any two adult bt:sinesscs, thereby preventing such buSiriest.es from Clustering within 'given arta,. The .number of sites sval able to adult businesses under the ordir.ance, there - tort, depends not so much on the meal amount of ecrcage zvii',zble under the zoning scheme, but on how that acreage - is dispersed throughout the City. For example, if the zoning s..ehtme concentrates the a%zitsblc acreage in just one area, roost of the acreage wowed be consumed by the required 72_ acre buffer zone surrounding each adult business." In con- test, if the 10121available acreage i3 dispersed throughout the City in many srnall parcels—etch al least 1.000 feet from the others--tr.any more adult business=scould To. ate in the City •bc:,xirsc t?.; flvaitable Joca:ions would already be adequately act apArrt from other sites at which adult businesses might te.eate, Thu, x total of 99.5 evadable acres is susceptible to wiGc variation in the nitr:iber orlocations it allows for adult. businesses; the number or potential sites depends, in large peri, upon whether the available acreage is concentrated or :- Crisp -emelt Unfonur.ately, the district court made no findings with resp rt to Me actual number of pottnt'i31 sites avaitats;c for a Cult butir.tsses under the City's ordir..nen, nor did testi- ' _. q _ ' 1• - _ , . .. )1. many a 731 re‘ eat zny fiFures. However, that de cis- docs not hinder us in deriding the cast b ezusc roughly estimate the number ofavailehle sites based ono in the record And other information) deduced at trial. A copy of the City's orl-rrial zoning map was Subrtiitt as an exhibit at trial. The map indicates the areas left tor :Qu businesses after the restrictions of the ordinance arc.appe,c to the City's geographical area.' (tl'alnu! 1; ER 74. Exh, attached to Declaration of Porter.) The map indicates ju„ three areas in which adult businesses may locate.` Thus,,, have a situation{ in which the available acreage. h cancer tented. The three areas, according to Mr. Porter. compris 99.5 acres, or I.4% of the city's land. See Walnut 1. B08 F.21 at 1337. Though the boundaries arc not so precisely drawn 2 to permit an estimation of the actual acreage encorapasse( within each arca, it is quite obvious that together the arca would only allow a smell handful of adult businesses to o;ct ate within the city of Whittier, in light ofthe required 72-acr, buffer zone imposed by the ordinance. We nerd not venture farther into the art of eartographj to find that this ordinance docs not allow sufficient alterna- tives tor relocation of adult businesses Even using. the City's profrcrcd evidence, the paucity of alternative sites is glaring Moreover, we have engaged in no inquiry whatsoever Zs 10 Whether these sites are presently available for salt or/case, or will likely be available in the future, To hold, as the Gty urges, that there are Adequate alternatives Evailabtc lot cxprec_sion of this sort would make a mockery of First Amendment protections and would render meaningless the Supreme Court's admonition that an ordinance must cot "effcctiveJy denfy)... $ reasonable opponunity to open and operate an adult theater within the city." Rcnron. 475 U.S. at 53-54, 106 S. CL at 932. The ordinance's !,000 -foot separation requirement betreeen adult businesses makes this case vastly different from Renton, where the Supreme Court upheld un ordinance regulating the location of adult theaters. That ordinance, when applied, allowed 520 acres of"'Iair:Tpie, accessible rest estate' " for adult theater sites. M. \� Rhin those- areas, there Mss DO Separation rtquircmeot between adult businesses„ Thus, all of the acreage wss cfrectiVely open 10 adult theaters, and conceivably, the only limit to the number of heaters that quid lo.:ste there stcrnrned from market forces, That ordi- nance did not impose the intrinsic limitation that this ordi- nance does. Though the City asserts that 99.5 acres arc available in Whittier for 10 sting an .adult business, in fact. only a fraction of that acreage is potentially available. It Can hardly be compared to the 520 acres in Renton, where there were no other restrictions emanating from the terns of the ordinance itself Two circuit courts that have analyzed ordinances imposingr separation requirements between adult businesses have arrived at the same conclusion tive do today, In ,Attza,rdtr r City oflef nr:eapolls. 698 F.2d 936 (8th Cir. 1983), the ordi• nonce in question required that adult businesses be separated from other adult businesses and certain other vets by 500 feet. Id. at 937. The court found the ordinance unconstitu- tional on the basis that it permitted, at most, 12 possible sites for relocation. Id. at 938-39. This number of sills did `not - -1.1 7i ,•....1H(...11 -2, --or..; • • F;ie.ry, ;tiovceahcr 11, 1 &S supply s dent access to thc Constitutior.sliy protected adult pees is question...." Id. et 939 n.7.'tib e nose that the 12 sites . in that :eta.: significantly outer eigh the number ashes allowed under the City's ordinance in this cast. The Sixth Circuit found unconstitutional an ordinance which, when applied, apparently allowed thc same range of sites u the City's ordinance. The ordinance in CLR Corp. r. fa'ertir.e. 742 .F.2d 637, 633 (6th Cir.. 1983) required adult h iersses to be separated from schools, churches, and res-- . dcrccs by 500 feet, and from other restricted use, by 1.000 feet. The court found that the ordinance impermissibly resi -ictcd First Amendment expression, as "the impact of the o:dir.ence is to permit two !o four restricted uses in a half - milt strip of the city." Id. at 639. The City has argued throughout that its ordinance is consti- tutional Inceauee it is modeled after the one found constitu- tional in Young r. American Mini Theatres, Int., 477 U.S, 50 (1976)! This argument hes been n-Isdt to other courts unsuc- c`ssfs:ity. See CLR Corp., 702 F.2d at 639; Bcsfarda,res Y. City of Galveston. 682 F.2d 1203, I213 (5th Cir. 1982), As the Fifth Circuit hes pointed out, "malady mimicking the ordi- nance upheld in [Youngj is not enough,' Id. at 1213. In • Young, the district court bad found that there were 'myriad locations in the; City of Detroit which must be over 1000 feet Prem existing regulated establishments. This burden on First . Amendment rights is slight"' Young, 423 iJ,S. at 71-72 n.35. • Justice Stevens, writing for s plurality of four, stated, "The situation would be quite different if the ordinance had the eiTect of su; pressing, or gecatty restricting access to, lawful speech.* M. at 71 n.35.* Moreover, the plurality in Young rctird on the fact that tete otdirante would"'not affect the operation or existing estab- lishments but or.'y the location of new ones.' "Id. at 72, n.3.5 (quoting the district court's findings). As w: have previously noted, "there is little doubt that a majority would have clues. boned an ordinance putting all existing theaters out of business." Walnut Properties, 808 F.2d at 1336' Yct that is precisely the effect of Whittier's ordinance. Enforcement of the ordinance ss to Walnut's theater would force the only existing adult the -enter in Whittier to close at its present 1cca- tion with no definite prospect of a place to relc ale. This eFeet makes this case markedly different from /'cling Khere the Detroit ordinance applied prospectively only and did not APrct existing theaters. The Eighth Circuit in rtlexOnder distil`gi. isl`icd the Minneapolis ordinance at issue there from the Detroit one in Young on a similar basis, noting that cr,torccr;ent of the Minneapolis ordinance would force a relocation or all five adult theaters in the city and between se,cn and nine of the ten adult bookstores_ Alexander. 698 F.2d at 938-. z x c`cr`'�str .mutt { . i We rote that there is nothing; the Renton opinion which indicates that the Cour; would uphold ati -ordinance st•hich would eliminate uIl adult businesses in existence at the time rest ordinance was passed_ The Court simply was Fat Laced with those circumstances in that case. The ordinance at issue pc,r& - N•t jd,ree tt1 towards aduh theaters only, and at the rime the was passed no adult theaters were located r:-'�' �..,:•_._ r»t City ofPcntort. 748 —? 14I31 F -2d 527. 530 (9th Cr.i19fi4), rev'd on -other grounds; 475 U.ST4I (1986). Thus it hada prospective effect only. We thcrcforc aE -al the etistriCt court's conclusion that the City's ordinance is unconstitutional. Not only does it efcc• tivcly deny Walnut a reasonable opportunity to open and operate an adult theater within the City, but it also would force the closure ofa11 Adult businesses existing at the time the ordinance was passed. Immunity Having round the ordinance unconstitutional, we now turn to the rs-uc of whether City Attorney Flandrick and City ,Planning Director Ponce arc immune from the actions they took in promoting the reenactment of the ordinance. The dis- trict court found that Porter and Flandrick were not entitled to either absolute or qualified immunity. We review that determination de nom Greater Los Angeles Council or; Deaf- ness. Inc. Y. Zahn. 812 17.2d 1103, 1107 n.6 (9th Cir. 1987x, White by White r. Pierce County, 797 F.2d 812, 814-15 (9th Cir. i986). We hold that Porter And Fla ndrick are entitled to quali- fied immunity and, thus, we do not reach the issue orwhethtt absolute irnrnunity is appropriate under these circumstances. Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violated "clearly established ._- constitutional rights of which a rtasonzble. person would have known," ITQrlon• r_ Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 8)8 (11332) (emphasis added)_ if the law at that time was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said to 'know' that thc law forbade conduct not previously identified as unlawful." Id. The test is wholly objective. and we do not inquire into the actual subjective intent of the of'iciat. Davis itScherer, 468 US. 183, 191 (1934). Thus, our inquiry is whether Walnut's First Amend- ment rights were clearly established so that 's reasonable per -- eon would have known that the reenactment of thc ordinance would amount to a constitutional violation. We hold that Walnut's rights were not so clearly established. In rejecting Porter's and Flandrick'S claim or qualified immunity, the district court found that WaInut's rights were "clearly established" by the district court's judgment in Walnut 1, which found the original ordinance unconststtt- tional; Walnut makes this same argument on appeal. The Walnut 1 decision did not dearly establish the law with respect to the issues raised in Walnut 2 for several reasons. The district court found the first ordinance unconstitutional because the City failed to prove that the 1,000 -foot separation requirement between a church and an adult theater "furthertedj 3 compelling fovcrnment interest" and "because a motivating factor [behind the requirement] was to restrict the c:ercise of First Amendment rights ...."" The defen- dants attempted to cure the constitutional defects of the first ordinance by conducting a new study to demonstrate that the ordinance furthered a compelling interest. Moreover, the dis- trict coup's finding of improper motive with respect to the first ordinance could not necessarily apply to thc se and ordi- nance because the tatttr was passed is, light orthc new srudy. �••-- T` a_ A- ..�.' rA �.-1�. nn�r2 r['•R ih 11.1!'nta % could not have l JJt.r , I.1 ', !H 'H '17T Th -et: ate cstzb1ished- that the sem: t:`ord:r.zece would violate til'teru' y rights. W7,'c note., howevice that the two Orditances . :etre identical in terensof their allowance of" al:creative sites. But b;:3use the district court in its original decision in IS a!nut 1 did not rest its holding on the inadcQua,:y of avail. able vai1- ab:e alternatives, the decision did not clearly establish the law in that respect. In sum, the district court erred when it held t`at Walnut ! "clearly established" rights so as to defeat immunity. We therefore must disregard the original decision in freinut f when we assess the state of the Iaw at the tient the CitY passed the second ordinance. Absent binding precedent, v e lc•.pk at 'alt available dccisioeal taw including decisiaas of vet: courts. other circuits, and district courts to determine efeeEher the right was clearly established..... An additional (actor is the likelihood 0;=1 the Supreme Court or the Ninth Circuit would have reached the same rest:lt as courts that had already considered the issue." Ward r. County of San Diego, 791 F.2d 1329, 1332 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, I07 S. Ct. 3263 (1987). See also Capoemen x. Reed, 754 F,2d 1512, 15I4-15 (9th Cir. I985)(as ainer,ded). We must, therefore, :sk whether other decisions had `clearly e st=blishlcd" that the scrond ordinance passed by the City was unconstitutional. Surveying the cases that existed in 1984, we note that scv- er7T courts elucidated broad principles of First Amendment Iaw, but few t pplied those principles to cirtamstarces stir tear to those at eland_ We recognize that the me.stitutionality of zonieg ordinances frequently der nd upon the. factual situs - tions involved; a 1,000 -foot separation requirement betwe.cn Churches and adult busir.t:ses may be found constitutional to o. • one instance and unconstitutior.al in the next, depending on the evidence supporting the need for such R provision, the motivations propelling its enactment, and the extent to which the restriction allov-s eltcrrativc In tions for communicat- ing the protected czptctsiott. We begin our analysis by pointing out that our inquiry for the pulses ofqualif.ed immunity extends beyond the ee-ope of -our discussion relating to the constitutionality of the ordi- panet_ W fotiid the ordir.ance unconstitutional on the basis that it failed to leave open adequate alternatives ofcornrnuni-- cstione We thus did not need to address Whether it was uncon- stit:itio.-,al on the other grounds found by the district court—those relating to rnctivc and to the su.eicncy of the evidence supporting the ordinance. However, In order to hod that the defendants arc entitled to qualified immunity, we must venture into those area 10 a limited extent, Our task is to deternire whether, ti=;rrrnirrg the ordinance is unconstitu- • tionii on those other two grounds as well, the law was so. Jt*rty established M the time that the City shouid have known that passing the ordinance via:Ated Walnut's First Amendment ri8hts. • We have no difbctrlty ncluding that the taw as of 1514 failed to clearly establish the roc of motive in constitu- - tiors1 analysis. The issue lead surfaced primarily in this dr-. cult, b::t the cases which discusste/ motive %n so;..f depth did so o-ety in tete context of reviewing a grant of summary 3Ud1- '.;,ani or 2 dental odea ptelirr ir,ary injunction. la Ebel r. City..' Iteete • ofCoro.7:.t.9S F.2d 390, 393 (Sell Cir. 193), we dcterrnined that ;here existed se. `rcient evieence of an improper motile on ahalf ora city that enacted an adutt ordinance, to present `fzireeround for litigation." And in 7•ovar r. 721 F.2d 126'0; 1265 (9th Cir. 19E3), cert. denied, 469 U.S. b72 (19S4). we found that a g.tnuinc issue of material fact exssie;I as to whether zoning decisions affecting adult businesses were improperly motivated. See also Krrxinictr r. County of Saito Clara. 689 F.2d 1345, 1348 (9th Cir. 1983)(as amended). In neither cAs~ were we in the position to set forth definitively' the rote that motivation would play in determining whither zoning ordinances were unconstitutional. Similarly, the law *.s ofmid-1984 had not cicarlycstab- fished what constituted a lce,itimatt need for an adult ordi-: ranee or even whether a legitimate need was required. At least one case held that an ordinance was constitutional tvea. tithe city did not eat forth any factual basis for its ordtran . -See Strand Property Corp. r. Municipal Corcrl, 148 Cit. App, t 3d. 882, 857 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983Xas rnodiEed), Other courts held the opposite. Finding that the ordi,.ance could be sus- tained only if there existed some factual basis for the p,rr• ported governmental interest served by the ordinance. Ste. e.g., North Suet! Book Shoppc Y. Village of Endicott. 582 F. Supp. 1428, 1434--35 (N.D.N.Y. 1984); E & 8 Enterprises r. Clry,of University Park, 449 F. Supp. 695, 696-97 (N..'). Tex. 1977); and Keego Harbor Co. Y. City Of Krego Harbor, 657 F.2d 94, 98-99 (6th Cir. 1981). 7;ut non. of those cases itrdr. rated austerely clearly what factors justified an ordinance ice-tileflog2dull businesses. The Ciry passed its ordinance on the basis ora second study, thus oTcling tt least some factual basis for its ordinance. At the time, there were no clear guidc- Iidts indicting, whether its study contained sufficiently pro- bative evidence to support a finding that the ordinance u„3_ constitutional Thus, even if the otdir.ance is unconstittt-, tionzl rot -lack of su cicnt reasons supported by adequate trier dente, we cart hardly say that the Iaw dearly established such defect At the time the steond ordinance was passer.. FinilIy, we must determine whether the Taw dearly' est2Slisbed that the ordinance left opal insufficient alterna- tive. avenues of eOrn nunic.atron. By the time. the City p s.sed the sxond ordinance, several courtS had held that various ordinances impermissibly rtrictcd First Amendment rights° by fairing to provide adequate alternative Ioctions for adult:; businesses. See, e.g., North Street °.:;•;k S'hoppe, 582 F. Supp.. j at 1432; CLR Corp_ 702 E2d at 639; Bayside Enterprise:4 J Inc. v. Carson, 450 F. Supp. 696, 703 (M.D. Fla. 1978); E h 1. & Enterptlses. 449 F. Supp at 697; Alexander, 698 F.2d at 939; and Be,r!arefencs, 682 F,2d 21 1214. However, the deci-'-': Eions in those cases, by focusir.g on the availability of alterna-: tine Cites, ncxessarily tuned upon the particulargeographicaI Cha, acteristic of the city involved. To extract from those few, camas clear• principles of constitut'sor-al law would be to; impost an altoeethcr unrealistic burden on oSciats who arc; • held only to the reasonable person standard.” As we rCeoj razed in Warct; when evaluating whether the law was clearly: established at the tire of cials acted, we do not 'require of, most govenamcnt o eia.?s the kind of air a. scholarship nor-; madly a.,st&o•�:stcd with Iaw ptofteseen and aeadernicixns. At rocs-caable person 3i.dard adheres at all times," If'ur4 791: F.2d at 1332. ?. _i H^•1H=?:='H j:uLHH r,' ?T -L -rig • (x 7 s 1xr-cl rS, NOVerJL-.!.. 11, 1.9,:.;.5 - al law at th time • h►=;;Daae;, c�•c;t if 11-,c -,relevant dccisian the In=te=nt favors (plaintiff's) position,' it stili may be _:`or '.h_:hcr the defendants 'should be charged with ox'_dsc of 'clearly established' law," Capoclr.Qn. 254 F.24 1514, 151 S. In Cci.,:cmar., W c refrained from bolding that c rrtir,tot law was cit-atIy e tabiishcd even though there ere three =.sex from other circuits and three district court :sea that t5tcbtishcd the ri Yt in question. See id, at 1514. t stated that, whcre. there art 'relatively few Cases on point, n 1 none of them arc binding., an additional factor that may r t ,,w is 'clearly Ccs:ice:ed in z:,-xria=�ir8 whether 1- Y ,'ablis`.ec is a determination or the likelihood that the ;t:Yrr_ mc Court or this circuit would have reached the same t.; _lt 2s courts which had pre Yiously considered the issue. To 'oak: tic deter aiaation, we tax: -tine the legal analysis a; loyed 4y then e.ourts and compare it to the anat)sis being Used at that tines by the Ninth Cicttit in related but factually ctiCcrtnt situations." la' at 1515. We do not mean to sagest that three out -of -circuit =tics or even one. may not be enough w s;, , that the law is clearly established. R 0s:or, we reaffirm only that in such circurrst2 —S we maybe required toev2lu- ate the prospects that the Supreme Court "of our coJrt will xp;ce.. Here, there wc:c viii ally tlo cases in the Ninth Circuit discussing the standard to be applied in assessing the ade- quacy of 4'.tcrnative locations for adult businesses. In Ale,::r"t Theatcs, •Inc.. ?4& F.24 at 527, decided months ar cr the City passed the second ordihanee, we noted in footr.ote that this circuit had not previously Considered the question. Id. at 534 3,1 L While in other types of casts the absence of prior Ninth Circuit analysis of the relevant iss=ues not prrciude a finding that thc taw was clearly estab- lished, given all of the cirt•.+.mstanccs of this case. we cannot . re cy that result here. Without any indication of What snaly- six this Circuit wQtrld employ, the defendants.couid not be exer=ted to extrapolate a dear rule from the varietyofinw 'Cir- cumstances faced by other courts. uc Bold that the existence M the time of, the defendants' actions failed to establish cleariy that the second ordinance was unconstitu- • tioni3_ The defendants art th refore entitled to qualified immunity. CONCLUSION We affirm the district court's finding that the ordinance is unconstitutional on the basis that it fails to allow 9dequatc, aitcr,itivc loeatio; s for Walnut's theater. 4'e also affirm the district court's decision not to abstain. However, we reverse the district court's denial of qualibcd immunity, because we hold that the law did not dearly establish that the second ordinance was unconstitutional at the time it was enacted. yore sift,;,, ail xw ards of attorneys` feces in both actions. AFFIRMED To part, and REYEESED In part, 1 tr.,. 1.o i z:Gr1 is t tci'_ave 1,6 u;.srte ort.;'« =n, this is ti r^eridentic31 fit c c,1 .t for ere u-� --s'6 0 Sieirx, No. I)27. :in s,`_- s ::e t2 sit Sir t� (<i-L^.� tin• 22 1,T'hoeth the xcondordiaancc ep_?! 7: E:yI::.,:'t`•r: f L*t best tae the trail 0..1.t to Iddaloesi study t ;s ,;c d:*:iecticn Lis no b . cjrint un our ys�, cc .. .. 4•. hitt 4� r�•'.x:^_nen the t 1.1:s tr::)./rc't ::,.. ;eft �A'��^ 14133 idcIILi1 in 4.1'. x./ yrs L ROi thus lee r.__d r.7.t c.w-.xr3 ,.Si:S ordi;_t:Scc is the foc-:s of our nor c':tuti:r.L} lnyviry. Acrcr4i"•i'7. mac...J-1=a is not yin -it. .:; here_ St! TolTL', uric v. Sc^ Cctr1ty, 827 F_2d 1329. 1331.32 (9th Cir. 1£57X Sin C the reitvar;t S tiV: �C"t3 of the iccpersry ofdintuertlieye > .^2311-'-ly pr- tri v` unc`.s-.y:a in f ns is not moot--) . teen IRtC Ora:in?nC'e I. 4'1t 'GOdtF'ort' Y!'x�t= s you L', 'In this vein, the City alto arx-Jcs thus the Califocni2 Court o; Ap9esrs dc:;sion :n this case s5o.r4d o;c;irt Li rte judictx to bar our :"cte.'rni-21 toe of the cons:ins:lone. issue. Tb'•s is the third tire.= the City sn_:r.ptx to 172ke such An 1-T.,; ,crit. We rejected the Ctiyy'mote/Ilion Olen us en re .st hl om Ole PV b-• r 1 Ap;/�t. When the Esc the Suprt'7t Cc»rt_ we expressly reins:aced that pia of Cur.•2c2ted mer o- r-x-od m disc oritio ..ore WetIn.rr P%rt1lrs. B .& F.7d set 1733 r..1. Our view. act the tatter btu cot [.`-•*.: tom,'_ We r;o:e Alla it:: the bass on u hick we hold e, t. -.2t it fxi' to provide adez:2tt the ardicr<tac u-�co::f.tis::tiorll�-.'-=� 7 111.t::11tiye lcutia s --s ao tact never even tr--olrcG by the Cslifornii Co its ofAppc1L That court expresfq rrranEcd the cast 13 the tr:si tours to t;:a:ca fartall }Ito:7r_ttive s.tct, *ad those pro- tectrinLs `a YL b turd. Set City of A7x rear 7- We:/Vat Frarrntts. Inc, 149 Ci►_. ADC- 34633,644-45 ( 514XdirKtin2 he trial co'—rt on recd to '"mekts tie aeu. tyrulin gs..-><t to thc to .iliry omite:ate seises in the qty or :Lisitt1Gr. _ , sladr_-d. it: its t:r:cf, the City neves' rest its thit it rxi:44 this iss:'- on pppeal. It sihply r..xi^tai: x %Lit it raised the issue to the district court both initially And on remand. - . `A circle vials a r28;u1 of I, fees ens ;:p;ss-7:: app roxir..attty 72ca res. 'Ins , `Ding, thc cheap lncoror2les Mt. Pcrer s pres,1Felons rc&srdint the av1?.s13ility of certrein sites under the of run=e—p ';mptio :t which were tent forth til bit testi;..ony `One of the c scats map ant be ivxilsbte tar adult busin.xses, but for the purrYncs of out L::t'7its we s-itTl iuumt it is. The aszi'xbilit7 of svaut within the 11•11;twood Shoppir.i Crater was its dispute it trial The sho,^pint center consists of 30 parcels. Par'.* of the shop; L center are within ACA feet or s residential zone_ An adult business Could 1c 1C within the cense; unless the shoppini cerate: is ccnsidtred a shat= lot uredo the Cirit zoning plan., ff the cc^ter is viewed As pec sib c lox, the entire arta i3 cor.siderun - within SOO f_tt of I residential 2oce IAd the center is precluded trot -3 pro- vidir.i t lotion far an adult business. Ste AT at 69_ The district coon neve! resc.`,cd A ti^cnciution on Wbc:hci, It a r..*:tet of 22:6ni hot. thc i tap- pir.i Center couldeon:id:r> d one lot or a croup of *=;.ante lots-'.Vc need not address `shell•-cr the aboppint center provides sn aril in which adult basinewel coined Ioc.*t - 100'- & we a?saute it deers, as the addition of one Arcs docs not siiai6cAntly itete.tSt the as•a labof11:er.,ative slits to u So boost thc otdintnet Above the threshold of constitutionaray. /Unlike the ordi snee at bar. however. the Detroit ordnance ca Yount aro;•-" Scrl t t. hex r utme..5 usezt 1J4 at 5z Thus the b roil orsir.z nutt `c wwasand say two athcr� fir leis restrictive than Olt Whittier one. SPICui:1 Dnty a pIvr2lity Joined in the o, i io t. IVitiCt f'owtlt expressly pointed out in his toncurtence ihtt the ordir:2W.t did 301 involve -Aay ni5cAnt o,erA11 eur:ailccns or 1,54.01 ne=vit nrestetattonL. or etc Opportu- nity for mess.; it to reach In audience,- Yeuung, 127 U.S. at 79 (Pc... gone .rsir.t). Set cJjJ g,niCrd,2rr1, 6Z2 F.21 it 1:11 (4iseuuini rc-,/ria). • 'In his concurrence.'us:ice Pk:rat:1 nc:. d, '0n the basis of the Oistnct t 7.^ X21 if 1 1..F neer rr.tt'.cl exists to S'J:;ort 14134 ^its �-D ' j�.!�:l t.`•CI t - ). the t`;sters in t'_ c:rpit wit: tenlAtn ij; teemr.-i:rly zltc time, fret-. to F.nr1 the r..- r..cs rhe. }'r�� j .07 Ii„fi. lit 79. Sr( 6t:A rrlrsor._'tt ICS F.7C it 43E (Clscuts:n; }'cyry} A t7.3)os'ty ort`t COLT 72trr d7stirt,:ishc4 an arCtr.lncc Ea;tnirx r..:Cc ditnr- Int t: c:a the cne in }'Donor. no:irp 11:2t the Octrott orSinsnct 'did not a(fcct t +t r.ei ct e,' tCt,tt movie thct:eri tt]s cotta o, ers<:c sn Iht Stfrd *. EOreaph of Mr. £p;`✓st,7t, 452 11.$. 6L 71 (t981). trl, its t t; Eec;siel (tit Cktrict court Cid riot rest its hoTdint, in psn, on me lack 0:- a::crz:ive kites. This circuit, hcster.vcr, : 5crncd 4'%t district ccwr:'s f,7,Girj cf an cottstitutian4Jit7 p3ri=14 on stor course,-111:Is is not to sir thit +n o c;a1 a:tion is protected by _zii`cA i nnu^ity t: less the +-try ict'c t is quex:ion !Its pre,;c::s:7 been hcIC ;:,'r -id _._.'.iRStrsor r, C,tlpf:en 107 S. Ct. 3034, 3339 (t9&7). The azt.rc of F:-1: dots. not :t:to:natl- t+:iy 1`.'c'3 pt tic a.Tcit2s with G':z ifed immunity for 1^t;stAmt nCsnrAt . ip:a:ic :S w•:c;,cticr the ftctt ire in t -y t e re: di_rent_ Ro:h 7, r't:tram. ,cC,-:In..::O. ;7-2213. stip op. tt 111t (9th C'r. Scrt_ 12, l97s8)_ 114t t Wire cd//Cited Fefrti'c,�s WCP'e (1 COurif-er `prov), 11,0ey al j: cc (in 1;(1 :aa (m C(Slomer .lv-A6 h�cre� 'Gtr Sfcrj. NO OBJECTION TO ADULT MOVIE RENTALS As a patron of Hermosa Video, I am familiar with the store layout and the store business practices. I have observed the area in the store designated for x -rated "adult movies" and believe that having this "restricted area" is an appropriate and acceptable manner of permitting adult movie rentals. I do not believe the rental of adult movies by Hermosa Video under the present methods of operation to be offensive or distasteful. PRINT NAME� /�L ADDRESS p 1 NAME/t) , .la-l��s1 iLcOa p� 'a.r,a r0 3 '1 itt Gq / WWei M-6' pi .►.A0,-Ao. N • fl etazs4 (70 Ave Y-19 w7f 8. 1 .... � � } — Q7`-i/JY- ( ( .7d2{( 9. 0.,41'/Dr 7,6(4(t. 10./ 11�1P6 WC (aft tL' 1J2T ! G�1,✓l�" D. te Mos-. Q2c-ci, cto2s'i 64-LP/9 ' 2' 4 -vim, 19'L. &I'7a* -64-1-- PO. P3ONI 911 , fi O.PJa)C911,f Tr w 6( 4, cA- ?c5146 e -{4e b L9 ST. lfe.�s�ra/Gj 9ozs 02'1( L WA) • (41- 9ozstl f/ i3 Q(.22 V H...44‘ /70 /7p( c /P'' /a. 92(y 3o n1- Nal r ., 907,6 ric)(10.0(4,--FAN\-\,& ( -, NO OBJECTION TO ADULT MOVIE RENTALS As a patron of Hermosa Video, I am familiar with the store layout and the store business practices. I have observed the area in the store designated "adult movies" and believe that having this "restricted area" and acceptable manner of permitting adult movie rentals. for x -rated is an appropriate I do not believe the rental of adult movies by Hermosa Video under the present methods of operation to be offensive or distasteful. PRINT At." 41..A.0 1. ''c`i`.cy�(� 2. ? q — j OVt..1)(1%,‘ 3. ,TO 0 Ce N zP,U✓ 4. ,r(( CkirK ADDRESS iia C-Mhb 6204 , Pi 047" yr cl-ti 1`f f3 /S — 74-144 s T 715`/41 77 if s -i- 3 ply- ro-t, Th , 9. 10. 11. 12?lufA, zi, 13. 14.grG4- JIMMONNEW 20.13 Adtk c9-66-7 oc.t4 J9 7 ,rrr141 D(A/ fly • \ 400 1 �.�v I 1.59 )a 8/Yd /oa 8-1i,Al2x 521" Honkrcy, ,maga &act - 52S k-loynktetj,,, 1,-/te (� .m. A$e 6/0,7 .v /-iaSAC7.07c7 (05t. M f,ard Mc ZcS,1/. E. NO OBJECTION TO ADULT MOVIE RENTALS As a patron of Hermosa Video, I am familiar with the store layout and the store business practices. I have observed the area in the store designated for x -rated "adult movies" and believe that having this "restricted area" is an appropriate and acceptable manner of permitting adult movie rentals. I do not believe the rental of adult movies by Hermosa Video under the present methods of operation to be offensive or distasteful. PRINT NAME 1. ( id(t_ / S 4?/ 8• /kvri..l SE,1f44'1/ 9. io.0 Lk 11.C'kfi5 kas'Pe)1 Vo 12. 1/t% UL1DB 13. 14. 15. 16. 17 18. 19.vt/i.I.e I�, ,n1 20. ADDRESS g@. 7/i? , c _? (Cr i4 `3 (4- f 10St Apt B H. B. co sy S3/ %-,ck,&44 ,C,i. 6,8 9'0.45-r st. 6 41.8 to. c -Y sz.e 7 /f. s. qoz f 6' /3ARo S- F / 3 `t 1- I -1-c, n -Lu -a a at", - /y;Y 1/„.., # 3- /1.1. Io) 414POrKart4-/74'/-47 os &V. e4 - 5\k, d1 -1-111q_1-18.01105890-1. /3/4, //2 1J4 4?.P.no.0;i 4,,, d 62. 131q �P,pf//n�'4.1/ IQ de 11PR4104 ig ""// t Ci /94) yam /4 92/% 0/D," f t72s f 91A yz qoz c Y NO OBJECTION TO ADULT MOVIE RENTALS As a patron of Hermosa Video, I am familiar with the store layout and the store business practices. I have observed the area in the store designated for x -rated "adult movies" and believe that having this "restricted area" is an appropriate and acceptable manner of permitting adult movie rentals. I do not believe the rental of adult movies by Hermosa Video under the present methods of operation to be offensive or distasteful. PRINNT NAME 1. (, uR 1 1 S 6J ie -k IJ9- 2.CAIJGE, ��RA) lo>EI►2l7 ei- QJAt^� 11. M (mac oc� v> 12."LfenPrr 13e� LPA r 1L 15. �ti'I �r$ f Yc//((��l.L S t1 16. t114114//2' 17. / 18 19. 20. -3-1— ADDRESS 3 -1 -- ADDRESS 77 S© /L1 7 711 ST 111..1? •14 CY1 '10 % kite -co //// HHJ,.Garyy /4f /3 _ 1550 I L -& I�v-C . 7/ 8 J 04 11 A 1 g/ S t (p 4 "- S �- +i rt1 r4eZJit I d Lir 4t j`el ( - i 3a. 1 Srff Rvx0`,(2UC t O 51 '(`()oAer ei Q1g8 • ; 't--2r(vto s - (ca›? eck.l m 1)2444 tLen/r-off, ISC,k , tiZ to 71u_ d /.415 yS-fi s4ci 40t (5 ` \- &spi c 11 l� l� NO OBJECTION TO ADULT MOVIE RENTALS As a patron of Hermosa Video, I am familiar with the store layout and the stor business practices. I have observed the area in the store designated for x-ra "adult movies" and believe that having this "restricted area" is an appropriat and acceptable manner of permitting adult movie rentals. I do not believe the rental of adult movies by Hermosa Video under the present methods of operation to be offensive or distasteful. PRINT NAME ADDRESS /T /3 ca/ -)c, `, Q7 C AIRFSS 1\eQ w /665 =e i 91,5c -f- S St f� . 21L kAty-rn,lyc, 00 IC c) ki?N ,.‘45347/e ) 4 1 91784,3 650"-- 4"e- 7.z. orr ,4z4- /1 ed Ardmore 14 jm. 't 4 a.ilexistas4 ALE. N .osA- I /39 G cu_e5'�A I-404.155 ti047 (� `fZl4 F! T )7}+ 57 (1 os.4 $r T �^ NO OBJECTION TO ADULT MOVIE RENTALS As a patron of Hermosa Video, I am familiar with the store layout and the store business practices. I have observed the area in the store designated for x -rated "adult movies" and believe that having this "restricted area" is an appropriate and acceptable manner of permitting adult movie rentals. I do not believe the rental of adult movies by Hermosa Video under the present methods of operation to be offensive or distasteful. PRINT NAME 1. J614,3 J 2. aro •-‹*Ckcien "__a' off- A—ACL., 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. ADDRESS /vas A44, J g AVmJ Aa -z 14.8. ZZ9`1 Lervv.,4- �s�� AAs/V4-/frt. _ 6 Hermosa Video 1312 Hermosa Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (213) 374-7489 Miler he JQ c t(l k1o of w,» ti 1t h,e y Aliorn,ey, Lor c. &(. 3 '/g. S o I Y d. Oc lyo. o0 ictal 2-i7B/.00 u ot (SEAL I, the undersign d, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the 1 day of•► 195. deposit into the United States post off•ce, first class postage prepaid, a copy of the public notice attached as Exhibit "A" to each and every person attached as Exhibit "II". I warrant that the persons named on Exhibit "B" are all the persons required by applicable law to receive the public notice attached as Exhibit "A". I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to cause these public notices to be made in an accurate and timely fashion and agree to hold the City harmless against any liability whatsoever for any defect of said notice or notices. In the event an action is instituted in a court of coo= petent jurisdiction which questions the legality.of the public notices, then the City may in its exclusive discretion suspend all hearings or cause the cessation of any construction or of any use which was permitted as a result of a hearing which was held in accordance with the public notice. In the event, that the court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be effective, then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke any permits granted and cause any approvals given pursuant to those.public notices to be declared null and void and I agree • on behalf of myself and my heirs, assigns or successors -in -interest to hold the City harmless in connection therewith. , I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing; is true and correct. :342,w4141; executed this ► 198 9 1.14Lakk evioky /W. l4dekk /3/.1 Q,(fiemued. State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) SS On this the /716? -1- da me, Public, personally appeared declaration on this the 1/II day of at IIermosa Beach, California. SIc erff r - (name) (name) (Signature) Cp - Own, er (Capacity) 198/r, before ndvs i • ne hNotary proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evi nce to be the person(s) whose name(s) subscFi§ed to the within instrument and acknowledged that �1L_ e it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. OFFICIAL SEAL KATHLEEN L. MIDSTOKKE NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA ''',7;,'..‹.:*,Y. LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Commission Expires SEPT. 29, 1992 No£ary Public -317- • iE \\E40` \\)e 15TH ,cT. TRACT NO 1125 CONDOMINIUM .TRACT NO. 30954 CONDOMINIUM TRACT N0.36407 CONDOMINIUM onorri KAAP M. B. 17 -_ 141 M. B. 848-41 .42 •M. B. 93/-47148 P M._ 137 .89 ,CONDOMINIUM PARCEL MAP CONDOMINIUM PARCEL MAP CONDOMINIUM TRACT NO. 42255 CONDOMINIUM PARCEL MAP ,00 1\1 11. I +I I/ ..1 4 - L-) 1-7 - \ \\_CiftvQ1 UX) -\\-6 W.R;It1/4\_LOOQ - I II 791-0 6VI Li It " 1 __- 40-0 1/4', l'o" (J\sc I,N4 SNa.V\t) & / _ useLx,-? aoo..\a 6i '1 a. J 2 tra P��TIPL c0oL I,�N - SAL001sA 1 Vgio Q ws? 3070 EtiM — 3070 2` SUCH C C)0V1 INvE141 OQY S\\_v ik 3- 2.`Voy - StOc`a_oOM A UAL EN -11't 6'O 0 (PUo ACkSZATi kAIMA cc -N .fLoo2ANN1 _ V\n-its\NINC P'x4 '1\-(12L,\t)C3- \\ERs(\p Ec\hck.o\ko':. ‘XQ\(.\0(.7.-- iNsveNM<:: OC- c -L (41..1Q(11- - - C MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor of Hermosa Beach, Hermosa Beach City Council, and Hermosa Beach City Attorney FROM: David B. Fordyce, Esq. DATE February 9,1989 RE: Public Hearings on the Issue of Sales/Rentals of Pornographic Video Tapes Outside of C-3 Zone in Hermosa Beach - - Problems with the City Attorney's Recommendations. On January 24, 1989, I and several other concerned citizens from Hermosa Beach and surrounding communities testified against the granting of a Conditional Use Permit to Mr. Gallagher, which would allow him to sell/rent pornographic video tapes outside of the C-3 zone. As I and others pointed out, since Hermosa Beach already allows the sale/rental of such tapes in the City in C-3 zones, we believe Hermosa Beach may legally forbid the sale/rental of such tapes in other parts of the City. The City Attorney expressed a differing opinion regarding the legality of such action. The City Attorney recommended that the City grant the Conditional Use Permit allowing the sale/rental of pornographic tapes at Mr. Gallagher's video shop, under an "agreement" with Mr. Gallagher that he do no more than 20% of his business in pornographic videos. It is true that this exact issue has apparently not yet been decided by a California or a Federal court, and therefore the law is not entirely clear. However, I and many others believe that the law will support Hermosa Beach's nin zog ordinance as it is written, i.e., no pornographic video sales/rentals outside of the C-3 zone. The purpose of this memorandum is to point out the problems involved in adopting the City Attorney's recommendation, including 1 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Mr. Gallagher's "agreement" to limit to 20% or less of his total business his business in pornographic videos.' I. SUCH AN AGREEMENT IS UNENFORCEABLE PRACTICALLY AND AS A MATTER FLA _4 w A. BUSINESS VOLUME, NOT INVENTQRYJS THE RELEVANT yARIABL, Inventory is not the relevant variable in determining whether Mr. Gallagher complies with the agreement to do less than 20% of his business in pornographic videos. Business volume is the relevant variable. This is necessarily so in a rental business, where the same video is rented over and over again, even though it represents but one title in the inventory. B. JT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SEGREGATE SALES BYD. To segregate business volume on the basis of sales/rentals by type of video is very difficult unless separate sales/rental records are kept for each type of video. Not only is this system burdensome on the store owner, but it also cannot be relied upon, since the City would have no way of knowing whether such books were being kept accurately. Second, even if the sales/rental records were kept accurately, the City has no right to come in and monitor Mr. Gallagher's sales receipts. In a similar situation, the County of Santa Cruz tried to do this very type of monitoring, and the California Court of Appeals held that the County had no constitutional right to do so. See JCuhns v. Santa Cruz County Bd. of Sup'rs, 128 Cal.App.3d 369, 377,181 Cal.Rptr. 1, 5 (1982). C. THE 205 FIGURE IS INVALID AS A MATTER QF LAW. The City Attorney correctly stated at the January 24th hearing that the City Council's public hearings on this issue constitute a quasi-jud ckl forum. As 'other documents which will be presented to you by other interested parties will outline the legal support for our position that Hermosa Beach may legally restrict sale/rental of pornographic videos to the C.3 zone. 2 such, it is improper for the Council acting in this capacity to adopt the arbitrary 20% figure recommended by the City Attorney as an "acceptable" Ievel of sales/rentals of pornographic videos. The City has previously adopted zoning ordinances by legislative means, which forbid the sale/rental of pornographic video tapes except in the C-3 zone. For the Council, acting as a court, to attempt to change this legislative scheme is "an invasion of the legislative body's province and is invalid." Kuhns, supra, 128 Cal.App.3d at 376,181 Cal.Rptr. at 4. II. THE "SPECIAL CONDITIONS" ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ARE UNENFORCEABLE Further, the additional conditions suggested by the City Council as prerequisites for granting the Conditional Use Permit are very difficult to enforce as a practical matter. To insure that no store -front advertising or displays are used, or that no novelty items are sold, etc., would require constant surveillance by City authorities. Moreover, if you multiply the above -stated monitoring and surveillance problems by the number of video outlets that decide to rent/sell pornographic films, it is very probable that the regulations will simply go unenforced due to logistical problems. EVEN IF THE REQULATIONS COULD BE ENFORCED,_THE RESULT OF ALLOWING BUSINESSES OUTSIDE OF C-3 ZQNING TO SELL/RENT PORNQQRAPHIC VIDEOS IS THE EOUIVEj,,ANT OF ABOLISHING ALL REGULATION OF "ADULT" BUSINESSES As noted above, the City Council's public hearings on this issue constitute a quasi-judicial forum. If the City Council decides to issue a conditional use permit to Mr. Gallagher, allowing pornographic video sales/rentals, such decision has a precedential effect. Additional video store owners will have the 3 right to conduct their business in an identical fashion. To deny them this right would allow these additional video store owners to sue the City to halt such discriminatory practices. It should be clear to the City Council that if enough video outlets in C-1 or C-2 sell/rent pornographic videos, the result will be the same as if "adult" video outlets were not regulated at all. Pornographic videos will be so readily available on every corner, that the current zoning laws which provide that a person must go to C-3 zoning to obtain "adult" videos would become meaningless. The "secondary effects"2 which are sought to be minimized by the current ordinances will become widespread, rather than confined to certain areas. Iv. LIABILITY OF THE CITY The City Council and City Attorney have expressed, and understandably so, their reluctance to reach a decision which could cause the City to become involved in litigation. However, there comes a time when, to avoid being bullied into a decision that the City does not want to reach, the City must risk litigation and stick to its principles. Otherwise, any person who decides to do something in violation of existing zoning ordinances in Hermosa Beach will simply have to threaten a lawsuit to get his or her way. Further, while the City has expressed concern over liability due to litigation brought by video vendors, the City Council should also be informed of the very real possibility of exposure to liability from a citizen lawsuit brought on behalf of the citizens of Hermosa Beach to uphold the existing zoning ordinances as adopted by the City Council. Such "secondary effects" include diminution of surrounding property values, increased crime, urban blight, attraction of undesirables to neighborhoods, etc., and arc the justification for current legal zoning regulations which limit adult businesses to C-3 zones. Additionally, and a most important consideration, is the harmful effect of pornography on the viewer. 4 V. CONCLUSION I hope that the Mayor, the City Council, and the City Attorney will seriously review this material and other materials that are submitted, and reach a well -reasoned decision, not a decision motivated by fear of litigation by a single businessman who seeks to operate his business in violation of existing zoning ordinances, but one which considers all the ramifications of the City Attorney's recommendation, as well as the deleterious effects of the needless spread of pornography to new areas of the City. Thank you for your consideration of this vital issue. to David B. Fordyce 5 lECEIVe 07 February 1989 Kelly P. O'Brien 1111 Cypress Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mayor and City Council, There is currently pending before you a request by a video shop for a Conditional Use Permit for the rental of X -Rated videos in a C-1 zone. There are many questions that can be raised regarding this part- icular issue but the foundational question that keeps entering my mind is "What?". What possible contribution can this video option make to our community of Hermosa Beach? What element of human life is elevated, enlightened, enhanced or encouraged by making this particular video option available virtually anywhere in Hermosa Beach? What does viewing X -Rated videos do to not only "of age" viewers directly, but indirectly to those who are below age that they may interact with? I can't help but dwell on the McMartin case. What are the long-range effects of viewing X -Rated videos? Although there are no hard facts to these and many other questions, it's worth noting one comment gleaned from the final and only interview of the now infamous serial murderer Thomas Bundy, When asked by Dr. James Dobson (Associate Clinical Professor of Child Psychology at U.S.C.) as to what the primary influence was for his actions, Mr. Bundy clearly stated it was his viewing of hard-core pornography. In light of such a notorious comment are we correct in thinking that there may be an "incremental" link in the viewing of pornographic material,similar to that of substance abusers, ie., graduatina from marijuana, to cocaine, to heroin? The answer to all of these questions is basically that "the jury is still out on deliberation". SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 6 -2 - Since we don't know the answers to these questions, I believe you should exercise caution. We read daily of the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulating the availability of various "unknown" substances. Likewise, similar common sense restrictions accompany certain movies in the form of a rating, eg., PG -13, 'R'. My hope is that a prudent and reasonable approach would be followed in continuing to at the very least limit X -Rated video rentals to C-3 zoned areas. In closing, and in the event that additional weight is given to my statement, I've been a resident at the above address for the last 14 years and a consistent voter in every local election as well as state and national elections. Sincerely, February 7, 1989 Mayor of Hermosa Beach City Council Dear Mayor and Council, Being a Hermosa Beach resident and a tax payer, I would like to urge you to follow the C-3 zoning that limits the sell/rental of.adult (X-rated) videos. I am aware there is a possibility the City may have to go to court, but being a tax payer, I am willing to take that risk. Thank You For Your Time, Darlee Bratcher Hermosa Beach Resident k3‘9A—(}) /g- 7- 1-//eY ".fir. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION s February 7, 1989 Mayor of Hermosa Beach City Council Dear Mayor and City Council, I am writing to ask you to keep the C-3 zoning limitation along Pacific Coast Highway. I am a Hermosa Beach resident and I care about keeping/making our city a respectable one. I realize this may mean the city may be taken to court, but I am a tax payer and I am willing to take this risk. erfully Yours, P, Carla Bratcher Hermosa Beach Resident ac0- SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION s February 7, 1989 Office Of The Mayor The City Council City Hall Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Your Honor, Members Of The Council: I am writing with specific regard to the discussion currently in Council concerning the sale of X -Rated videos in this city. As a member of the ccmmuiity, I ask that you uphold the existing C.U.P. ordinance as it stands. It is against everything I believe to have the sale of destructive materials expanded in our cc mmnity without taking exception; especially since ordinances, as written, are already in existence. Please exert the influence that you have in the firm direction of moral standards that uphold the community and encourage a continued defense of the system of traditional values already under such devastating attack in our country. This is the high position to which you were called; we look to you now. Respectfully, Daniel A. Hennessy 1347 Gates Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Q lAecmccc, dtach 01 cf and 01-ky CO<Antk\; T am c C \ * 3cos*m a oco kc.ko ee_ -q, c- 1iec mom I cte o 40 be ab 1e .40 vert adu,l4 *Oe C & T avy) veal COn ero€c5 aboL the aq r o>rak ooc vccs-Lccnee- May aqou _, __Larc e mea �eJ r do rod Gr rL u4 e� r1 h� c A bc..V‘ ve._.W ce`k-- +1�'�\\ be _a-aex .raiS db vi ly__ ,h 0C us aau\ - v�aEos do �o55E5 s ov _�o-�en- \al Ave67c _ +fieck• �' eowmu,ni -421 Thi 5 i5 ev .cSe_ncez _b c-k 4ha-*- -k-h€. res -cccA.- ons �ece___7A3sed -\\ -.9162&; cus L,Ce.1I ez by nom deC1__.a oho /0I nven cy _- 1'rY1t-- _CDn I_ (�C�-`��(lE-S�(ea -- -no �n� aaLo any pc4eciticc-cb\e�m5, no 0c1W, - -1-_do, 'nod- 07c -Peo9le s uns �c-eab(Ns (rk I0-5 . be _�-ea l �� hC. aria ctd m ; -there a re '► r) d; v - auck .Lo-A\\ vecl _ L4n hEC.i-1-hy LoAyc e rel a+iqj _--i-o..;--(4.); n Q\0004, con, aj- f 6,0618S A&, I-I- v.vaeos ea neact- vely aCcec)r- G spec,Dc> problem c* on 5\auks• ion-k-c%)e3_ ern cerAal\n v big, Gid corT\-6\moczi n c-\ _Neoe _ cCt dC \ ly a`` _over \7 conA _ e.Qe n ye dke O - - pceC ec rN± i 5 �- no .t i. neSS haoe c'e-e.ci, 40 a.Jsic,.__by_•-- e1 C-3 a)5 re-rC ate. Jo% SUPPLEMENTAL 6 INFORMATION ''cc meC) Occ is am-tu ni-, A6 Ict3 (_,1b c_ hEac k n�;'(,()hcrf One aV } t3G6 renA'ed lcOO \-:\c 1e + 11 O. \-1-=‘c-3'r ► n ct.\\ c oucv m + i)d5 �hc ld � �: 4h � erg l� �i nce�►� oc coTymLAr.)So -� pease.,/ +-can �{► Iil` , G.� e e r y Feces+y values, kTho Lvou,ic, ioc \D SC�1I le. apn ckr. a� C\'tc�r�� n c� deed \bo ,cn comm r c�-y 2 � Nc\ T , I u c u.lS \\\-<@ , c-easoncLby r\e--\-c�ri)d ae.csvy- c'c Mo�� Co y comen . z coo no+ nn ► nd K1�Diu�n� lck* m_y 8o1lar(5 u need b�. used_ 'If) de h5� aCs atSUCh Tharni< you v ecy t $3-7 ILt3 . 4tif m cmc. -c-rGh de); -c -ex rn4.)lony Pe of)k& _7/k 989 VaCe-lac-c2. ck o r.4 / c,-tv c �_ -L -1 tz �, ►� ��o ,-a ; jA) i- \ t r- L. s j G o v r.i c 1 L Goer -Lt N/k. A lir... CA T G kis-) - \ S C.oi--1 Lam'.› vv rt' f"t " %5 ,c)f-1 I , t 1 cPcS t - ` C47-4 .(/ - t,4 1 Prf-f•t -C-1 o c Tf- k L.) ► 4- . GQl,-Ls-r- 1 - Tv Ti o f—j . L-'19 cxi Q Gica D -1(2e. l S V C 7 r..15, -r1 Tv '� ► C.�; �L . ��L -'�t�G �{ T cE-E-"' Ni\A L-. c C+-{•caz TOG j �-N� „ t LL i a-� C �� V S Pct`s -fig C -i c ---E-5 Tr-% T r Tikt s tc- ), Ti T —lameX, -S7k 33L7r. moGL) Lo K-+- .A1 mor --A L{ QC7 { -A-Z t T - a. -v -� u. s -- D �� n•�� ,` 1 L �� ( C r.1. <D t G ►J• \ —r -t -t , t-- ant yam. rP ib.1T-l- ' ) T 4 4/* -4--( rl.ct,t4 t•-.1 •.^/ < -SCC,c L SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION s LS A-7 S r-, \ Cao S .14 :71 1 4/04r2 -L • N O-2 Z -7 ( r,--, 1 k T ,, �y `—`�—� ,' "ACA 1-40 c-Ly. - CD -L - " N -2- ._1._ '-ic=on S�}�- 5,5c -N o 27:c\ \ A d-+ 5-1 OCA 1• - v \ 7c �c • 2-'r\t � 1 �.' r\-) r^ 5,0L. QA -4-011- • +Gv-N1 Or . ) .3 - 1-7 '' S'`e ' ) ` £ %N -ted (VD .i- H 1i'7 " 1 'N — lS' ' cr Can \ Off- 5r• 8-1 S Y2 11 1 i\'7 k"-\ c -{-�. 1-\ -tet -7\ V-' 1. (O �^ oz)c_\c=1-N-+-•9i '..1.±k--=)1 T9 - .s / J f -may\ -i J_ h ' (N cD -3-- -)-r4 'Flrcti t 'fir- .M \ --\ nb ►-fir. _Lt 2) 3!1 ' o<� , • c.3 (N.c, b - z� a-2- \ -' -v cifN :-?\\ b \1..\ 21C10-\-,' t z� Znx, E-+ t -7\- � -\ -,�, .i 1 5 \---�- -,, 3CX:P; -!. -) �j` � TO; MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL THIS LETTER IS IN RESPONSE TO THE UPCOMING DECISION ON WHETHER TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WILL WILL DISALLOW SALE OR RENTAL OF ADULT VIDEOS AT HERMOSA VIDEO, 1312 HERMOSA AVENUE. AS A 27 YEAR RESIDENT OF MANHATTAN/HERMOSA BEACH. I AM STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE SPREAD OF ALL PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIALS, ESPECIALLY WITHIN OUR CITY. LET ME EXPLAIN WHY. INFIDELITY, SEXUAL HARASSMENT, VOYERISM, CHILD MOLESTATION, INCEST, TEENAGE PREGNANCY AND RAPE ARE NOT NEW BUT HAVE ALWAYS PLAGUED MANKIND. HOWEVER, THE TREMENDOUS INCREASE IN THESE INCIDENCES IN THE LAST 10-15 YEARS IS ALARMING. IT HAS AFFECTED NEARLY EVERY FAMILY DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN SOME FORM. WHAT IS IT THAT IS FUELING THESE INCIDENCES? WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF MASS MEDIA TRADITIONAL VALUES HAVE BEEN ATTACKED AND SLOWLY ERODED. INDIVIDUALS HAVE BECOME INDIFFERENT TO THE ONSLAUGHT OF SEX AND AND SEXUAL INUENDOS. THE ADVENT OF PLAYBOY, PENTHOUSE, HUSTLER AND NOW PORNOGRAPHIC VIDEOS ONLY EXCITE AND INFLAME UNHEALTHY THOUGHTS AND DESIRES AND PROMOTE FANTASY. SOME PERSONS, SUCH AS TED BUNDY, WERE DRIVEN BY THESE FANTASIES. IN MY VIEW THESE MATERIALS CAN ONLY PROMOTE DISRESPECT FOR SEX AND FOR WOMEN. OBSERVE THE WAY MALE TEENS TREAT YOUNG FEMALES. IS IT THE SAME AS WHEN YOU WERE A CHILD OR ADOLESCENT? ONE AREA THAT ESPECIALLY BOTHERS ME IS THE EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN IN CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. THERE IS A DEMAND FOR THIS KIND OF MATERIAL. MONIES THAT GO TOWARDS ANY PORNOGRAPHIC MAGAZINES OR VIDEOS MAY ALSO BE FUNNELED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO SUPPORT THIS THRIVING INDUSTRY. IT BOTHERS ME TO THINK OF TIMES I PURCHASED PLAYBOY OR PENTHOUSE MAGAZINES BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITIY THAT I MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE CHILD PORN INDUSTRY. WHERE IS OUR CITY HEADED? HOW MANY BUSINESSES IN HERMOSA BEACH SOLD/RENTED PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIALS 20 YEARS AGO? HOW MANY BUSINESSES SELL/RENT PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIALS NOW? AND HOW MANY BUSINESSES IN HERMOSA BEACH WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE RENTING/SELLING THESE MATERIALS 5-10 YEARS FROM NOW IN OR OUT OF THE C-3 ZONE? CAN YOU IMAGINE ALL OF THE STORES DOWNTOWN RENTING THESE MATERIALS BECAUSE THEY CAN MAKE MONEY? ABSURD? MAYBE, MAYBE NOT. I URGE YOU TO TAKE A STAND FOR WHAT IS MORALLY RIGHT. PORNOGRAPHY HELPS NOBODY. PORNOGRAPHY HEALS NO ONE. BUT PORNOGRAPHY DOES PROMOTE DECAY OF NATIONS, FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS FROM THE INSIDE OUT BY SLOWLY COMPROMISING/LOWERING THEIR MORAL STANDARDS AND EVENTUALLY THEIR DECISION MAKING ABILITY. PORNOGRAPHY AFFECTS ME NEGATIVELY. I ALWAYS WANT TO SEE A LITTLE MORE, BUY THE NEXT MAGAZINE, SEE ANOTHER JUICY VIDEO, ETC. FOR SOME IT CAN BE OBSESSIVE. IT'S A TRAP BECAUSE THESE THINGS PLAY ON OUR NATURAL LUSTS AND DESIRES. I WISH IT WAS NOT AROUND FOR MY SAKE AND YOURS. BUT YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO STOP AND LIMIT THE SPREAD OF ADULT VIDEOS IN OUR CITY AND KEEP THEM LIMITED TO THE C-3 ZONE. I URGE YOU TO UPHOLD THE CURRENT CUP THAT DENIES RENTING OR SELLING ADULT VIDEOS OUT OF THE C-3 ZONE. DON'T BE INDIFFERENT. STAND UP FOR THAT WHICH IS GOOD AND DENY THAT WHICH IS UNHEALTHY. IN WHICH DIRECTION DO YOU WANT OUR CITY TO HEAD? SINCERELY, /Y7 a 1113 CYPRESS AVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA. P.S. THOSE WHO SPOKE ON BEHALF OF HERMOSA VIDEO AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING NEVER ONCE EXPRESSED WHAT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE CITY OR FOR INDIVIDUALS. THEIR ONLY CONCERN WAS FOR THEMSELVES. SUPPLEMENTAL t14!rrr" '2 s 1 1' February 6, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 14, 1'989 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE ZON 88-6 -- A CONDITIONAL ZONE CHANGE LOCATION: 603 FIRST STREET APPLICANT: ISCO DEVELOPERS REQUEST: TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM M-1 AND OPEN SPACE TO R-2 Planning Commission Recommendation To conditionally rezone the subject property to R-2 in conjunction with the Conditional Use Permit limiting density to 13 units, and requiring that the property revert back to M-1 and Open Space zoning if Building Permits are not issued prior to the expiration of the Conditional Use Permit. Staff Recommendation To rezone the property to Residential Specific Plan Area with the following standards: 1. A maximum of 13 units. 2. A minimum of 3 parking spaces per unit. 3. A minimum 10 foot setback along all property lines abutting streets. Background The Planning Commission held a pulbic hearing on January 3, 1989, and determined that a rezoning of the property to be consistent with the General Plan was appropriate. Analysis Staff agrees with the Planning Commission decision except for the method of implementation. There are two problems with the Planning Commission's approach: 1. It appears that there are questions regarding the legality of conditioning a zone change, and to have the property revert back to the original zoning if the Conditional Use Permit expires. The City Attorney has researched these matters and concurs. 1 2. By reverting back to the original zoning, the zoning will become again inconsistent with the General Plan. The staff recommended Specific Pian Area will impose the same requirements the Planning Commission has recommended, but will not be connected to the Conditional Use Permit expiration; no matter what project is proposed, the same requirements will still be imposed. Refer to attached Planning Commission staff report dated December 12, 1988 for additional analysis. Attachments 1. Staff proposed ordinance 2. Planning Commissionrecommended ordinance 3. Planning Commission resolution 4. Staff report dated December 12, 1988 5. Planning Commission minutes of January 3, 1989 6. Affidavit 7. Public communication CONCUR: evin B. Northpr'aft City Manager T/ccsr603 2 Resp tfully susnit d, hael Sc u act) Planning Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 89 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M-1 AND OPEN SPACE TO RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on February 14, 1989 and made the following Findings: A. State law requires consistency between the zoning and• General Plan; B. Rezoning of the subject area M-1 and, Open Space to R-2 will result in consistency between the zoning and General Plan; C. The property is adequate in size and shape for R-2 zoning; NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain that the Zoning Map shall be amended as shown on the attached maps and legally described as a portion of Lots 41 and 42, Block 78 of the Second Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract (603 First Street), and the following text shall be added to the zoning ordinance: 1. Article 9.6, Chapter 3, Specific Plan Area No. 3 Section 9.63-1. Authority. This Specific Plan Area is an instrument for implementing the General Plan pursuant to Article 8, Chapter 3, of the State Planning and Zoning Law (California Goverment Code Sections 65450 et seq.). Section 9.63-2. Location and Description. The subject property is fronting on First Street and First Place and is generally known as 603 First Street. The property consists of two (2) lots, and have a total area of 26,319 square feet. Section 9.63-3. Purpose. The purpose of this Specific Plan Area is to set forth the development requirements, standards and permitted uses for the subject property. Section 9.63-4. Permitted Uses. The Permitted Use shall consist of a maximum of 13 dwelling units. -3 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 9.63-5. Development Standards. (a) Parking dimensions shall comply with Article 11.5 of the zoning, and a minimum of two (2) parking spaces per unit plus one additional guest space shall be provided per dwelling unit. .. (b) A minimum ten (10) foot building setback shall be provided along all prpoperty lines abutting a public street. (c) All other standards including but not limited to open space, lot coverage, placement of building, setbacks other than noted above, and building height shall be governed by the zoning ordinance, Article 5, R-2 Two -Family Residential Zone, and Article 7.2, Condominiums, Stock Cooperative ' and Community Apartments. 2. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. 3. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of -the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: T/ccrs603a CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY q- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 89 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M-1 AND OPEN SPACE TO R-2 FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW.AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on February 14, 1989 and made the following Findings: A. State law requires..consistency between the zoning and General Plan; B. Rezoning of the subject area M-1 and Opeb'Space to R-2 will result in consistency between the zoning and General Plan; C. The property is adequate in size and shape for R-2 zoning; NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby ordain that the Zoning Map shall be amended as shown on the attached maps and legally described as a portion of Lots 41 and 42, Block 78 of the Second Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract (603 First. Street), subject to the following conditions: 1. The said zone change shall be in conjunction with a conditional use permit approving a 13 unit condominium project at the site. 2. If building permits are not issued prior to the expiration of the conditional use permit approving the 13 condominiums, then the zoning shall revert back to it's original M-1 and Open Space zoning. 3. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. 4. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Hermosa Beach, in the manner provided by law. 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CONTINUED -- Resolution No. 89 - PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 1989. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: T/ccrs603 CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY • 603 FIRST STREET OVERVIEW OF AREA REQUIRING A ZONE CHANGE • N 603 FIRST STREET DETAILED MAP OF AREA REQUIRING A ZONE CHANGE FROM M-1 & OPEN SPACE TO R-2 SUBJECT AREA • PtA N 131130 10 • QCv 129 • 128 O 127 ,6 128 O 125 iQ 124 J 123 i3 e ti 122 /Z 30.45 ti y !=.' r ti 133 40 0 134 ?3 135 14 136 IS Q7 .. x 16 138 17 139 500 140 Crr/ , 1B 141 40 60.90 29 142 42.70 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 09-3 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M-1 AND OPEN SPACE TO R-2 FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. . WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on December 6, 1988 and January 3, 1989 and made the following Findings: A. State law requires consistency between the zoning and General Plan; B. Rezoning of the subject area M-1 and Open Space to R-2 will' result in consistency between the zoning and General Plan; C. The property is adequate in size and shape for R-2 zoning; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, •does hereby recommend• that the Zoning Map shall be amended as shown on the attached maps and legally described as a portion of Lots 41 and 42, Block 78 of the Second Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract (603 First Street), subject to the following conditions: +' 1. The said zone change shall be in conjunction with a conditional use permit approving a 13 unit condominium project at the site. 2. If building permits are not issued prior to the expiration of the conditional use permit approving the 13 condominiums, then the zoning shall revert back to it's original M-1 and O.S.zoning. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ingell,Ketz,Rue,Chmn.Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: Comm.Edwards ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 89-3 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of January 3, 1989, .. Jam Peirce, Chairman Michael Schu tach, Secretary Date f'. Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 6, 1988 MEETING) SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE ZON 88-6 & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CON 88-31 & VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #46903 LOCATION: 603 FIRST STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 131 AND 133, WALTER RANSOM COMPANY'S VENABLE PLACE TRACT AND A PORTION OF LOTS 41 AND 42, BLOCK 78, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT APPLICANT: ISCO DEVELOPERS 15342 HAWTHORNE BLVD., SUITE 210 LAWNDALE, CA 90260 December 12, 1988 Regular Meeting of January 3, 1989 REQUEST: 1. ZONE CHANGE FROM M-1 AND OPEN SPACE TO R-2 2. CONSTRUCTION OF A FIFTEEN (15) UNIT CONDOMINIUM Recommendation Staff recommends approval of zone change, Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit. Alternatives 1. Rezone the subject property to Specific Plan Area to limit density to the equivalent of 2 units per lot assuming that the property can be divided into six 4,000 square foot lots. 2. Leave the property zoned R-2, M-1 and 0.S. and change the General Plan from Medium Density Residential to Manufacturing and Open Space for those portions with corresponding zoning. 3. Redesignate and rezone the property Low Density Residential including the remaining block. Background The Staff Environmental Review Committee, at their meeting of October 20, 1988, requested that the applicant revise the original plans to correct problems with landscaping, guest parking and the turning radius. Also, the Public Works Department requested that a parking study be prepared for the project. Based on these conditions, the Staff Environmental Review Committee recommended a Negative Declaration for the porject. At the December 6, 1988 meeting, the Planning Commission continued this matter because of improper notice, a result of the applicant sending notices without proper postage. Analysis Zone Change The property is designated in the General Plan as Medium Density; the corresponding zoning for Medium Density is R-2; currently the property is zoned M-1, R-2 and Open Space. In the past M-1 zoning had some logic since there was a RxR sub -spur line abutting the property to the south. The rail line was abandoned and the property sold to a private party; this property has now become part of the subject property and inadvertantly rezoned Open Space when the main spur line, now known as the "Green Belt" was rezoned Open Space.. However, it may be argued that it was never the intent of the City to rezone this property Open Space since it was never specifically discussed or shown on any map until staff discovered that it was railroad right-of-way, and determined that it was inadvertantly zoned Open Space. If it were determined that there was no intent to rezone it Open Space, and therefore it was not rezoned, then, this portion of the subject property would revert to the railroad right-of-way classification which limits its use to railroad purposes only. Staff does not believe the City intended to rezone private property to Open Space, but being classified as railroad right-of-way limits the use of the property even further. The railroad should have not sold this property to a private'party without first asking the City to rezone it. The City has the legal obligation to rezone the entire subject property to correspond to the General Plan. If the City does not rezone the property, it is in violation of State Law. The subject property is 26,319 square feet and under R-2 zoning, a total of 15 dwelling units would be allowed. This number is equal to 25 units per acre. Although, it may seem that other lots with for example two units, have a lesser density, in many cases the density is no different; the lot is just smaller in size and the two units equates to 25 units per acre. The General Plan designation is Medium Density and the surrounding properties to the east, west, north and south are also Medium Density. The zoning is generally R-2. However, a small amount of R-1 exist to the west, and M-1 to north and south. R-2 zoning on the subject property would be a logical extension to R-2 abutting the property to the east. Alternatives 1. To rezone the subject property to Specific Plan Area is another method of implementing the General Plan, and enables the City to for e.g., limit density. Through a specific plan, other standards may also be imposed such as setbacks, open space, parking etc. Since this property is large enough, and has adequate frontage on a public street to be subdivided, staff computed how many 4,000 square foot lots could be created. Assuming total of 6 lots of 4,000 square feet could be created, a total of 12 units, two per lot, could be developed at a density of 21.78 per acre. This density is generally. equal to density found in the surrounding neighborhood, although there are some higher densities since the surrounding area was once zoned R-3. Staff believes it would be detrimental to subdivide the property; the result would be the "row housing" currently be built with almost lot line to lot line lot coverage, no amenities, front yards almost completely covered with driveway, and only a small amount of landscaping. 2. The property could have a General Plan amendment so that the designation corresponded to the current zoning.. This would result in most likely inverse condemnation for the Open Space zoned portion since none of the permitted uses under Open Space would be economically viable on a lot that small (2,613 square feet). However, the City could buy the Open Space portion of the property and create a park. If the M zoned portion was redesignated, the result could be manufacturing uses which should be by anybody's standard the worst possible development that ,could occur. In every respect this property is not viable for manufacturing uses. It is located on narrow local streets not suitable for truck traffic, and is abutting residential development noise, fumes, dust, toxic chemicals and potential fires all could significantly impact the health, safety and welfare of the adjacent residents, and all are associated with manufacturing type uses. Also, the appearance of manufacturing type buildings and signs would detract from the surrounding neighborhood, and have a negative impact on property values. 3. The property and adjacent block could be rezoned and redesignated Low Density, as a small segment of property to the northwest of Ardmore Avenue is zoned. If this were to occur, then, of course, the property would be subdivided into minimum 4,000 square foot lots. It should be noted that even though the property to the northwest is zoned R-1, the lots are considerably smaller with an average size of 2,600 square feet, whereas the average size of the lots between First Street and First Place are 4,600 square feet. Proposed Development The proposed development consists of 15 dwelling units which is equal to 25 units per acre. Lot coverage is 437, which is significantly lower than typical development currently being proposed which generally has a lot coverage of 6370 to 6570. c The reduced lot coverage is a result of the relatively large lot compared to the typical size in the City. Open Space also significantly exceeds the minimum requirement because of the large size of the lot; 428 sq. ft. per unit is proposed which is 128 sq. ft. per unit in excess of the minimum. Typically, only the minimum Open Space requirement is met, and it is.all on decks and balconies; in this project 3,398 sq. ft. of Open Space is at ground level. Ample landscaping is being provided in all the setback areas. Since the front setback need not be utilized for driveways and guest parking, the amount of landscaped areas is significantly above average. Architectural treatment is also superior. It includes dome and pyramid roofstructures, stucco projections, ins & outs, sconce lights, sand finish stucco, cross -hatched windows, and a unique multi -colored paint finish. All other minimum zoning standards are met. The driveway is the least desirable aspect of the project because of 'its long, massive appearance. Staff believes that the driveway, therefore, should be constructed of press concrete or similar material to make it aestheticly pleasin T/pcsr603 -/3 - M chae c ubach Planning Director CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission FROM: Andrew Perea, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Agenda Item #9 -- Zone Change from M-1 & Open Space to R-2 and C.U.P. and Tentative Tract Map for a 15 Unit Condominium DATE: January 3, 1989 The Staff Environmental Review Committee, at their meeting of October 20, 1988, requested that the applicant provide a traffic study for the proposed 15 unit condominium development. The Planning Department received the report and referred the report to Ed Ruzak, traffic engineer contracted by the City, for comments. A copy of the summary and conclusions listed in the report is attached. Staff has received the comments from Mr. Ruzak. Mr. Ruzak states that the information provided in the report is adequate and concurs with the findings listed in the report. Mr. Ruzak is concerned, however, over the width of the proposed driveway. Mr. Ruzak states that the proposed driveway is too narrow and that a rounded curb should be provided. Therefore, staff is recommending that a condition of approval be added which will require the driveway width to be increased and the curb to be rounded. The other concern noted by Mr. Ruzak is regarding the elimination of parking along 1st Street from Ardmore Avenue to the eastern most limits of the site. It should be noted, however, that parking is already prohibited along the north side of 1st Street except Thursdays from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. to allow for street cleaning of the south side of 1st Street. Therefore, sight distance for automobiles exiting onto 1st Street should not be impacted by parked cars. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION • o A proposal has been made to construct 15 residential.condomi- nimum units on a 26,319 square foot site east of Ardmore Avenue and north of First Street in Hermosa Beach. o A total of 38 parking spaces will be provided, 30 of which will be for residential use •and 8 for guests. o A trip forecast for the project is as follows: AM Daily IN OUT Residential 88 1 6 6 3 PM IN OUT' o Because of the very minimal number of trips associated with the project, there will be virtually no impact on the adjacent streets. o Two cumulative projects were assessed, both of which have quite nominal future trip generation. . o No mitigation measures are needed to accommodate project or cumulative volumes along the site frontage. o Adequate parking is provided on-site for residents and users of the site. o There will be a nominal amount of project traffic using local residential streets, except on First Street between the site and Pacific Coast Highway. The conclusion, therefore, is that the project can be accommodated at the site without any undue adverse impact. Respectfully submitted, JU3TITh F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. ustin F. Farmer, P.E., President JFF:dr • JUSTIN F. FARMER 18 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. '88 12:28 TALERvJK EXECUTIVE December 1, 1968 c TO: ANTHONY ANTIC TOR OF PUBLIC WORK FROM: ED RUZAK SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL UNDO PROJECT; ARDMORE & 1ST ST P.1/1 flEC 22 1988 I have completed a review of a traffic impact report for the subject project and have the following comments: I am in agreement with the consultants findings. He has taken in consideration the cumulative projects in the area and has looked at the distribution and assignment of trips to the site. His discussion of the neighborhood impacts from an environmental standpoint should provide the lay reader with a reasonable guideline. I do not necessarily agree with the statement he makes at the bottom of page 1S as it applies to these type streets (residential/collector) We know that intrusion On residential streets does exist at volume levels well over the 1200 vpd level shown in Table 4. This is not the case on the streets in this area. Volume levels are low. My only real concern with the study is the lack of mention of the driveway location proximate to the Ardmore/1st intersection. It is my opinion that a 20' driveway as the sole access is too narrow_ A wider opening and rounded curb, curve radii would be more desirable than the simple "x" cut driveway. Second, 1 believe it will be necessary to remove parking on a permanent basis on 1st Street from Ardmore to the easternmost limits of the project in order to provide sufficient sight distance for vehicles emerging from the site and for vehicles traveling on First Street. --/6— vi ZONE CHANGE FROM M-1 AND OPEN SPACE TO R-2 OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #46903 FOR A 15 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 603 FIRST STREET AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CONTINUED FROM 12/6/88 MEETING) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 12, 1988. Staff recommended approval of the zone change, vesting tentative tract map, and conditional use permit. Mr. Schubach stated that there are three alternatives: (1) rezone the subject property to a Specific Plan Area to limit density to the equivalent of two units per lot assuming that the property can be divided into six 4,000 square foot lots; (2) leave the property zoned R-2, M-1 and Open Space and change the general plan from medium density residential to manufacturing and open space for those portions with corresponding zoning; (3) redesignate and rezone the property low density residential including the remaining lot. The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of October 20, 1988, requested that the applicant revise the original plans to correct problems with landscaping, guest parking and the turning radius. Also, the Public Works Department requested that a parking study be prepared for the project. Based on these conditions, the staff environmental review committee recommended a negative declaration for the project. At the December 6, 1988, meeting, the Planning Commission continued this matter because of improper noting, a result of the applicant sending notices without proper postage. )7- P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 The property is designated in the general plan as medium density; the corresponding zoning for medium density is R-2. Currently the property is zoned M-1, R-2, and Open Space. In the past, M-1 zoning had some logic since there was a railroad sub -spur line abutting the property to the south. The rail line was abandoned and the property was sold to a private party. This property has now become part of the subject property and inadvertently rezoned open space when the main spur line, now known as the "Green Belt" was rezoned open space. However, it may be argued that it was never the intent of the City to rezone this property open space since it was never specifically discussed or shown on any map until after staff discovered that it was railroad right-of-way and determined that it was inadvertently zoned open space. If it were determined that there was no intent to rezone it open space; and therefore it was not rezoned, then this portion of the subject property would revert to the railroad right-of-way classification which limits its use to railroad purposes only. • Staff does not believe the City intended to rezone private property to open space; but being classified as railroad right-of-way limits the use of the property even further. The railroad should have not sold this property to a private party without first asking the City to rezone it. The property has been in private hands for approximately 40 years, and has not been used as a railroad right-of-way. The City has the legal obligation to rezone the entire subject property to correspond to the general plan. If the City does not rezone the property, it is in violation of State law. The subject property is 26,319 square feet; and under R-2 zoning a total of 15 dwelling units would be allowed. This number is equal to 25 units per acre. Although it may seem that other lots with, for example, two units have a lesser density, in many cases the density is no different. The lot is just smaller in size' and the two units equates to 25 units per acre. The general plan designation is medium density, and the surrounding properties to the east, west, and south are also medium density. The zoning is generally R-2. However, a small amount of R-1 exists to the west, and M-1 to the north and south. R-2 zoning on the subject property would be a logical extension to the R-2 zoning abutting the property to the east. Alternative 1: To rezone the subject property to Specific Plan Area is another method of implementing the general plan and enables the City to, for example, limit density. Through a specific plan, other standards may also be imposed, such as setbacks, open space, parking, etc. Since the property is large enough and has adequate frontage on a public street to be subdivided, staff computed how many 4000 square foot lots could be created. Assuming a total of six lots of 4000 square feet could be created, a total of twelve units, two per lot, could be developed at a density of 21.78 units per acre. This density is generally equal to density found in the surrounding neighborhood, although there are some higher densities since the surrounding area was once zoned R-3. Staff believes it would be detrimental to subdivide the property. The result would be the "row housing" currently being built with almost lot line to lot line lot coverage, no amenities, front yards almost completely covered with driveway, and only a small amount of landscaping. Alternative 2: The property could have a general plan amendment so that the designation corresponded to the current zoning. This would result most likely in inverse condemnation for the open space zoned portion since none of the permitted uses under open space would be economically viable on a lot that small (2613 square feet). P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 However, the City could buy the open space portion of the property and create a park. If the M zoned portion were redesignated, the result could be manufacturing uses which should be, by anyone's standards, the worst possible development that could occur. In every respect, this property is not viable for manufacturing uses. It is located on narrow local streets not suitable for truck traffic, and it is abutting residential development. Noise, fumes, dust, toxic chemicals, and potential fires all could significantly impact the health, safety, and welfare of the adjacent residences, and all are associated with manufacturing -type uses. Also, the appearance. of manufacturing -type buildings and signs would detract from the surrounding neighborhood and have a negative impact on property values. Alternative 3: The property and adjacent block could be rezoned and redesignated low density, as a small segment of property. to the northwest of Ardmore Avenue is zoned. If this were to occur, then of course, the property would be subdivided into minimum 4000 square foot lots. It should be noted that even though the property to the northwest is zoned R-1, the lots are considerably smaller, with an average size of 2600 square feet; whereas, the average size of the lots between First Street and First Place is 4600 square feet. • The proposed development consists of 15 dwelling units, which is equal to 25 units per acre. Lot coverage is 43 percent, which is significantly lower than typical developments currently being proposed which generally have lot coverage between 63 and 65 percent. The reduced lot coverage is a result of the relatively large lot compared to the typical size in the City. Open space also significantly exceeds the minimum requirement because of the large size of the lot; 428 square feet per unit is proposed, which is 18 square feet per unit in excess of the minimum. Typically, only the minimum open space requirement is met, and it is all on decks and balconies. In this project, 3398 square feet of open space is at ground level. Ample landscaping is being provided in all the setback areas. Since the front setback need not be utilized for driveways and guest parking, the amount of landscaped area is significantly above average. Architectural treatment is also superior. It includes some dome and pyramid roof structures, stucco projections, ins and outs, sconce lights, sand finish stucco, cross- hatched windows, and a unique multi -colored paint finish. All other minimum zoning standards are met. The driveway is the least desirable aspect of the project because of its long, massive appearance. Staff believes that the driveway, therefore, should be constructed of press concrete or similar material to make it aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Schubach read into the record the "Summary and Conclusion Report" submitted by Justin F. Farmer of Transportation Engineers, Inc.: • A proposal has been made to construct 15 residential condominium units on a 26,319 square foot site east of Ardmore Avenue and north of First Street in Hermosa Beach. - P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 • A total of 38 parking spaces will be provided, 30 of which will be for residential use and 8 for guests. • A trip forecast for the project is as follows: AM PM Daily IN OUT IN OUT Residential 88 1 6 6 3 • Because of the very minimal number of trips associated with the project, there will be virtually no impact on the adjacent streets. • Two cumulative projects were assessed, both of which have quite nominal future trip generation. • No mitigation measures are needed to accommodate project or cumulative volumes along the site frontage. • Adequate parking is provided on-site for residents and users of the site. • There will be a nominal amount of project traffic using local residential streets, except on First Street between the site and Pacific Coast Highway. The conclusion, therefore, is that the project can be accommodated at the site without any undue adverse impact." Mr. Schubach then read into the record the response on the "Summary and Conclusio i" report. The response was submitted by Ed Ruzak, Ed Ruzak and Associates, Inc, dated December 1, 1988: "I have completed a review of a traffic impact report for the subject project and have the following comments: I am in agreement with the consultant's findings. He has taken in consideration the cumulative projects in the area and has looked at the distribution and assessment of trips to the site. His discussion of the neighborhood impacts from an environmental standpoint should provide the lay reader with a reasonable guideline. I do not necessarily agree with the statement he makes at the bottom of Page 15 as it applies to these type streets (residential/collector). We know that intrusion on residential streets does exist at volume levels well over the 1200 vpd level shown in Table 4. This is not the case on the streets in this area. Volume levels are low. My only real concern with the study is the lack of mention of the driveway location proximate to the Ardmore/1st intersection. It is my opinion that a 20' driveway as the sole access is too narrow. A wider opening and rounded curb, curve radii would be more desirable than the simple "x" cut driveway. Second, I believe it will be necessary to remove parking on a permanent basis on 1st Street from Ardmore to the easternmost limits of the project in order to provide 2 — P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 sufficient sight distance for vehicles emerging from the site and for vehicles traveling on First Street." Comm. Edwards stated that he would abstain from discussion on this matter, since he lives within 300 feet of the proposed project. Mr. Lough explained for the benefit of the Commission the new guidelines enacted by the Fair Political Practices Commission regarding the determination of conflict of interest matters. One is now presumed to have a financial conflict if one lives within 300 feet of a project, unless one can prove there is no change in value. Mr. Lough continued by explaining how one would go about proving there is no conflict of interest. Chmn. Peirce did not agree with the new guidelines for conflict of interest matters, stating that Commissioners will have to abstain for no good reason in the future. Mr. Lough noted that even though Comm. Rue was absent for the first hearing on this matter, he has read the minutes and listened to the tapes of the meeting; therefore, he is fully informed and can participate in this hearing. Comm. Rue noted the large amount of open space proposed for this project. Public Hearing opened at 10:42 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Patrick Killin, 312 South Catalina, Redondo Beach, project architect, addressed the Commission. He stated that the proposed project was designed to the R-2 standards, which he feels is compatible with what is currently existing in the area. He noted that the units have been made smaller in order to create real, usable open space at the ground level. Mr. Killin also stated that an attempt was made to minimize the impact of the driveway and the paved area from the perception of the City and the community, thereby internalizing the parking area and driveway space to the center of the lot and creating only one in/out onto 1st Street. He stated that he has no problem with increasing the width of the driveway as was suggested by the consultant. Mr. Killin stated that his biggest concerns are to preserve as much on -street parking as possible in the area and to maintain the R-2 standards. Mr. Killin noted that this project well exceeds the minimum requirements for open space. It is also well under the maximum allowed lot coverage. Mr. Killin continued his presentation by discussing the site plan for the project, explaining the setbacks and locations for the proposed buildings as shown on the drawings. He noted that Buildings A and B. will each have four units; Building C has two units; and Building D has five units. There will a ten -foot setback at the 1st Place. Mr. Killin noted the importance of achieving active recreation space for this project. He continued by discussing the drawing which depicted Building C Basement/Garage Floor Plan. He also commented on the drawings representing the first and second floors of Building C. He said that the buildings are considered two stories and a basement. He noted that the balcony off of the smaller bedrooms is not even counted in the open space calculations; however, it was included for aesthetic purposes and to reduce the bulk of -- 21 — P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 the building. Mr. Killin showed drawings representing the west elevation of Buildings A and B. He commented on the proposed exterior treatment, including the doors, windows, and architectural decoration, including the sconce lights and balconies. Mr. Killin continued by commenting on the isometric drawings for Buildings A and 13. Mr. Killin showed a north elevation drawing of Building C, which is a two unit building. He then displayed an isometric drawing of the building. Mr. Killin presented a view of. the east elevation of Building D, which will have five units; also shown was an isometric rendering of Building D. Mr. Killin felt that the proposed project is a compromise which will be of benefit to all concerned parties. He felt that the units are aesthetically pleasing and have ample open space. Polly Schneider, 157 Ardmore Avenue, Hermosa Beach, directly across the street from the proposed project, noted concern over density and traffic. She also noted concern over the fact that another 13 -unit building is being proposed for the site of the old gas company. She stated that the cumulative effects of all these projects must be addressed. She questioned the accuracy of the traffic study which was prepared for the project. She stated that parking in the area is already very bad.. She noted that other properties in the area are subject to zone changes •in •the future; she felt all of these properties should be addressed together once the rezoning is concluded. She noted that low density in the City has been ,an objective for several years. She felt that this property should be rezoned to R-1. Mr. Schubach explained the past and current zoning in the subject area; stating that it was originally R-3 and is now generally going towards R-2. There is a small amount of M zoning left between 1st Place and 2nd Street; also between 2nd and 3rd, but most of that has been rezoned to R-2. Mr. Schubach, responding to a comment by Comm. Rue, explained that the traffic study did take into account other projects which may be built in this area. Herb Schneider, 157 Ardmore Avenue, Hermosa Beach, felt that the proposed project is too dense. He favored lowering density in the City, and he felt that the lots should be larger. He stressed that the area is already too dense. Jan McHugh, 718 1st Place, Hermosa Beach, stated that the proposed project is too large for the area. She disagreed with the traffic study, stating that the added traffic will add greatly to the congestion in the area. She stated that the area should be rezoned to R-1, because that is all the area can handle. She suggested that the Commission look to the future in regard to allowing these developments. She stated that the additional developments will create more traffic and parking problems. She felt that the required parking is not adequate. Susan Johnson, niece of the present majority owner of the project site, stated that the Johnsons have owned this land for 25 years, during which most of that time the property was zoned R-3, but has now been downzoned to R-2. The owners were led to believe that the M zoning would also be rezoned. — 2.2_ — P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 Ms. Johnson discussed the past history of the property, stating that the owners have been wanting to do something with the property. She stated that the owners should not be penalized just because they happen to own a large parcel, rather than several smaller lots. Ms. Johnson stated that the proposed development will provide continuity, rather than a choppy, bulky project. She felt it will flow nicely, and she felt that the property will be well utilized. Pat Sirlin, 614 1st Place, Hermosa Beach, felt that 15 units is too much for the area; she favors the property being developed; however, she felt that the only appropriate zoning would be R-1. • John McHugh, 718 1st Place, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over parking problems in the area. He felt that this development is too large for the area and will generate too much traffic. He noted that the congestion becomes worse during the summer months. He stated that the cumulative impacts of other projects must be considered. He favored rezoning this property to R-1. Mr. Killin stated that the traffic study did in fact take into consideration the other new developments proposed for this area. He noted that, he' too, lives in Hermosa Beach and has concerns for the area. He stated that in this case, it is important to determine not only what is appropriate for this particular site, but also for the entire south end of town. He stated that the zoning code and the general plan is in effect and is to be used as the guideline for projects. He stated that the tot as it currently exists is not consistent. As a resident of the City, he did not favor zoning it for manufacturing because it does not fit. He also did not feel R-1 would be appropriate because there is no other R-1 zoning on that side of Ardmore; everything is R-2. Mr. Killin said that every effort was made in designing this project to have it conform with the surrounding neighborhood. He also considers this to be a good development. He noted that there will always be parking problems in the City. He felt that R-2 zoning would be a reasonable compromise for that area. Public Hearing closed at 11:23 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Comm. Ingell questioned whether rezoning this area to R-1 would actually be a solution; however, he felt that fifteen units is too many for this site. He stated that this is a beautiful project, but it is too large. He felt R-2 with 12 units would be a more appropriate compromise. He also felt that the parking standards are not -stringent enough for this piece of property; and this might be the time to implement higher parking standards. He felt three parking spaces per unit would be more appropriate. He also felt that the setback on Ardmore should be a front yard setback as opposed to a side yard setback, since it is the longest frontage on the property. He stated that he could not support 15 units at this property. Comm. Rue stated that zoning codes are implemented in order to give developers direction by which to proceed when they are designing projects. He noted that there have been many recent changes in the ordinance. He noted that this project provides a great deal of open space on the ground, and the lot coverage is well below the maximum allowed by the code. He noted that since buildings are sold by the square footage, the developer is giving up a lot by having smaller units to allow for ample open space. By providing the additional open space, he felt that a compromise has been made in this project; therefore, he stated he could support the project as proposed. �3 P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 Comm. Rue noted that the parking requirements of two spaces per unit, plus eight guest parking spaces, does meet the current code; and he had no problem with the proposed parking. If it is determined that the parking requirements are not adequate, he said that the code should be changed. He did not feel the developer should be penalized if the parking requirements are not adequate. He felt that the developer has complied with the requirements on this project. Comm. Ketz felt that this project provides a better design than if the site were divided into four lots with two to four units per lot. She agreed that the project provides ample usable open space as well as a nice design. She did• note, however, that the streets are narrow in that area, and there are problems with congestion. She felt that additional guest parking spaces would be•appropriate, especially since weekend traffic is heavier. She stated, however, that .she could support the design and density of the project as proposed. Chmn. Peirce stated that he has been a long-term advocate of building to the standards for apartments, and trying to make condominiums more than just apartments. He stressed the condos are not apartments; therefore, condominium approval is a • discretionary act. If the Planning Commission feels higher standards are necessary, then stricter standards can be implemented. Chmn. Peirce felt that it is important to demand more of condominiums than of apartments; and it would be in the best interests of the City if this were done at this project by way of a specific plan area. . Chmn. Peirce felt that the project as proposed does not provide adequate parking; the setbacks are not large enough; and the density is too high. Chmn. Peirce did not think a rezone to R-1 would be appropriate, because R-1 is well below the property value for the area; further, the property to the east will be developed to the R-2 standards, and the properties across Ardmore are very small. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to designate this area a Specific Plan Area; to require a ten -foot setback along Ardmore; to allow 13 units; and to require three parking spaces for each unit. Comm. Rue asked whether it is possible to park in front of the garages of .the proposed project; even though the area might not be large enough to qualify as a regulation parking space. Mr. Killin replied that there are several locations where the driveway is wider than necessary and where someone could parallel park in front of the garages without creating a problem; therefore, an additional six spaces could be obtained by such parking. Those spaces, however, do not meet the parking standards. Mr. Killin commented on the motion for a Specific Plan Area, stating that if the SPA is voted upon, he would like to request specific direction as to how to proceed with the project. He noted that standards are in place, and an attempt is made to work within those standards. Comm. Rue stated that requiring more parking necessitates the need for more concrete, which he is opposed to. He felt that if there is usable parking space, people will park in that space, even though it may not actually be standard size. He discussed the ten -foot setback on Ardmore, stating that Building A is at a nine -foot setback; Building 8, with its — P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 five-foot setback, is the location where the additional parking could be gained. He felt that common sense should be used in making this decision. Chmn. Peirce stressed that the standards in place are for apartments, not condominiums; and condominiums are not apartments. He stated that there is currently no zoning code for condominiums. Comm. Rue felt that the developer has compromised in regard to the open space and square footage of the units. He stated that square footage equals dollars to the developer. Comm. Ketz favored additional•parking for this project; however, in reality, if additional parking can in fact be gained by using the -extra space, she could she no reason to require the additional setbacks at Building B. Chmn. Peirce reiterated his motion, stating that he proposes to increase the parking to three spaces per unit; require a ten -foot setback on Ardmore; and allow only 13 units. The units could then be made larger, and additional parking could be obtained. Comm. Ingell, as second, stated that he would support 13 units; however, he felt that 12 units would be more appropriate. Public Hearing reopened at 11:39 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Jim Marquez, 1334 Park View Avenue, Manhattan Beach; commented on the discussion by the Commission, stating that the applicant would concur with one exception; that they would favor a condition in the CUP that the revised plans be subject to the approval of staff, so that the applicant does not have to come before the Commission with a Specific Plan Area, which they feel to be unnecessary. The plan as designed by the architect is sufficient in its design scope to accommodate the concerns of the Commission to lower the density and to address the concerns of the neighborhood to add more parking so that the impact of this project is lessened. Herb Schneider, 157 Ardmore Avenue, Hermosa Beach, noted concern that this project was designed before the zone change was even approved. Kim Turrett, 501 Herondo, which is a 75 -unit condominium development adjacent to the proposed development, stated that there are already tremendous parking problems and congestion in the area. He asked that the Commission do everything possible to reduce the traffic in the community. Public Hearing closed at 11:44 P.M. Chmn. Peirce noted that the applicant prefers to have specific guidelines rather than the Specific Plan Area. He asked for direction from staff. Mr. Schubach stated that a Specific Plan Area would not delay this project. Further, the conditional use permit will expire in two years if not implemented, but once the zone is changed to R-2, it will remain R-2. There is nothing holding the applicant to the conditional use permit; whereas, with a Specific Plan Area, the project is actually set with the standards imposed by the Commission. He noted that the time frame would be the same whether there is a zone change request or an SPA. 2g- - P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 Mr. Lough concurred with staff; however, he noted that with an SPA many issues must be specifically addressed such as setbacks, density, public improvements, interface with streets, curb and gutter cuts, and sidewalks. Therefore, with the SPA, the project must come back before the Commission. He noted concern, though, over tying a reduction in units into the CUP as a condition. Comm. Rue noted, however, that the applicant has agreed to lower the number of units to 13 as proposed; therefore, he suggested that the zone change be recommended. Chmn. Peirce noted that the zone change will automatically go before the City Council. Comm. Ingell noted that a criterion for approval is that "the project shall conform to all zoning and condominium criteria and will be compatible with adjacent residential properties." Since 15 units is felt to be too excessive to be compatible, he felt that this requirement gives the Commission the purview to reduce the number of units to 13. Mr. Schubach advised that, if the Commission desires to recommend the R-2 zoning at this time, conditions can be added to the CUP stating that there is to be a maximum of 13 units for this project, that there be three parking spaces per unit; and that there be a minimum 10 -foot setback on all three street sides. A condition could also be added that the revised plans shall be subject to approval by the staff. Comm. Ketz stated that she would support thirteen units with the additional parking. • MOTION WITHDRAWN by Chmn. Peirce. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to recommend a zone change from M and Open Space to R-2 for this property; and that the zone change shall be contingept upon implementation of a conditional use permit, which will follow. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: Comm. Edwards ABSENT: None MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-4, with the following modifications: (1) each appearance in the resolution of the number of units shall be changed to reflect that the number of units is to be reduced from 15 to 13; (2) ten -foot setbacks shall be required on all three sides of the property; (3) three parking spaces per unit shall be required; (4) if the CUP is not implemented within two years, the R-2 zoning shall revert back to the M-1 and Open Space zoning. Mr. Schubach noted that Condition No. 1 specifies that plans shall be subject to approval of staff. Mr. Lough explained that if the CUP is not implemented within the two-year period, the zone change would become null and void and the zoning would revert to M and Open Space. Mr. Marquez stated that the applicant agrees to the proposed changes. AYES: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: Comm. Edwards ABSENT: None — 26 . P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 4 • ( l Chmn. Peirce stated that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. P.C. Minutes 1/3/89 T8 ttckgrirunkt. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 89-4 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #46903 FOR A 13 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 603 FIRST STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 131 AND 133, WALTER RANSOM COMPANY'S VENABLE PLACE TRACT AND PORTIONS OF LOTS 41 AND 42, BLOCK 78, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 3, 1989 tp receive oral and written' testimony on this matter and made the following Findings: A. The map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; B. The site is located within a General Plan/Zoning copsistency area, and the development is consistent with the General Plan density requirements; C. The development shall' pose no threat to the public safety and welfare; 1. D. The subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; E. The subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; F. Design of the proposed subdivision is compatible and consistent with applicable elements of the City's General Plan; G. The project will conform to all zoning and condominium criteria and will compatible with adjacent residential properties; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map -2e- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 #46903 for a 13 -unit condominium project at 603 First Street subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. Three (3) sets of revised plans including site, elevation, floor and landscaping plans, which are consistent with the conditions of approval of this C.U.P., shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior. to the issuance of any Building Permits. Revised plans shall indicate the following: a. Plans shall indicate a'maximum of thirteen (13) units. b. Three (3). parking spaces shall provided for each unit, two per unit and one guest space.' c. Ten foot setbacks shall be provided from all property lines which abut public streets including First Street;'. First Place, and Ardmore Avenue. • d. The driveway approach shall be a minimum of 28 feet wide and shall provide a rounded curb; curve radii rather than a simple "x" cut driveway shall be provided. 2. Vesting Tenative Map #46903 shall be revised to indicate a maximum of thirteen (13) units. 3. The project shall meet .all requirements of the, Condominium Ordinance. a. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions in compliance with the Condominium Ordinance shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. b. Proof of recordation of approved CC&R's shall be submitted to the Planning Director within six (6) months after City approval of the Final Map. c. Requirements of Section 7.2-6(G) shall be shown on structural plans and reviewed at the time of Building Department Plan Check. 4. There shall be compliance with all requirements of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 5. The (3) copies of a landscaping plan shall indicate size, type and quantity of plant materials shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. a. An automatic landscape sprinkler system shall be provided, and shall be shown on plans. 6. Architectural treatment shall be as shown on submitted plans; any modification are subject to approval by the Planning Director: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a. Precise height shall be reviewed at the time of Building Plan Check, and plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Building Director. b. The entire driveway shall . be constructed with an aestheticly decorative material such as brick, pressed concrete or similar material reviewed. and approved by the Planning Director. 7. Any satellite dish and/or similar equipment shall comply with the requirements of Section 1227 of the Zoning Ordinance. 8. Conduit shall be installed in each unit for cable television. 9. Automatic garage door openers shall be provided. 10. An "Acceptance of Conditions" form shall be executed and.• submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 11. The Conditional Use Permit shall be null and void one and a ' half years from the date of approval unless Building Permits have been obtained and approval of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map shall become null and void twenty-four months from the date of approval unless the map is finaled...• The applicant may apply in writing for an extension of time to the Planning Commission prior'to the date of expiration: VOTE: AYES: Comms.Ingell,Ketz,Rue,Chmn.Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: Comm.Edwards ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION K I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 89-4 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, Califorjnia at their regular meeting of January 3, 1989. /1� 7' j es Peirce, Chairman Dat T/pers603 Michael Schubach, Secretary I, the undersigned, do declare under penalty of perjury that I did on the 2nd day of February , 197 89 deposit into the United States post office, first class postage prepaid, a copy of the public notice attached as Exhibit "A" to each and every person attached as Exhibit "B". I warrant that the persons named on Exhibit "B" are all the persons required by applicable law to receive the public notice attached as Exhibit "A". I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to cause these public notices to be made in an accurate and timely fashion and agree to hold the City harmless against any liability whatsoever for any defect of said notice or notices. In the event an action is instituted in a. court of com= petent jurisdiction which questions the legality of the public notices, then the City may in its exclusive discretion suspend all hearings or cause the cessation of any construction or of any use which was permitted as a result of a hearing which was held in accordance with the public notice. In the event that the court declares the notice or noticing procedure to be effective, then the City may in its exclusive discretion revoke any permits granted and cause any approvals given pursuant to those public notices to be declared null and_void and•,I agree on behalf of myself and my heirs, assigns or successors -in -interest to hold the City harmless in connection therewith. "` I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is. true and correct. I. have executed this declaration on this the 2nd day of • February , 198 9 at Hermosa Beach, California. FRANCF.NE ,BAKER • (na State 'of California ) County of Los Angeles ) SS (Signature) Representative (Capacity) On this the 2nd day of 'February , 198g, before me, FT.T7ABFTH SROTTR , the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared Fran Rakpr proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons) whose name(s) is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that she executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal .2, My Comm. Exo. Nov. 2, 1990 OFFICIAL SEAL ELIZABETH C. SROUR Notary Public -California • LOS ANGELES COUNTY eze„ Not•, y Public 31- (wr'z vrr/ y-7-11 r?—ser rz, —770 --rvp ir-y?--f—LL2 -4+ hp a e-k,"0—strIre, els-v 22 rryl r7,/ ro-,T7 c-?? 1z 5/ 7CV Vr7-1 rr:-?-rr'rdo 0G. ' r-z•-rp (7sr/ 7214- ,ec) ar-5-4eL-61( • -Pe;` 'JAN f Q X0) hctJAJ-c5_ rrt Q.o . ROBERT F. BAYER 501 HERONDO 32 k� HERMOSA BEACH, CA. 90254 -702,.e. • ; 1989 t. (r February 7, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council February 14, 1989 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 88-25 -- REVIEW OF GRADING PLAN FOR POWER STREET SUBDIVISION, TRACT NO. 30986 LOCATION: 532, 534-540 20TH STREET INITIATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL Planning Commission Recommendation • The Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed grading plan. Background The City Council, at their December 13, 1988 meeting, referred this matter to the Planning Commission with findings as noted in the attached City Council Resolution No. 89-5223. At their meeting of January 17, 1989, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the grading plan for the proposed 8 lot subdivision. Analysis The Planning Commission in essence determined that adequate drainage would occur, and there would be no significant impact to adjacent property. Also, the slightly higher grade proposed was not significant. Staff does have some concern for the properties to the south along Valley Park Avenge since the flood control pipe which the proposed subdivision will drain into, is only adequate for a "10 -year" flood and therefore is not considered acceptable by todays standards. However, The L.A. County engineers indicate that even though the pipe is not adequate, the additional amount of water is not significant. Attachments 1. Planning Commission resolution 2. City Council Resolution No. 88-5223 3. Staff report dated January 10, 1989 4. Planning Commission minutes of 1/17/89 5. Public communications CONCUR: evin E. Northcraft City Manager Reamspeeccctf ,11 Michael Schbuach Planning Director 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 89-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVALOFTHE GRADING PLAN FOR AN EIGHT LOT SUBDIVISION, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30986. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a hearing on January 17, 1989, and made the following Findings: A. The "French Drain" will increase the percolation and decrease the potential 9,f flooding; B. The storage capacity of the project storm drain pipe will decrease the potential flooding of the adjacent property; C. The diversion of water by the Power Street project storm drain will reduce the amount of water flowing onto adjacent properties as well; D. The proposed grading plan does not significantly ,differ from original grading plan; sixteen inches (16") higher will have no impact; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby recommend approval of the grading plan for an eight lot subdivision, Tentative Tract Map No. 30986. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Edwards,Ingell,Ketz,Rue,Chmn.Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 89-10 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of January 17, 1989. James Peirce, Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary Date T/perspowe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11• 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c r RESOLUTION NO. 89- 5223 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION INVESTIGATE AND REPORT ON THE HYDROLOGY REPORT AND CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN FOR TENATIVE TRACT 30986 (COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE POWER STREET DEVELOPMENT). WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach held • a public hearing tin December 13, 1988 to consider this matter and made the followingfindings:• 1. Said hydrology following. y gy report indicates that there is potential difficulty with the deposition of water at said project in that substantial flooding may occur. 2. In approving preliminary grading plan, the land would have to remain at the same existing grade•of the easterlyadjo'iriing lots. 3. The foregoing issues must be addressed to have the preliminary grading plan remain in effect. 4. The Planning Commission is the designated body charged with the duty of making investigations and reports on design pursuant to California Government Code Section 66415 (Subdivision Map Act) . 5. Design means, among other things, drainage and grading (Government Code Section 66418). /// /// /// /// /// /// L43/reso -_ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby direct the, Planning Commission to investigate and report.on the drainage and grading at Tenative Tract 30986 (commonly known as the Power Street development). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24 day of January 1989... PRESIDENT OF iE CIT COUNCIL and MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFdANIA:•' ATTEST: • CI Y CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: „CIATTORNEY L43/reso January 10, 1989 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission January 17, 1989 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY 88-25 REVIEW OF GRADING PLAN FOR POWER STREET SUBDIVISION, TRACT NO. 30986 LOCATION: POWER STREET PURPOSE: TO EXAMINE THE APPLICANTS PROPOSED REVISED GRADING PLAN, AND ANY ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS Tb DRAINAGE OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION; AND FURTHER, TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS TO AN ACTION TO TAKE. INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL Recommendation Staff recommends that the subdivision layout be reconfigured, and/or less lots be created. Background Several meetings have been held between the City, the applicants and the nearby residents; and also several hearings before City Council have been held. Refer to the attached staff report for a more detailed history of this matter. Also, City Council minutes are attached. At the December 13, 1988 City Council meeting, after hearing testimony, the City Council referred this matter to the Planning Commission for consideration. Analysis Because of the slope of subject property, it was necessary to raise the natural grade at the south end of the cul de sac. The neighboring property owners are opposed to this situation since they believe it may cause flooding, and it will result in raising the height of the development which will overlook into the neighboring yards. The Planning staff believes that the best solution to the problem would be to, for example, eliminate the most southerly lot as a developable lot and create a mini park, private or public; the existing trees could also remain. Then, the water could drain and percolate into the ground in that area. Another solution may be to reconfigure the subdivision in a way so that raising the grade would not be necessary. Beyond these solutions, staff has no other suggestions for resolving the - grading issue; although other solution may exist, the Planning staff is not well versed in the issue of grading. Refer to analysis. T/pcsrpowe the attached staff reports and minutes for more Michael Schuh Planning Director .w • REVIEW OF A GRADING PLAN FOR POWER STREET SUBDIVISION, TRACT NO. 30986 Chmn. Peirce stated that this hearing is, for a review of the grading plan only, noz •a• review of the conditional use permit for the project. He stressed that the focus will be on the grading plan of the tentative tract map which was submitted to the City some- time ago, and• which is for an eight lot subdivis;on at Power Street and 20th Street. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 10, 1989. Staff recommended that the subdivision layout be reconfigured, and/or fewer lots be created. Several meetings have been held between the City, the applicants, and the nearby residents; also several hearings before the City Council have been held. At the December 13, 1988, City Council meeting, after hearing testimony, the City Council referred this matter back to the Planning Commission for consideration. Because of the slope of the property, it was necessary to raise the natural: grade at the south end of the cul de sac. The neighboring property owners are opposed to this situation since they believe it may cause flooding, and it will result in raising, the height of the development, which will overlook into the neighboring yards. The Planning Staff believes that the best solution to the problem would be to, for example, eliminate the most southerly lot as a developable lot and create a mini park, private or public; and the existing tress could also remain. The water could then drain and percolate into the ground at that area. Another solution may be to reconfigure the subdivision in a way so that raising the grade would not be necessary. Beyond these solutions, staff has no other suggestions for resolving the grading issue. Although other solutions may exist, the Planning Department is not well versed in the issue of grading. Mr. Schubach stated that the grading plan has been referred back to the Planning Commission by the City Council based on two findings: (1) causes a difficulty with the water; washes to no proper disposition; just floods; (2) strongest finding in approving the P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 C preliminary grading plan was that the land would remain at the same existing grade of the easterly adjoining lots. These findings are the justification to have the preliminary grading plan remain in effect. Chmn. Peirce noted that the City Council was under the impression that there was a four -foot difference between the original grading plan and the revised grading plan. Mr. Schubach agreed. He stated, however, that the applicant has submitted a letter advising that an error had been made; and in fact, the grading would not be raised four feet; it would be much less than that. Chmn. Peirce discussed the grading plan submitted to the City. He and the other Commissioners continued by discussing the plans and questioning whether it is the original grading plan. Mr. Antich, Director of Public Works, was uncertain whether the plan in question is the original or not. Mr. Schubach stated that he could provide copies of the original plan to the Commission. He stated that the plan in operation at this time is dated 5/31/88. Mr. Antich stated, in response to a question from Chmn. Peirce, that the street level has different elevations, as do the adjacent properties to the east. Comm. Rue commented on the south end of the property, stating that 95 percent •of the elevation appears to have a difference of no more thali 1.45 feet. . Mr. Antich and the -Commissioners discussed the various elevations depicted on the plan.' Mr. Schubach stated that the grading plan being discussed by the Commission appeared to be the same as the plan staff has in file. Comm. Rue stated that the most current grading and drainage plan, dated 5/31/88, was prepared by Westco Engineering, and was approved by BSI Consultants. He asked how BSI Consultants is related to the City in this matter. Mr. Antich believed that BSI Consultants is under contract to the City.;through the Building Department. They are responsible for reviewing the grading plan to ensure that it complies with the Uniform Building Code. Their stamp of approval indicates that the plan does comply with the code. The stamp does not, however, guarantee accuracy of the plan. He stated that accuracy depends upon the professionalism of the surveyor who prepared the plan. Comm. Rue commented on the wealth of information provided to the Commission. He noted that three separate agencies had examined the proposed water flow: Los Angeles County Flood Control; the project engineer;, and the City Public Works Department. Mr. Antich stated that the City hired an outside hydrology consultant to examine the plan. Comm. Ketz asked whether the reviewing agencies determined that this project would cause drainage problems to the adjoining properties. Mr. Anitch stated that the reviewing engineer, Harris and Associates, determined that there would be no adverse impact to any of the adjacent properties. _ g- P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 Mr. Antich stated that the City is satisfied that there are no engineering problems with the grading plan; however, the entire drainage system in that area is designed• for ten- year storm. Therefore, the area does normally flood. With a development of this size, there will be additional water because the surface area will be covered by hardscape, such as roofs and driveways. The amount of water is not substantial, but it is significant because the water will not percolate into the grade. In something larger than a ten-year storm, there would be a small amount of impact; however, the County Flood Control District felt that, given the size of the project and the amount of water coming off of the project, the storm drain system would not be adversely impacted, and it would allow a connection to the existing storm drain on 20th Street. Mr. Antich stated that the County Flood Control district tends to be conservative in its • opinions. Mr. Anitch, in response to a question from Chmn. Peirce, stated that the amount of time water will stand in the street is dependent upon several factors: the amount of rainfall, whether it is light or heavy and the capability of the saturation of the existing ground. If the storm drain on 20th Street is not capable of handling the amount of water, the cul de sac will .be the first area that will begin to fill with water. Chmn. Peirce stated that the water will go down 20th Street to the east to Valley View. He asked where it will go then and how the water will finally reach its final destination at the beach. Mr. Antich explained the route that the water will travel• to reach its final destination. He continued by explaining where the water will remain. Mr. Antich, in response to questions from Comm. Edwards, stated that this plan was designed for a fifty-year storm, and it connects into a system which was designed for a ten-year storm. He stated that the tie-in of the drains would be underground. Comm. Ingell asked whether there are any plans by the county to upgrade the drainage system. Mr. Antich knew of no City or County plans to upgrade the drainage system. Hearing opened at 10:23 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Coming forward to speak on this issue were: Jim Marquez, 1344 Park View Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the developer, gave a detailed chronology of the history of this project. Ed Saiki, Westco Engineering, 20710 South Manhattan Place, Torrance, project engineer, discussed the hydrology and engineering aspects of the project. Warner Lombardi, 1849 Valley Park Avenue, resident, noted concern over the proposed drainage system and the original grade being maintained. He also noted concern over saving the trees. He said that the flow of the water will be changed, and there will be flooding at the end of Valley Park. Vicky Garcia, 1835 Valley Park Avenue, resident, noted concern over the length of time this issue has been dragging on. She stated that the change in the grading will be a substantial change in the area, especially impacting her property. She stated that P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 c additional studies are necessary, or the grading needs to be changed to lessen the impact on the neighbors. Gordon B. Evans, 1769 Valley Park Avenue, resident, discussed past floods on his street and the storm drain system. He noted concern over the proposed changes. He asked that the storm drains adequately drain with a minimum of impact to the neighbors. Sid Kroft, representing the developers, discussed the fact that the grade change is actually quite minimal. He stated that the engineering studies and hydrology reports have all been accepted by the City of Hermosa, and the reports have determined that the drainage of the neighboring properties'will not be adversely affected by this proposal. • .Chmn. Peirce stated that the existing buildings' on the subject property should be removed as soon as possible because they pose a safety hazard and are a. nuisance.• Mr. Marquez stated that those buildings will be removed soon. Hearing closed at 11:45 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Mr. Lough explained that the purpose of this hearing is to investigate two matters: (1) to look at the difficulty with water and the basic drainage issue; and (2) to address the grading plan and determine whether it is in substantial conformance with the previous grading plans. The Planning Commission is to make a recommendation to the City Council as to how to proceed. Comm. Ketz asked whether the existing drainage from the adjacent properties was taken. • into consideration when the drainage plans were reviewed .for this property. • Mr. Antich stated that originally it was not; however, the developer's surveyor then did go off site to survey some points and to take to adjacent property into consideration; and no adverse effects were found. This information was transmitted to the City Engineer. Comm. Rue noted that staff and the Commissioners have spent many, many hours reviewing the materials provided to determine how the preliminary plan compares to the new proposed plan. He noted that there were few differences. He noted that the City and County have both given input on this matter. From all of the information and testimony, he was convinced that the developers, having gone originally from a 14 -unit condominium project to the current eight -unit proposal, have mitigated the concerns of the community as well as the physical problems with the property. Comm. Rue felt very comfortable with the fact that this project has gone through all of the proper channels. He felt that the information has been adequately reviewed. He felt that the findings of Councilman Creighton have been met. He did not feel there would be any difficulty with the water. He stated that the issue of most concern is probably that of the french drain; however, the developer has gone to great lengths in digging out the area and putting in gravel to ensure that there will not be any water standing in adjacent properties. Comm. Ingell stated that the main issue is the grading plan. Since he is not a surveyor or engineer, he said that it is necessary to depend upon the reliability of the professionals, the staff, the consultants, and the County's conservative engineers. He stated that all parties have agreed that the grading plan will not be adverse to the adjoining properties; therefore, he would agree with the experts and support the grading plan. He also felt that this developer has set new standards in attempting to mitigate concerns of the l 0— P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 neighbors. Comm. Ketz stated that she too would rely upon the opinions of the experts and would support the grading plan since it is felt that there will be no adverse impacts to the adjoining properties. Comm. Edwards stated that the storm drain system to be installed as well as the increased capacity will mitigate potential flooding problems. He stated that the flow maps prepared by the City Engineer shows both existing and future flows. It appears that there will actually be a reduction in the flood potential over the existing condition. He felt that the french drain will increase the capacity and would be an improvement over the existing condition. He stated that the raising of the grade is actually required by the flood control district; therefore, there is no other option except for installing pumps or an evaporation pond. Chmn. Peirce stated that he agreed that the grading plan is adequate. MOTION by Comm. Inge11, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to recommend that the City Council approve this grading plan; and to include the following whereases: (1) Whereas, the french drain on the subject property will increase the percolation and decrease the potential of .flooding; (2) Whereas, the storage and project pipe will also decrease the potential flooding to the adjacent property; (3) Whereas, the• blocking of water to the adjacent properties from the Power Street project to the houses on Valley Park is now being blocked, so that it will reduce the amount of water which enters into their. property • as well. • Chmn. Peirce stated that, given that there is a maximum of 3.6 feet at one end from the existing grade and essentially zero at the other end, and it very rapidly goes from 3.6 feet to approximately less than two feet, he felt there is no difference between the existing grade and the grading plans that exist. AYES: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 1 — P.C. Minutes 1/17/89 BACKGROUND MATERIAL C RECEIVED JAW 18 1989 January 18, 1989 Dear Mayor and City Council; We want to thank you for taking the time listening to our fears about the drainage and possible flooding problems with the "Power Street project". We attended the Planning Commission meeting last night. It was very well donor with time for both sides. The developer and his crew presented all the findings in a most professional way which should leave room for not too many doubts that the situation is taken care of. Perhaps it is only natural that the Valley Park residents are not completely convinced. Many times things that look perfect on charts and re ports do not always work out. This is a chance we will have to accept as it seems like this high density project will happen. We still think one less house would • have improved the drainage and helped to give a Tittle breathing space. One big change of course is with the new grading plan all the trees are to be removed. This was not so in theoriginal proposal. We are told not to worry specimen trees will be planted. There are sepcimen trees and specimen trees. Some are tiny and inexpensive. Others are well grown and large. We would like some specifications as to what kind and what size are going to be planted. As you are aware the trees removed (o even though they have not been cared for in 2 years) are still mature and home to many birds and filter the air. It it is important that trges removed be replaced with comparable trees. Please could you help to see this is included in the plans -in detail. Green spots on a chart can be anything. Betty AND Gordon Evans 1769 Valley Park Hermosa Beach, Ca -90254 JAN 2 3 1989 -'M_ANNING Appeal to the Hermosa Beach City Council of the Planning Commissions Recommendation for Approval of the New Grading Plan for the Power Street Subdivision on 01/17/89 Page 1 of 3__ 11 e' 4.,L;I•, I ty .�yA �a JAN 3 - �dtd�7� 24 January 1989 -' �' t-'989,11. city °f Hercoy mosa 6p�h `9 JAN 2 5 1989 To Hermosa Beach City Council, We, the local residents near the Power Street s 1,are appealing to the Hermosa Beach City Council the approval�--'_.o�zi-t e new grading plan, by the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission at the 17 January 1989 Planning Commission meeting. �. The basis of the appeal is twofold: zax 1. The Planning Commission did not address the issue substantial conformance to existing grade. The majority o "ea -A" the discussions dealt with the adequacy of the grading to //3< drain water out of the new development, we do not think that was the issue. The reason, as City Councilman Sheldon clearly stated, was that IT IS ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE DEVELOPER TO BUILD EIGHT HOUSES WITH THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE INITIAL GRADING PLAN. This is what caused the change in the original grading plan, leading Staff to defer approval of the grading plan to the Hermosa Beach City Council because the new grading plan WAS NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE. Commissioner Pierce denied that that was even an issue when Mr. Lombardi gave his presentation, yet just before the Planning Commission voted on the approval of the grading plan, Mr. Antich testified that the reason Hermosa Beach Staff had deferred the grading plan back to the City Council was because the proposed grading plan was NOT IN SIGNIFICANT CONFORMANCE with the existing grade, which was part of the tentative approval of the subdivision. Commissioner Pierce responded, without further discussion from the other commissioners or the residents, that a 3.6 foot delta in the grades was in significant conformance. This was the reason for the Planning Commission review and should not have been taken so lightly. No other Commissioner was asked for comment prior to the vote. 2. When the question of the possible flooding of the south end of Valley Park Avenue was addressed, the Planning Commission stated that it THOUGHT it was considered, but that it was not documented in the hydrology report. Commissioner Pierce stated that as long as the developer got the water out of the NEW SUBDIVISION, the developer was meeting HIS RESPONSIBILITY. He did not address the RESPONSIBILITY OF /-Icj 1,-.c2/ L! /- �' 41 Z/Le- e6?'-"te`- t '1 e_ r 3 - • %1ZU�• �z � ((- Appeal C Appeal to the Hermosa Beach City Council of the Planning Commissions Recommendation for Approval of the New Grading Plan for the Power Street Subdivision on 01/17/89 Page 2 of 3 ELECTED HERMOSA BEACH OFFICIALS TO THE RESIDENTS OF HERMOSA BEACH. To refresh the City's memory, in 1979 the City of Hermosa Beach and Mr. Lombardi were sued by the previous owner of Lot 27 because the new house built on Lot 26, owned by Mr. Lombardi, caused flooding in the house on Lot 27. Mr. Lombardi was brought into the suit because he owned the property when the suit was filed, THE DEVELOPER HAD LEFT THE STATE. The previous owner of Lot 27 won the lawsuit. WHAT RESPONSIBILITY WILL THE POWER STREET DEVELOPERS HAVE TO THE EXISTING RESIDENTS OF HERMOSA BEACH AFTER THE PROJECT IS APPROVED/COMPLETED? Mr. Lombardi went to the Public Works Dept. at .approximately 9:30am on Tuesday morning, 01/24/89 to review the hydrology report for the Power/20th Street development. During his review, Mr. Lombardi was not able to locate any reference to the adequacy of the existing storm drain system at the south end of Valley Park Avenue to handle the additional flow of water caused by the significant increase of hard surfaces (roofs, street, sidewalks, etc.) caused by the new development. The existing terrain is sand which allows the vast majority of the water to be absorbed into the ground where there will now be hard surfaces. ?Mr. Ed Edwards of Harris and Associates (the consulting firm ..that conducted the hydrology study) was also at the Public Works office at the same time. Mr. Lombardi expressed his concerns to him, and Mr. Edwards stated the study did not go into sufficient detail to determine if the storm drain system at the south end of Valley Park Ave. could handle the additional flow from the new subdivision. Why wasn't Harris and Associates directed to investigate this. This has always been a concern of the residents, it has been expressed many times to both the Hermosa Beach City Council and Planning Commission. WHY ARE THE•CONCERNS OF THE LONG TIME HERMOSA BEACH RESIDENTS TAKEN SO LIGHTLY? After Mr. Lombardi's discussion with the Public Works office and Mr. Ed Edwards of Harris and Associates (concerning the detail of the hydrology study) we feel it is appropriate to again raise our concerns about adequate sewage lines to the south of the new development. On November 12, 1980, Mr. Lee Alton, Director of the Hermosa Beach Department of Building and Safety sent a letter to Mr. Lombardi concerning the sewer line to the south of the new development into which the new sewer lines will join. At the time, Appeal to the Hermosa Beach City Council of the Planning Commissions Recommendation for Approval of the New Grading Plan for the Power Street Subdivision on 01/17/89 Page 3 of 3 Mr. Lombardi was designing a single family residence on Lot 28, the lot that borders the new development to the south. The letter is attached, but the pertinent quote is "Our Director of Public Works, Charles Clark, recommends that you not tie into the sewer because it is a very troublesome line." Mr. Lombardi was advised to tie into the sewer that runs along Valley Park Ave. Since the hydrology report was not completed in sufficient detail to address our concerns, to what detail was the sewer study done? If the sewer line was not adequate for one additional house in 1980, what improvements have been done since 1980 to allow eight large homes to be added where there are currently only three small ones? ckf2-"gyt,e'rrt/L4 / F'i"? Vol /7(r f 'e_, /-itS, Cq 17/f. Z (. d :--1-6.31--c / Cr U 1,1v -,.h}. B a'- 1 z < < cik . 1835 J 9,_giA4, J 4 . a.I 2 ��e /:" G ' ,i vie • 12,4- au -k-- (7)(i/(11 ft /76p— Vet, 6, /nct /18 %10 /19'4C. 107 li,,,l(��k. G,u�. }48 o;6ci q 0 ok/e/ P41144 AA)6 frate--7 M44' dzs-‘;‘) tiva: 1z. Ctt&- .r2L ,fes. /emsY / I 927 tit 2 -27 noon -Pc ,"7.--L-`5_ 7 �L1 ce ":922) IT hC13MOM ), ....2.... CIVIC CENTER HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORN A 90213CJKZ1L 4 �� Nt:?41.N .\• CITY HALL: (213) 376.6984 �1•.,:.`•:,? POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS: 376.7981 November 12, 1980 RECEr"en Mr. Warner P. Lombardi P. 0. Box 668 Hermosa Beac lam, CA 90254 N OV 13 1980 Engineer ss ueit. _ Subject: Sewer through Lot 28oflTract 15546 Dear warner / 5.33 r�iZ/' Out)• Buildings cannot be constructed upon or above this easement. You may construct paving or planting in this 5 foot strip; but if you do, you also accept the cost of replacement when such improvements get destroyed as a consequence of sewer maintenance. A survey will be a requirement of a building permit and you should direct the surveyor'to indicate.the exact location of the easement on his plan. The sewer easement contains a 15 inch sewer. Our Director of Public Works, Charles Clark, recommends that you not tie into this sewer because it is a very troublesome line. He suggests that you instead tie into the 8 inch sewer in Valley Park Ave- nue, and that you will need to physically measure the inverts at the two manholes on either side of your property; and he has also offered to cooperate with your surveyor to help lift the manholes. Coordination of this effort would be your respon- sibility. Sincerely, Lee Alton, Director Department of Building and Safety LA/ld • cc: Charles Clark ' / V (0--) � b 1.�-+�-; Vv (2-K- VkL) U. -so PLkcto 5 Q �t-Ie✓�e.�-. ' Y� Letter to the Hermosa Beach City Council for the Power Street Subdivision. Council Meeting 14 Feb 1989. Page 1 of 3 To All Members of The Hermosa Beach City Council: I was hospitalized because of an accident and was unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting on Jan. 17, 1989. This was the first meeting on the "20th and Power Street" subdivision that I missed. It was not until recently that I was able to review the video tape of the meeting. It was very disappointing that the Planning Commission did not challenge the statements made by Mr. Marquez to the commission and the public that the developers had done a tremendous amount of extra, unnecessary work on this project. In my opinion, the developer did the minimum required to comply with the regulations required for the approval of any subdivision of this size. From the original tentative approval of the plans for the final map there have been very few changes, and those are mainly in favor of the developer to reduce cost and liability. Corrections to items, at the recommendation of their engineers, consultants and architects and suggestions by Mr. Antich, Mr. Grove and the City Manager, were for numerous reasons (not complying with code, safety, liability, etc.). These will be explained later in the text. One of the major problems with this project is the potential flooding and elevated grading. The recommendations of the Planning Commission were based on the study by Harris and Associates. This study appears to be very superficial and apparently based on incorrect assumptions. One incorrect assumption was that the lots on Valley Park Avenue to the east of the subdivision slope half to the east and half to the west, when in fact they slope entirely to the west, toward the subdivision, where the raised grade will stop the natural flow of water. This proved very embarrassing to one of the Harris engineers at one of the meetings when questioned because of complaints from the residents. The engineer stated that he got his data from Westco Engineering. When the engineer from Westco Engineering was questioned, he stated that Harris had made a mistake, misinterpreting the data. The Harris engineer immediately left the meeting, and to my recollection, Harris has not appeared at a meeting since. Yet, the developers, Planning Commission and City Council repeatedly refer to the HARRIS STUDY as the major reason for the approval of the grading plan. Since the Harris study had the slope incorrect, it leads me to think the the Harris consultants did not view the proposed site. You do not need a surveyor to certify that the lots slope 100% towards the development, it is visually obvious. As this is not the only time the Harris study has been questioned, why has no additional study by an independent firm been conducted? Please refer to exhibit A, a representation of the findings from Harris and Associates.) I would now like to summarize the changes the the developer did for the BENEFIT OF THE RESIDENTS! SUPPLEMDNAL INFORMATION Letter to the Hermosa Beach City Council for the Power Street Subdivision. Council Meeting 14 Feb 1989. Page 2 of 3 1. GRADING: Not substantial, goes from 0 to 1.6 feet to the end of the cul de sac, except behind lots 26 and 27 that will raise the existing grade 3.6 feet (43.125 inches). This was CONSIDERED A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE, CAUSING STAFF TO REFER THE GRADING PLAN BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL, WHICH THEN REFERRED IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 2 SWALE. Due to the ALTERATION OF THE NATURAL FLOW OF WATER FROM THE LOTS TO THE EAST OF THE DEVELOPMENT CAUSED BY THE RAISED ELEVATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT, the developers engineers designed a ditch 12 inches wide to the east of lot 8, west of lots 26 and 27, with a 6 foot block wall on both sides. In a meeting at my residence with the Hermosa Beach Building Director,Public Works Director, City Manager, developers and residents, this was found to be unacceptable, because it would be impossible to maintain, and a serious threat to children. This also violated the code for the safety wall for the swimming pool on lot 27. Exhibit B is a sketch showing the comments of Mr. Grove. The CONCESSION made by the developers was to replace the 12 inch ditch with a french drain (80 feet long, 5 feet wide, 10 feet deep) filled with gravel for 80 feet. This french drain will kill a 50 plus foot Eucalyptus tree in the southwest corner of lot 26, the main reason the sewer was moved to the center of the street was to save the large trees on lots 25 and 26. Now they want to kill one with the SWALE. To save the tree, the french drain has to be at least 20 feet from the base of the tree, reducing the length of the french drain from 80 feet to 30 feet, with a capacity of 1,500 cubic feet, minus 75% of the volume filled by the gravel, leaving a capacity of approximately 2,800 gallons. i built the pool in my yard in the winter of 1987/1988, November to February. After the excavation (pool approximately 5 foot deep), I had a problem getting the rain water out of the pool to get it ready for the steel and concrete, a sump pump was necessary, even though I waited a few days after the rain, due to the slow percolation of water into the soil. As my pool is only 10 feet from the proposed french drain, I would like to know the details of the soil study done, IF ANY, on the area around the french drain. I am not aware of any such soil study presented by the developer. Please refer to Exhibit C for a sketch of the proposed french drain site. The 12 inch ditch and 24 inch strip of landscaping along the curb from the end of the subdivision (20th St.) to the french drain is part of the public right of way and the property and responsibility of the City of Hermosa Beach. As surface water will drain form various lots on Valley Park Ave., and it is Hermosa Beach Public Works policy that surface water cannot drain Letter to the Hermosa Beach City Council for the Power Street Subdivision. Council Meeting 14 Feb 1989. Page 3 of 3 onto the sidewalk, it must be piped under the sidewalk into the street. I do not know how this can be accomplished (refer to Exhibit B). 3. MOVING SEWER: The sewer was moved to the middle of the new proposed Power Street for the following reason: as indicated by the proposed final map, the sewer would interfere with the large eucalyptus trees in the rear of lots 25 and 26, resulting in the probable uprooting of the trees during a wind storm, causing damage to people and structures, and tremendous liability for the developers and the city. 4. CURB CUTS: Curb cuts to the adjacent properties on Valley Park Avenue was one of original conditions for the approval of the subdivision 2 years ago, providing access from a PUBLIC street to existing residents. WAS that an unreasonable request? It certainly is not a NEW CONCESSION. I ALSO DEMAND A PUBLIC APOLOGY FROM MR. MARQUEZ FOR MISLEADING THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC. His statements that I built my house without proper permits and inspections, and that I did not have a "final" are totally false. This was also a serious accusation against the Building Department of Hermosa Beach, and I also feel an apology is do to Mr. Grove and the City of Hermosa Beach. N o RT'+ i- . $ lo -r. t, , i ....x t 15i T— _!is.: ii:13;wG t'` -1-: 0 N Crrr 29 LOT 27 L_ err ZG L..dT 2 F' i...ar. 21 PK I-.crr 2✓ . a-. oT Lz. . 147 47 + 4' a/ 1 t--- ti ....x t 15i T— _!is.: ii:13;wG t'` -1-: 0 N I. xier `E OW O. GI X . G . +--l- 1Z". 12" • IP L.om , .-r-i© L . ID!TC{-k 1 C-iAKC 1 !ke s g(,tA4-PrUt . I -0 T- 2G. Len MI5AR 1 \K. 1.-et,1:* L.• ft uPZ `, s Lor a+�-t 1-+`rY . M sz . Lor. 2.3 CONY 1K LT L2 CONSULTING ENGINEERS H HARRIS & ASSOCIATES CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS September 12, 1988 Mr. Anthony Antich Director of Public Works City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Antich: Re: Power Street Drainage - Tract 30986 Per your request I am furnishing the following summary of key points relative to the subject issue. Initial review of proposed drainage improvements led to the necessity of raising the design grade of Power Street above the existing property, immediately east of the proposed street. Westco Engineering, on behalf of the Developer, was required to provide additional information to demonstrate that no adverse drainage restriction or ponding would result from the improvements. Westco Engineering submitted hydraulic and hydrology calculations, storm drain plans, and topographic surveys of the adjacent lands. Subsequent to my initial review, Westco provided additional information on July 5, 1988 in a revised topographic survey of the adjacent land entitled "Drainage Exhibit". Based upon the engineering data, topographic and drainage plans submitted by Westco Engineering, the following comments and recommendations are made: 1. The engineer has demonstrated that: (a) The proposed improvements will not adversely affect drainage of the neighboring properties, or cause ponding. 4281 KATELLA AVENUE, SUITE 207 '■ LOS ALAMITOS, CALIFORNIA 90720 (714) 229-0900 ■ (213) 402.2600 ■ FAX (714) 229-0995 VALLEY PARK AVE. ..... MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM "Oa 1 NO • WO / / / / 1 1 rs so' 1 28 1 1 we am on. oCars P OW E R psi S Tao an mu LEGEND Mo. STORM DRAIN GROUND or STREET DRAINAGE NEW STORM DRAIN `RoPer..T.ReptwoNvoNDW.. REPRESENTS POWER Si. GRADE (21,22,23) LOT No.s FOR EXIST.° TRACT • Kt= THIS DRAWING HAS OF.DI PREPARED RASED 014 ELEVATIONS ARO DRAINAGE FLANS FURNISHED BY WESTEO ateouguuso ANO slowarom ON &MAU OF THE Dy.1101111. S ABOVE EXIST.G GROUND. - 11131111 •••••••• ••••••.. 1 DRAINAGE AREA AFFECTING EXISTO TRACT (.5 ACRES t) BLOCK WALL figure 2 CITY of HERMOSA BEACH TENTATIVE TRACT No. 30966 . DRAINAGE CONDITIONS WITH PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council January 11, 1989 Regular meeting of January 24, 1989 SUBJECT: SPECIAL STUDY OF BUS BENCHES AND SHELTERS INITIATED BY CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending the City Council grant authorization to pursue obtaining new bus benches and shelters, to be owned and maintained by a private company. Background December 5, 1988, the City Manager directed staff to identify all bus stop locations, high volume locations, and to examine the posibility of installing new benches and'shelters. Since that time, staff has held discussions with the Southern California Rapid Transit District, the Los Angeles Transportation Commission, and two private bus bench companies to examine the alternatives and feasibility of upgrading our existing condition. In addition, the Public Works Department has conducted field inspections of our bus stop locations, to determine the possibility of providing benches and shelters as well. Analysis EXISTING BENCHES AND PROPOSED BENCHES & SHELTERS The existing bus benches contain advertising and are made of wood and concrete. The proposed bus benches and shelters can provide attractive advertising in a variety of different models. These models are made of fiberglass and tinted glass. (refer to attached exhibits) ADVANTAGES OF PROPOSED BENCHES AND SHELTERS The proposed new bus benches and shelters will improve the image of the City. In addition, they will provide weather protection for our citizens and hopefully, this upgrading of our bus stop locations will also promote the use of public transit services and in conjunction with the nine city commuter bus program will eliviate some the City's traffic congestion. An additional incentive for installing the proposed benches and shelters is additional revenue for the City. (see below for details) 1 RTD RTD informs us, they do not own any of the benches located in Hermosa Beach. Therefore, they have no objection to the City's request to replace the existing units. Based on RTD information, the following are the six most used bus stop locations in the City: 1. Northbound 2. Northbound 3. Southbound 4. Northbound 5. Southbound 6. Northbound ** Hermosa Beach is routes.) PCH/Artesia PCH/9th PCH/Artesia Hermosa/10th PCH/9th PCH/16th served by 6 RTD 121 54 53 50 45 37 persons persons persons persons persons persons per day per day per day per day per day per day lines. (see attachment for LACTC FUNDS Bus stop improvements are classified as a conditionally eligible Propsition "A" project. The City must coordinate all bus stop improvements with the existing transit operator by submitting a letter of coordination from the affected transit operator, along with a project description. If the City proposes to use Proposition "A" funds to replace a bench or shelter currently supplied by a private provider, that provider must be notified before final City Council approval is given to the project. The private provider has seven (7) days to respond to the notification received from the City before the City can take action. Currently, the City has $117,940 in Proposition "A" reserve. If the City wishes, it may use these funds for the purchase and maintenance of these units, provided project descriptions are approved. PROPOSED PRIVATE BUS BENCH AND SHELTERS (with advertising) Two companies were approached, Gannett Transit and Shelter Vision. Both companies basically provide the same service and offer the following: 1. They incur total cost of the purchase and installation of the units. 2. Provide insurance for the units. 3. Supply maintainance free -of -charge. 4. Grant the City full veto power over all forms of advertising installed (neither company permits alcoholic or tobacco advertisements). 2 5. Pay the City a percentage of the gross money earned from advertising or a flat figure; estimated revenue for the City is in the range of $700 to $1000 dollars per year, per bench/shelter. Both companies provide a variety of different models and options of benches and shelters. One option discussed was the allowance of advertising only on Pacific Coast Highway and Aviation Blvd. Such options shall be examined further, if staff is authorized to pursue the use. CITY OWNED AND MAINTAINED BENCHES AND SHELTERS The price of each' unit (installed) is roughly $5,500 and maintenance costs are estimated as high as $140 per month, per bench depending on the amount of vandelism. Insurance cost is unknown at this time. The City currently has 42 bus stop locations. Therefore, the estimated costs of purchasing and installing the units is $231,000 ($5500 per unit installed) and maintainance costs are estimated to be as high as $5880 per month. ($140 per unit) The City does not possess the Proposition A funds needed to purchase all the units at one time, however they possibly could be bought over time. Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Repectfu 1 submitted,, - Alex Her an: ez Assistant Plan Attachments 1. RTD routes map. 2. Examples of existing bus benches and advertising. 3. Examples of potential bus benches and shelters A/BUSES 3 CITY OF • !II;RMOSA BEACH CAILIIIF'OIli NIIA RTD LINE 130 EJ RTO LINE .232 © RTD LINE 439 El RTD LINE 443 RTD LINES 225-226 • RTD LINES MAP SCALE: I INC11•400 FEET _J „Tin ip Jam!❑• u. . J DU XIInLU� ■ I BUS /3ENCI1 INVENTORY (EXISTING) LOCATION : 54430>-- 6' ARTC91A LOCA'rIO N NUML3f R: ntVN(t3ER of 1?uS 13Cwc1�}F�S: CcYf SE'r oF )rJE OF 3) CITY OWNFD MAickt ( 1 PJg1vr LY owN6b ,tg, NCH B1 NOTE. S€; of FtY_'.1!F � r 3 /rte r. 'PC14,, Z"� fin" t.: 7 c E. oF FY.H. 5E- OF 14 REr" NoT-- OW StDEWAi ac LOCATE ;a OAR t to G tor. SKETCH LUCKY PARK►r•!h Lo -r DR _E_� AY r' , 1 LACK of J# vc 5 2, ARTES1N JUS /3ENCl-t INVENTORY LO CAT low : Sit' CoikiEg.11C`RMU Q 51.Yr0 LOCArIO N NOML3CR: c (EXISTING) NUN( j3AR of CgPcJs ‘F-n!CF#r'$ cm, o WN5 pouGkt f 1 PRgl VArTLY O wA/ b 2/NH NOTE': SK ETGW PHOTO BUS BENCH INVENTORY (EXISTING) LO C_ATION ; VI/SIDE OF ?cm. JusT S. of 600LD LOCA' -1O N NUMSCR: 39 N UJvi13 j or t? U 13,CA/ C H 3: 7 CITY OWNED fir.,PRLVAtrrLY oi1LF,b sONCH NOTE'! 'DO S. or Goo I.p • SK ETCH PHOTO EDGE OF \AJALK !o P.C.H. POTENTIAL UNITS • 4snmostommota { rYtliO'nNootiT' t tee• ...'--•r+--'er�...vcr"w'-,j+s„ bi.': ..S�s7lq•_- • •POTENTIAL UNITS February 13, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of February 14, 1989 ANNUAL REPORT OF ACTIVITIES - 1988 Attached is the City's first attempt at an annual review of ac- tivities, accomplishments, and trends as reported by the City staff for calendar year 1988. Such a "look back" is not auto- matically done in busy organizations, as the orientation is al- most always towards what needs to be done in the future. Such reviews are, however, valuable to an organization to recognize that, despite the many things remaining on the agenda of things to do, progress is being made and jobs are being completed. Given the limitations of time for this type of "look back", the attached certainly should not be interpreted to be a comprehen- sive review. It was suggested by Mayor Rosenberger that we pro- vide some information in this manner, and staff has endeavored within time constraints to provide an overview of 1988. In the future, should the Council desire, a more formal review and publication of information could be undertaken. The report is not intended to be overly statistical, as the monthly reports provided the Council reflect statistics on the routine activities of each department. For this reason, the at- tached annual review emphasizes the changes and emerging trends that have occurred in the City during 1988. This is not to imply that the day-to-day activities of the department are insignifi- cant, as they represent a large majority of the efforts put forth by your City staff. Your comments and input on this initial annual report are encouraged. r -- Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager KBN/ld 10 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA ANNUAL REPORT OF ACTIVITIES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1988 I. Progress on City Goals The attached status report, dated November, 1988, represents the first update of activities pursuant to the City Goals established by the City Council in July, 1988. The top five goals deserve some additional comment, as follows. A. Priority No. 1 - Improve City financial picture. City Council and staff early in the fiscal year "brain- stormed" more than sixty possible ideas of ways to im- prove revenue or decrease cost of City services. The effort to review and implement appropriate changes is not yet half way completed and is continuing. To date, the changes that have been made as a result of this ef- fort reflect the following revenue changes for imple- mented programs. All have the potential of repeating each year except the Park Grant resolution. Annual Estimate Incr. Dec. Rev. Cost Increase in residential parking permit fee Elimination of switchboard from phone system Charging boot release/impound release fee Reducing charges by bank (City Treasurer) Reduction in legal fees Resolution of longstanding State Park Grant accounting problems (one time) Increase in investment earnings (City Treasurer Elimination of Transient Occupancy Tax exemptions Elimination of Utility User Tax exemptions (potential) More frequent bidding of potential routine purchases Implementation of a fire flow fee Budget mandate 2.5% across the board reduction Pay phone revenue increased Long distance carriers added to U.U.T. Dispatch operation change to in-house 45,000 20,000 10,000 72,000 20,000 19,000 95,000 50,000 1,600 1,000 5,000 130,000 10,000 218,000 40,000 $333,600 $403,000 The broad estimate of annualized impact of changes ac- complished in 1988 = $736,600 B. Priority No. 2 - Develop Biltmore site Much effort on the part of the Council and staff went into this goal during 1988, although the culmination of that effort was a rather indecisive election in Novem- ber, 1988. The election did tend to remove at least one of the considered options, the specific plan hotel pro- posal. During 1988, the Council elected to continue to work towards a resolution of this longstanding project by appointing a task force, with the hope that a final resolution will be forthcoming in 1989. C. Priority No. 3 - Growth Management/Density Reduction By any objective view, tremendous progress was made in 1988 on this goal despite the very controversial nature of placing further restrictions on the rights of exist- ing property owners. The reductions in potential units as a result of Council actions over the past three years is estimated at more than 4,600 units. This results from the density reduction ordinance, the downzonings as a result of the consistency hearings, and implementation of the lot merger ordinance. The City Council also placed a moratorium in the Multi -Use Corridor to restrict higher density developments pending a review to be conducted in early 1989. D. Priority No. 4 (Tie) - Improve organizational effectiveness Many of the financial studies being conducted also re- late to organizational effectiveness. Several alterna- tive service delivery studies were conducted in 1988, although none resulted in findings that would necessi- tate a change in operations to date. An audit of the City's traffic safety program was conducted by the In- stitute of Traffic Safety at the University of Califor- nia, Berkeley. Also, progress was made on a City-wide records management program. In less tangible ways, City staff was directed via evaluations and policy em- phases to work towards more responsiveness to Council and citizen inquiries and concerns. The use of neigh- borhood surveys was increased regarding traffic and curb marking proposed changes, the City's policy to go well beyond legal requirements to insure public noticing was emphasized, and efforts were made to encourage consensus building and conflict resolution strategies in the han- dling of community and neighborhood controversies. Also, Police Managment division heads were reorganized and placed in a merit evaluation program designed to increase management orientation and responsiveness to policy directions of the City Council. E. Priority No. 4 (Tie) - Enforcement of Laws Illegal bootleg enforcement was again emphasized in 1988, and enforcement of conditional use permits was substantially increased by a new program coordinated by the Planning and Public Safety Departments. The noise - 2 - ordinance was revised and noise equipment ordered to augment that enforcement particularly in the area of residential/commercial conflicts. The summer beach pa- trol emphasized skateboarding and bicycle enforcement thoughout the peak beach visitor use periods. Better productivity monitoring of our police officers was initiated in order to ensure optimal productivity of the City's resources currently deployed to enforcement areas. The City Council also confirmed enforcement policy regarding animals on leashes, handbills, trash enclosures, public signage, and alcoholic beverage con- trol laws. Each received emphasis by a variety of departments during the 1988 year. II. Departmental accomplishments and trends. The following highlights of activities and trends were re- ported by the respective departments: A. Building and Safety Bootleg enforcement continued as a priority of the department. Overall permit activity decreased 10% from the prior calendar year. Developing trends include an increase in condominium development in the multi -family residential zones and an increase in remodeling of non- conforming structures. Ninety-three dwelling units were constructed in 1988, which is very consistent with prior years' statistics. B. Community Resources During 1988, there was a change in departmental policy that added responsibilities in the area of recreation programming and park development and improvements. This contributed to a name change for the Commission to re- flect this new emphasis. A successful year end financial picture for the Communi- ty Center Foundation was realized. The Foundation now has a fund balance of $10,000, which is its largest ever. A resolution of the longstanding State Park Grant ac- counting'problems resulted in considerable increased revenue and potential for new grant funds. The City Council approved a master plan for the City's park and recreation areas, representing probably the first time the City has committed to long range planning of this governmental activity. The City dedicated the new Edith Rodaway Friendship Park this year. Summer beach events generated approximately $14,000 in revenue, which is the largest ever as a result of im- plementation of the prior cost allocation study. C. Finance The fixed asset system was implemented during 1988, resulting in an appraisal of all City assets and com- puterization of a system to maintain our fixed asset records. This resulted in the elimination of the final qualification on the audit of the City's financial statement. In conjunction with General Services, a new citation system was implemented using barcoding for speed and accuracy. The new system eliminated backlog of cita- tions and allows immediate inquiry and posting of pay- ments. This has assisted response to citizen inquiry and eliminated most double payments. During 1988, the long distance carriers paying the Utility Users Tax as required by City ordinance was in- creased from three to six. The finance system on the City's computer was modified to allow direct departmental access to the finance sys- tem for immediate access to information and better con- trol of departmental budgets. The department worked with the City Treasurer to coordi- nate reassigned duties of the Deputy City Treasurer. D. General Services Regarding the City's computer system, software regarding fixed assets, parks and recreation, and report writing were installed. A new disc drive that increases the speed of our system was installed. A direct -in dial telephone system was implemented, eliminating the need for a full time switchboard operator. Regarding Cable TV, the department coordinated with the citizen's committee a subscriber survey and a review of the adequacy of our cable system. Regarding parking concerns, 1988 represented a quieting of concerns expressed by downtown merchants. This oc- curred after two consecutive years of monthly meetings and many changes in our parking enforcement program to resolve complaints in the downtown area. E. Personnel The department initiated the Employee of the Quarter and service award programs this year, as well as emphasized informal get togethers of employees to promote the bene- fits of a positive, informal organization. Five terminations of unsatisfactory employees occurred during 1988 to aid in productivity and ensure that competent and qualified employees are employed by the City. Disciplinary actions were more numerous during 1988 in an attempt to place higher standards for employee per- formance among our employees. Alternative work schedules were continued during 1988 and were monitored closely and reported regularly to the City Council. Negotiations were successfully completed in 1988 with three of the four major employee groups. In the risk management area, a change was made in third party administrators for both workers compensation and liability, and new systems for handling of those claims were successfully implemented. F. Planning As noted in the review of City goals, major efforts were made this year in the area of growth management/density reduction. The 1988 trend was clearly toward condomini- um development in the multi -family areas. G. Public Safety The move from the Regional Communications Center to the City's own dispatch system was completed. This major undertaking had several delays and snags, but was suc- cessfully implemented. Police productivity increased during the year due to the assignment of two officers to a traffic detail and em- phasis on traffic safety. The downward trend in number of arrests and cites that has occurred since April, 1987 was reversed during 1988 and appears to be continuing in the right direction. The downtown foot patrol activity was emphasized this year, with the perception that business owners and citizens alike had a positive response to the improved visibility and service. Regarding drug enforcement, a narcotics unit was formed with immediate positive results. Two officers and one reserve volunteer made numerous arrests and seized a large quantity of narcotics, confiscated three cars and over $16,000 in cash. A task force was formed with South Bay cities and the U.S. Customs Department to coordinate enforcement in the South Bay. It is likely that these programs will result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in seizures and a significant reduction in drug trafficking in the South Bay. A fire flow ordinance was adopted and considerable prog- ress has been made in working with the California Water Service Company to improve the fire flow capability within Hermosa Beach. A fire flow study was authorized to develop a master plan for the improvement and main- tenance of the City's fire flow system. Despite the unusual, three murders in the City during 1988, overall crime was down from the prior year. Her- mosa Beach's crime statistics, when compared with other South Bay cities, reflect that the City has a lower crime rate and a safer environment in which to live. G. Public Works Capital improvements are the major changes that occur via our Public Works Department, and are reported on a quarterly basis to the City Council. In 1988, major projects included sewer and storm drain improvements, street improvements, Police Department remodel, City Hall electrical upgrade, refurbishment of tennis courts at Clark Field, replacement of light standards and lights on the pier, completion of Edith Rodaway Friendship Park, and refinishing of the Community Center theatre stage. The traffic engineering function was expanded in 1988 in recognition of the substantial responsibility the City has in the traffic safety area. The permit processing of encroachments was streamlined to assist the public in meeting the City's requirements. The street lighting assessments paid by citizens was reduced during 1988. HERMOSA BEACH CITY GOALS APPROVED JULY, 1988 1ST STATUS REPORT - NOVEMBER, 1988 I D # Priority # Title Principal Depts. A 1 IMPROVE CITY FINANCIAL PICTURE ALL Status: Doing City-wide review and updating cost allocation plan and fee structures. Have increased residential parking fee, now charging for boot release, gone to direct dial system, incorporated into budget a 2.5% anticipated savings, pursuing ratification of warrants, review of open purchase order procedures, telephone accounting systems and sales tax audit, elimination of tax exemptions, energy audit initiated, pay phone revenue increased. B 2 DEVELOP BILTMORE SITE CM,ACM Status: Three resolution options on 11-8-88 ballot; report to Council on 11/22 agenda. C 3 GROWTH MANAGEMENT/DENSITY REDUCTION PLN,BLD Status: 706 lot mergers completed. Down zoning resulted in approximately 3000 less potential units. Moratorium in multi -use corridor partially to stop development at higher densities. D 4 -tie IMPROVE ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS CM, PW, PS, GS Status: Analyzing alternative methods of service delivery especially in Public Works, General Services and Public Safety. State Office of Traffic Safety to audit in December, 1988. Management audit for Public Works proposed for February, 1989 consideration. Records management efforts being initiated by General Services and Clerk's office. E 4 -tie ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS PS,PLN,BLD Status: CUP enforcement as an infraction underway in Planning and Public Safety. Police management reorganizaed to improve police enforcement responsiveness, enforcement of leash law, prohibition of signs, and requirement for trash enclosures authorized by Council on 10/25/88. Skateboard/Strand no riding rules emphasized summer, 1988, notices sent on handbills to advertisers. Sign enforcement as an infraction underway in Building Department. F 4 -tie COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF GENERAL PLAN PLN Status: Scheduled for 1988; Multi -use corridor portion already begun. Circulation element consultant work nearing completion. Advanced Planner being recruited. G 7 STANDARIZED PROCEDURES FOR CITY DEPTS.(INSTRUCTIONAL SHEETS) BLD,PW Status: Standarized outdoor dining encroachment licenses. Building has obtained samples from other jurisdictions. H 8 -tie ADD OPEN SPACE CM,ACM Status: Handshake agreement to purchase Greenbelt announced October 6, 1988. Meetings conducted with School District, Macpherson Oil, and EIR consultant to further oil drilling - revenues to go to open space. Recreation and Parks Commission to consider developing a master plan. I 8 -tie COMPLETE INCONSISTENCIES AND LOT MERGERS IN 1988 PLN Status: 706 lot mergers completed, 4 in process. J 8 -tie IMPROVE AND ENHANCE RELATIONSHIP WITH SCHOOL DISTRICT CM,PLN,PW Status: Held one joint meeting of governing bodies and one joint meeting of sub -committees. City Manager and Superintendent to attend seminar on City -School cooperative efforts. K 11 PROMOTE POSITIVE, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS ALL Status: Assisted in sale of Seaview to hotel developer, numerous meetings with hotel, office complex, and retail interests. Meetings with downtown revitalization interests on-going. Several meetings with current merchants to help maintain in -City MUC study partially to support PCH commercial activity. Two Biltmore site options further commercial. L 12 TRAFFIC CONCERNS PW,PLN Status: Circulation element in final stages by consultant, numerous traffic studies reported to Council in response to citizen concerns and initiated by staff. M 13 -tie IMPROVE PUBLIC POLICY PROCESS CM,GS Status: Increased utilization of cable notices and news releases; Trying to respond to press requests and suggest articles, abundant public noticing continued. N 13 -tie PARK AND RECREATION PROGRAM CR Status: Recreation programs being scheduled for spring. O 13 -tie REDUCE COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL CONFLICTS PLN Status: Multi -use Corridor study to look at as well as general plan review. Numerous complaints processed. 2 P 16 -tie IMPROVE CITY IMAGE/BEAUTIFICATION PLN,PW,CR,PS Status: Trash enclosure requirements and illegal sign enforcement approved 10-25-88. City Hall and City entryways funded this year for upgrades. Park and Recreation Commission conducted first inspection of related facilities. Fire Appreciation Day re-initiated and held on Q 16 -tie INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PW Status: Sewer design, bidding and construction is on-going. Several traffic studies implemented. $55,000 grant obtained for storm drains. R 16 -tie UTILIZATION OF VOLUNTEERS PER Status: All employees' recognition dinner this year to include commissioners and other volunteers. Via the Foundation alone, 75 to 100 volunteers are utilized in a year. Trustees and scouts used in Public Works. S 19 -tie PARKING CONCERNS GS Status: Motorcycle parking approved on 14th Street lot. Survey of potential lots adjacent to PCH initiated. T 19 -tie PUBLIC SAFETY PS Status: Active fire inspection program continuing. Forfeiture funds appropriated in budget for drug enforcement. U 19 -tie MORE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT/EVENTS CR Status: The Community Resources Department is just now back to full staff and will be addressing. ✓ 22 CONSIDER ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PLN Status: Architectural review study underway; completion due 12/88. W 23 STREAMLINING COUNCIL MEETINGS CM Status: Agendas shortened by 1-3 pages, new time limits 4 established, more on consent calendar, attempting to reduce repeat items. X 24 IMPROVE PUBLIC COMMUNICATION PROCESS CR Status: Due to initiative limiting newsletters, no progress to report. New marquee under discussion may be a useful tool to increase public information. 4 February, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council of February 14, 1989 RIGHT OF WAY ATSF ACQUISITION RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement with the firm of Stradling, Yocca, Carlson and Rauth for legal services in connection with the purchase of the ATSF right of way. BACKGROUND At the Adjourned Regular Meeting of January 31, 1989, the City Council instructed staff to continue to work with Mr. Ayres and associates toward acquisition documents and costs, procedures, step by step basis, information on influx of cash in three years and'an estimate of costs and a proposed contract for the consultants. ANALYSIS The following documents are transmitted in response to the Council request. Letter dated February 3, 1989 from Stradling, Yocca, Carlson and Rauth outlining legal costs associated with issuance of certificates of participation ($27,500) and costs in the event that the issuance is abandoned ($5,000 cap). Letter dated February 1, 1989 from Seidler -Fitzgerald out- lining costs for MSI Incorporated, Seidler -Fitzgerald, and the trustee in the event that COP issuance is abandoned. All fees are contingent on issuance of COP's. Printing costs for the official statement would not exceed $15,000. Letter from Seidler -Fitzgerald dated February 9, 1989, out- lining an early pay-off schedule commencing in 1992 and a step by step sales schedule for issuance of COP's. The services of bond counsel are necessary for any issuance, whether it be certificates of participation or general obligation bonds. Noted: Kevin B. Nort craft Viki Copeland City Manager Finance Administerator 11 FRITZ R. STRAOLING NICK E. YOCCA C. CRAIG CARLSON WILLIAM R. RAUTH 111 K. C. SCHAAF RICHARD C. GOODMAN JOHN J. MURPHY • THOMAS P. CLARK, JR. BEN A. FRYOMAN DAVID R. MCEWEN PAUL L. GALE RUDOLPH C. SHEPARD ROBERT J. KANE M. D. TALBOT BRUCE C. STUART DOUGLAS F. HIGHAM E. KURT YEAGER ROBERT J. WHALEN ROBERT E. RICH PETER J. TENNYSON THOMAS A. PISTONE SCOTT E. M.CONNELL RANDALL J. SHERMAN BRUCE W. FEUCHTER MARK J. HUEBSCH KIRK F. MALDONADO KAREN A. ELLIS ELIZABETH C. GREEN ERNEST C. BROWN BRUCE D. MAY PEGI A. GROUNDWATER DONALD J. HAMMAN JOHN J. SWIGART• JR. STAADLING, YOCCA, CARLSON & RAUTH A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION STEPHEN G. MELIKIAN MICHAEL A. ZABLOCKI NEILA R. BERNSTEIN CELESTE STAHL BRADY CHRISTOPHER J. KILPATRICK WILLIAM A. MAROUIS JOEL H. GUTH JULIE M. M.COY DAWN C. HONEYWELL OWEN B. LUBOW LAWRENCE B. COHN STEPHEN T. FREEMAN PERRY J. TARNOFSKY ROBERT A. WILSON CHERYL A. DOW NICHOLAS J. YOCCA LISA M. KITSUTA JOHN D. STEINBERG ROBERT C. FUNSTEN ALETA LOUISE BRYANT RONALD A. VAN BLARCOM J. MICHAEL VAUGHN CINDY R. HUGHES DENISE E. HARBAUGH BARBARA L. ZEID ERIC T. SALTZMAN MICHAEL J. RUBINO MICHAEL J. LALIBERTE GARY P. DOWNS JOHN 0. IRELAND MICHAEL J. PENDERGAST ANDREW P. RIFKIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1600 POST OFFICE BOX 7660 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660-6441 TELEPHONE (714) 640-7035 TELECOPIER (714) 640-7332 • (714) 640-7335 (714) 721-9263 • February 3, 1989 Honorable City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Ladies and Gentlemen: JOHN E. BRECKENRIDGE RENA C. STONE OF COUNSEL . SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE SUITE 1900 601 MONTGOMERY STREET • SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-2668 TELEPHONE (415) 788-7421 TELECOPIER (415) 982-7372 We have been informed by Mr. Kevin Northcraft, City Manager, that you may desire to employ the firm of Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth to represent the City of Hermosa Beach ("City") in connection with the acquisition of park property and the authorization, issuance and sale of $5,000,000 certificates of participation by the trustee and underwriter. In order to utilize certificates of participation, it is anticipated that a nonprofit corporation will be formed which will acquire the park property from the present owner and sell it to the City pursuant to an installment purchase agreement. We will be very pleased to undertake these legal services. The legal services to be rendered by this firm in connection with the certificates of participation issue will include general advice to and consultation with you and your staff, and your financing consultant to determine the best method of financing the park property; forming the nonprofit corporation; drafting the agreements between the City and the nonprofit corporation; drafting all ordinances, resolutions, notices and other documents required for the authorization, issuance and sale of the certificates; examination of the transcript and issuing our legal approving opinion to the purchasers of the certificates. Honorable City Council City of Hermosa Beach February 3, 1989 Page Two For said legal services our fee will be $27,500.00 payable following the issuance of the Certificates. In addition to the above fees, we will be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with printing, reproduction of documents, word processing, long distance telephone• calls, outside messenger service, travel outside of Southern California at the City's request, and similar items. The costs will be billed at closing based on an estimate of costs incurred to that date and estimated to be incurred following closing. The scope of the services herein is to act only as special counsel and does not include services in connection with any litigation or other services not stated above. If we are requested to do other legal work outside the scope of services as special counsel or to represent the nonprofit corporation after the delivery of the certificates, we would bill for that work at the hourly rate of the attorney performing the service. The special counsel fee will be paid following the sale of the certificates. In the event the certificates are not issued, we will be paid a fee for the services performed, based upon the hourly rates of the attorneys in the firm undertaking the work prior to abandonment. It is estimated that assuming drafts of the documents are prepared and that meetings with staff and its council have occurred, the cost to be incurred prior to the time the City Council would be in a position to go forward or abandon the financing should not exceed $5,000. It is acknowledged that Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth may have clients which may, from time to time, have interests adverse to the City and said firm reserves the right to represent such clients in matters not connected with the issuance and sale of the certificates or with the City. Honorable City Council City of Hermosa Beach February 3, 1989 Page Three If the terms and conditions of this agreement are satisfactory to you, please return to us a copy of this letter executed by an authorized officer of the City. We are looking forward to working with you and we will use our best efforts to obtain results beneficialto the City. Respectfully. submitted, STRADLING, YOCCA; CARLSON & RAUTH Fritz - Stradling FRS:cr TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT APPROVED THIS DAY OF. , 1989. Authorized Officer of the City of Hermosa Beach 3151n/2337/06 • Seidler -Fitzgerald ✓ ' Public Finance .\ Division of Seidler Aindec Securities Inc. • Member: New York Stock Exchange, I — Mr. Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Northcraft: February 1, 1989 RECEIVED FEB 0 21989 Re: Certificates of Participation Railroad Open Space Purchase As a follow-up to the City Council meeting on Tuesday, January 31, the question arose with regard to the total liability of the City in the event the above captioned financing is cancelled prior to the sale. The various parties involved with the issuance of Certificates of Participation and the costs involved in the event of a cancellation are: • 1) Management Services Institute - No cost. Contingent basis. 2) Seidler -Fitzgerald Public Finance - No Cost. Contingent basis. 3) Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth - Mr. Stradling will be sending to you a letter outlining their total costs on an hourly basis with a not -to -exceed amount. 4) Printing of Official Statement - The printing costs in the event of a cancellation should not exceed $15,000. 5) Trustee - No cost. Contingent basis. Therefore, the total costs to the City in the event of a cancellation of a Certificate of Participation issue would be the hourly charges by Mr. Stradling and some printing costs. If you have,any questions with regard to the above, please give me a call. Sincerely, Kenneth D. •.gh Managing •i ector KDO/kk cc: Douglas W. Ayres Fritz R. Stradling, Esq. 515 South Figueroa Street • Los Angeles, California 90071-3396 • (213) 624-4232 Seidler -Fitzgerald Public Finance .\ Division of Seidler Aindcc Securities Inc. • `Icrnbcr: New York Stock Exchange, Inc. February 9, 1989 Ms. Vicki Copeland Finance Director City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: City of Hermosa Beabh, Certificates of Participation Railroad Right -of -Way Acquisition Dear Vicki: Enclosed is a sample sales schedule for the above captioned issue outlining all the necessary steps. After the Council makes the decision to proceed with the Certificate of Participation issue, the first draft of documents would be distributed two weeks later. The entire process will take approximately 60 days, with the sale in 45 days and the closing date two weeks later. The question also arose at the last Council meeting as to the amount of an early pay-off of the Certificates of Participation. The following table presents the amount necessary to pay-off the Certificates of Participation commencing in the third year and each year thereafter. There is no pre -payment penalty in the event of an early retirement of the Certificates by the City. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Certificates of Participation Early Pay -Off Requirements Amount of Year Pay -Off 1992 $4,120,000 1993 3,640,000 1994 3,125,000 1995 2,580,000 1996 1,995,000 1997 1,375,000 1998 710,000 1999 -0- If you have any questions with regard to the enclosed schedule or the above information feel free to give me a call. KDO/kk Enclosure cc: Douglas W. Ayres Sincerely, Kenneth D. 0 Managing D ettor 515 South Figueroa Street • Los Angeles, California 90071-3396 • (213) 624-4232 C./ Seidler -Fitzgerald Public Finance .\ Division of Seidler A!ndec Securities Inc. • Member: New liork Stock Exchange, Inc. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Railroad Right -of -Way Acquisition Certificates of Participatian Sales Schedule (as of February 9, 1989) ��urn�/e Responsible Dates Activity Party 2/14/89 City Council authorizes city staff to City proceed with the issuance of certificates of participation 2/27/89 - Distribute first draft of Preliminary Official Statement (P.O.S.) and legal documents S -F, SC - Notify California Debt Advisory SC Commission 3/8/89 All hands meeting to review P.O.S. and All Parties documents at the City at 9 a.m. '3/10/89 Distribute second draft of P.O.S. and legal documents including to the rating agencies S -F, BC 3/15/- Rating agency meetings in New York City City, S -F, SC 3/17/89 (if needed) 3/21/89 Distribute drafts of the P.O.S. and legal documents to the City Clerk for inclusion in the March 28 City Council meeting Agenda Packet 3/28/89 City Council approves distribution of P.O.S., approves all documents regarding the issuance of Certificates and authorizes City Manager to execute all documents S -F, SC City 3/29/89 - Print and mail P.O.S. S -F - Receive ratings S -F 4/3/89 Price issue S -F 4/4/89 - Sale of Certificates S -F 515 South Figueroa Street • Los Angeles, California 90071-3396 • (213) 624-4232 Responsible Date Activity Party 4/4/89 - City Manager executes Purchase City, S -F Agreement 4/17/89 Pre-closing SC 4/18/89 Closing All Parties FEBRUARY 1989 MARCH . 1989 APRIL 1989 SMTWTFS SMTWTFS S M T W T• F S 1 2 3 4• 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10.11 2 3 4 5 6 7.8 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22. 26 27 28 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Parties: City: City of Hermosa Beach SC: Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth (Special Counsel) S -F: •Seidler -Fitzgerald Public Finance MSI: Management Services Institute February 6, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of February 14, 1989 INFORMATIONAL REPORT REGARDING APPLICATIONS FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE(S) IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council: 1. Give Staff direction regarding the lodging of protests against issuance of "On -Sale" Alcoholic Beverage Licenses in the downtown area. 2. Receive and file this item. BACKGROUND: In the past, Council directed staff to protest the issuance of any "off -sale" alcoholic beverage license in the downtown area of the City. ANALYSIS: Since there has been no policy direction regarding "on -sale" licenses in the downtown area, staff recently filed a protest regarding the award of a license at the Classico restaurant located at #66-68 Pier Avenue. This protest was filed because the license privilege states that the license authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption on the premises as well as sale of beer and wine for consumption off the premises where sold. Staff contacted the District Administrator of the Alcoholic Beverage Control regarding this type of license. Staff was informed that this type of license did authorize the sale of carry -out beer and wine unless there was a conditional use placed on the license. Staff asks that Council give policy direction regarding this type of "on -sale" license in the downtown area for guidance in the future. Steve S. isniewski Director of Public Safety CONCUR: Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager 12 LICENSE TYPES AND PRIVILEGES Listed below are the various types of retail licenses issued by the Department and each license privilege. Type 20 Off -sale beer and wine Authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption off the premises where sold. Type 21 Off -sale general Authorizes the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits for consumption off the premises where sold. Type 40 On -sale beer (Type 60, on -sale beer seasonal) Authorizes the sale of beer for consumption on the premises where sold and the sale of beer for consumption off the premises where sold. Type 61 On -sale beer public premises Authorizes the sale of beer for consumption on the premises wherein no person under 21 years of age is al- lowed (see Section 25663.5 for exception) plus the sale of beer for consumption off the premises where sold. Type 41 On -sale beer and wine eating place Authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption on a bona fide public eating place type premises plus the sale of beer and wine for consumption off the premises where sold. May possess brandy, rum and liqueurs for use solely for cooking purposes. Type 42 On -sale beer and wine public premises Authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption on the premises wherein no person under 21 years of age is allowed (see Section 25663.5 for exception) plus the sale of beer and wine for consumption off the premises where sold. Type 47 On -sale general eating place (Type 49, on -sale general seasonal) Authorizes the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits for consumption on a bona fide public eating place type premises plus the sale of beer and wine only for consump- tion off the premises where sold. Type 48 On -sale general public premises Authorizes the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits for consumption on the premises wherein no person under 21 years of age is allowed (see Section 25663.5 for exception) plus the sale of beer and wine only for consumption off the premises where sold. Under certain situations the Department may place reasonable conditions upon a license, such as restrictions as to hours of sale, employment of designated persons, display of signs, restrictions on 18 enter will 41, licens In specii distill, one tc for pe Depa: licens Ar. bever show' been the fii If quc local . On privily • I • • City of 21ermosa 1�3. eaclt_i _x. January 27, 1989 Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 Warren Tankersley., District Administrator Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control P.O. Box 6500 Inglewood, CA 90306 Mr. Tankersley: This letter will serve as formal protest to the issuance of an on -sale beer and wine license at 66-68 Pier Avenue in Hermosa Beach. This protest is being lodged on the grounds that there is an over concentration of liquor license's in the City of Hermosa Beach. Additionally, this location is within the boundaries of patrol district #1 and could cause additional police problems. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. -r:1y Steve Wisniewski Director of Public Safety L89-6 City Hall (213) 376-6984 • Community Center 379.3312 / 376-6984 • Fire Department 376.2479 / 376-6984 • Police Department 376-7981 / 376-6984 February 6, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of February 24, 1989 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A LEVEL OF COMPLETENESS OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES IN LINE WITH OTHER SOUTH BAY CITIES Background: As a result of the many studies conducted during the current fiscal year to review the cost effectiveness of our programs and activities, staff has reviewed the cost of Planning Commission minutes in our community versus others in the South Bay. The results of that review are contained in the attached memo, dated December 7, 1988. Analysis: The review indicates that the City currently pays the highest hourly rate as well as one of the highest rate per hour of meeting time for preparation of our minutes. If our minutes were to be more in line with the completeness of minutes in other South Bay cities, the savings of approximately $1,500 per year could result. Barring any reasons for our minutes to be more complete than other communities, it seems appropriate that the City should take advantage of this opportunity to reduce its costs. Because individual conversations with Councilmembers reflected differing views on this subject, it seems appropriate that the Council formally act to implement this cost reduction effort. Kevin B. Northca?aft City Manager KBN/ld cc: Planning Department 1 13a CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager FROM: Alex Hernandez, Assistant Planner .+ SUBJECT: Survey of South Bay Cities costs for Planning Commission minutes secretary DATE: December 7, 1988 BACKGROUND On September 7, 1988 the Planning Department submitted a survey which indicated our minute secretary is highly paid. At the rate of $17 dollars per hour, she is the highest paid minute secretary in the South Bay. (survey attached) Following review, you directed staff to also look at billing time and the extensiveness of minutes of other cities. In response, staff has collected sample minutes from 9 South Bay cities and surveyed their average length of Planning Commission meeting and average number of hours billed. (survey attached) ANALYSIS BILLING TIME The predominate billing time for the cities surveyed is double the actual length of the meeting. Palos Verde Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes, however pay a flat rate, regardless the length of the meeting. The other exception is the City of Redondo Beach, whose billing time works out to roughly 5 times the length of the meeting. The City of Hermosa' Beach billing time is roughly 3 times the actual length of the meeting. EXTENSIVENESS OF MINUTES Staff has reviewed sample minutes from other cities and found our minutes to include generally more dialogue; Lawndale, Palos Verde Estates, and Rancho Palos Verde have comparable minutes. It should be noted, that some of the other cities have more items on their agendas. 1 HISTORICAL FACTOR The current minute secretary was hired because of poorly prepared minutes of which the City Council was critical. Twice the secretary was terminated to lower cost and twice she was rehired because the lower priced minute secretaries were not preparing minutes in a satisfactory manner. RECOMMENDATION Retain the current secretary and request briefer minutes in line with other cities, i.e., a ratio of 2 hours to 1 hour of meeting time, resulting in a annual savings of $1,532. CONCUR: Midha'el Sch ubach Planning Director 2 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager FROM: Alex Hernandez, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Survey of South Bay Cities costs for Planning Commission minutes secretary DATE: September 7, 1988 The following data is the result of a phone survey of other South Bay Area Cities: 1) Redondo Beach: The City of Redondo Beach employs a part-time minute secretary at the rate of $14 dollars per hour. 2) Torrance: The City of Torrance utilizes a full-time staff person from the City Clerks office. The Clerk is paid time and a half, and is guaranteed a minimum of 2 hours. 3) Manhattan Beach: The City of Manhattan Beach employs a part-time secretary at the rate of $12 dollars per hour. (on contract) 4) Lawndale: The City of Lawndale utilizes a full-time staff person from the Planning Department. The staff person accumulates compensation time or receives overtime pay. 5) El Segundo: The City of El Segundo employs a part-time secretary at the rate of $11.71 dollars per hour. However, following a six month review, the secretary may receive $12.97 dollars per hour. (on contract) 6) Lomita: The City of Lomita utilizes a full-time staff person from the Planning Department. The staff person accumulates compensation time at the rate of time and a half. 7) Rolling Hills Estates: The City of Rolling Hills Estates employs a part-time secretary at the rate of $11 dollars per hour. If the meeting shall exceed midnight, the secretary receives time and a half. 8) Palos Verde Estates: The City of Palos Verdes Estates employs a part-time secretary at the flat rate of $200 dollars per meeting. 9) Rancho Palos Verdes: The City of Ranchos Palos Verdes employs a part-time secretary at the flat rate of $150 dollars per meeting. 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alex Hernandez, Assistant Planner FROM: Ingrid Rademaker, Planning Aide SUBJECT: Survey of South Bay Cities costs for Planning Commission minutes secretary DATE: December 1, 1988 The following is data on the average length of Planning Commission meetings for other cities in the South Bay Area and also data on the average number of hours billed by secretaries taking and transcribing minutes for the meetings: City Average length Average number of of meetings hours billed 1) Redondo Beach 4.5 hrs 24.66 hrs 2) Torrance 3-3.5 hrs 5-5.5 hrs 3) Manhattan Beach 2 hrs 4 hrs 4) Lawndale 3 hrs 7 hrs 5) El Segundo 2-3 hrs 6 hrs 6) Lomita 3 hrs 6 hrs 7) Rolling Hills Estates 3 hrs 6 hrs 8) Palos Verdes Estates 5 hrs $200 flat rate 9) Rancho Palos Verdes 5 hrs $150 flat rate February 6, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of February 14, 1989 RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE INFORMATIONAL REPORT REGARDING THE REVIEW OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCH OPERATION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council receive and file this report. BACKGROUND: The City of Hermosa Beach began operating its own public safety dispath on December 29, 1988. During the first month of operation, the emergency 911 system failed on three separate occassions for three different reasons. This coupled with the fact that the entire changeover was a massive undertaking, prompted us to seek an unbiased audit of the entire system. This audit will be conducted in order to examine the system and identify any weaknesses or areas that we may have overlooked in putting the system together. There will be an audit of the radio system and the telephone system with a complete overview by a communications consultant. It is anticipated that this audit will be completed by the next Council meeting. Reslh tfullIf Sttmi tted , Steve S. Wisniewski Director of Public Safety CONCUR. _74,; _ 'Kevin B. Northcraft, City Manager CITY MANAGER COMMENT: We will provide an oral report on the status of this effort at your meeting of February 14, 1989. } 13 b February 8, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of February 14, 1989 REQUEST TO CONSIDER HOUSING ASSISTANCE AS PART OF ANNUAL REVIEW OF CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT Recommendation: That the City Council authorize the City Manager to obtain a loan from the City to assure residency within the City, provided that the loan is structured such that it is no cost to the City, that the return on investment is equivalent to other investments made by the City Treasurer, and that the loan is callable on the find- ing of need by the City Council. Background: As part of the annual review of my employment agreement with the City of Hermosa Beach, I would like to ask the Council to con- sider providing a mechanism that will help enable me to reside within the City of Hermosa Beach. Such housing assistance is increasingly common in California, though it is perhaps more com- mon in the northern part of the State. Consideration of housing assistance by cities is appropriate for these reasons: 1) the nature of management profession, which requires moves during one's career, 2) the importance to a community for key management personnel to live in town both for emergency response as well as to better relate to the citizens and their concerns, and 3) the impact that Proposition 13 has on the frequent sale of residen- ces. Attached is information obtained from the League of Cal- ifornia Cities providing a range of types of housing assistance made available in the State to City Managers. Analysis: In my own experience, I find it very valuable to live within the City in which I am employed. Obviously, residency does increase the chances that I will be more immediately available in the event of emergency. Just as important, the contact with citizens, the sharing of the services they receive, and relating to their experiences and concerns is a significant part of being a successful City Manager. While exchanging equity in my current home for a house in Hermosa Beach is an appropriate personal in- vestment, the impact of Proposition 13 will cause my property taxes to go from approximately $700 to more than $5,000 per year. This impact could be partially offset by a competitive interest rate on my mortgage for the new home that at the same time would not cost the City. This would be accomplished by the City taking a portion of its more than seven 'million dollars in investment assets and investing it in a mortgage. It is estimated that the first mortgage would be between $200,000 and $250,000, with my down payment being approximately 40% of the purchase price. The - 1 - 14p employee would pay all costs of the loan and pay an interest rate at least equal if not slightly above that currently being re- turned on the City Treasurer's investments. Further, the loan could be subject to a mandatory five year re- view, as well as being capable of being called with 120 days notice if economic necessity requires. The loan also would be called on voluntary termination and would not be assumable. It would represent a first trust deed fifteen to thirty years, with the call-in provisions noted. While this procedure would obviously benefit my family in en- abling us to move into Hermosa Beach, it would also provide an appropriate precedent for the City to begin to consider forms of housing assistance for future employees. With housing prices continuing to increase in Hermosa Beach, it is unlikely that fu- ture employees will be able to live within the community without some form of assistance. As noted above, I personally feel that it is important that key management personnel better relate to the City by being one of its citizens. Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager KBN/ld cc: City Treasurer City Attorney Innovative Provisions in California Citi• Management Agreements I. Introduction California city managers have some language in their agreements which can easily be considered innovative. Without describing the pros and cons, the following gives examples of the more innovative provisions. II. Housing Assistance III. Relocation Assistance IV. Manager Evaluations V. Resignation - Not During Budget Period VI. Auto with Two -Way Radio VII. Manager Determines Compensation Time Off VIII. Removal Requiring Four -Fifths Vote IX. Removal Not Allowed Just After Election Appendix. Housing Assistance - Loan with Variable Rate II. Housing Assistance The cost of housing most places is very high, but in some cities it is fiscally out of reach for the average Manager. The following is language some cities/Managers have used to alleviate this problem. Example #1 Housing Assistance. "It is recognized that (employee) will incur increased costs associated with acquiring housing in the City. It is the intent of the City to provide reasonable assistance which will allow (employee) to purchase housing in the City comparable to his residence in (other city) as part of his employment compensation. The essential objective of this assistance shall be an arrangement wherein (employee) expends no greater a percentage of his base salary for housing in (city) than the percentage he currently expends in (other city). (Employee) and the City Council shall negotiate mutually acceptable terms and conditions of such housing assist- ance on an equitable basis through, but not necessarily limited to a direct loan, a monthly differential mortgage payment, co -ownership arrangement, or the like." Example ##2 "Section 6. The City hereby agrees to pay up to $4,500 in buyer's closing costs and moving expenses,to assist the City Manager in establishing a residence in the City. The City further agrees to loan the City Manager up to $32,000 ("the City loan") to be used for a down payment on a residence in Campbell and for improve- ments to said Campbell residence and/or the City Manager's current residence at (former address). "Repayment of the City loan shall be secured by a deed of trust against "the property," the lien of which deed of trust shall be subordinate to a deed of trust securing the obligation evidenced by a note to (the Bank), which note has as unpaid principal balance of approximately $54,500, a remaining term of approx- mately 261 years, and an interest rate of 9-3/4% per annum. The amount of the City loan shall not exceed an amount which, when added to the amount of principal unpaid on (the bank) note on the date the city loan is made, equals 80% of the fair market value of "the property" as determined by appraisal. "Until repaid, the City loan shall bear interest at a rate to be adjusted on October 1 of each year to equal the City's average annual interest earnings rate for the preceding fiscal year, plus 1/4%. Principal, plus interest, as it accrues, shall be paid in monthly installments, fully amortized over a 15 -year period, with the amount of monthly payments to be adjusted annually to reflect interest rate adjustments. "All unpaid principal and accrued but unpaid interest shall be due and payable at the earlist of 15 years from the date of the making of the City loan, the sale of the (former property), 90 days from the City Manager's termination of employ- ment with the City. All or any part of the unpaid principal may be paid before maturity without penalty." Example #3 "Housing assistance shall be provided to the Manager as follows: "1. Manager has represented to the City that he will acquire a single family residence for the use of he and his family in the City. "2. The City feels it is important for the Manager to reside in the City due to the nature of the duties of his position. "3. The City shall furnish, on request of the Manager, to the Manager, a loan of up to (dollar amount) to assist in the acquisition of a residence. "4. Said loan shall be evidenced by a Promissory Note, secured by a Second Deed of Trust on any subject residential property, bearing interest at (percentage) per annum on the unpaid balance. "5 Said Note shall provide that the accumulated interest and principal shall be due and payable upon the sale or transfer of title of the residence, or the cessation of the Manager residing at said residence, of the Manager's ter- mination of employment with the City, whichever occurs first. The Manager may prepay any portion of principal or interest at any time without penalty. "6. The City shall share in the net appreciation of equity in the said residential real property in the proportion that the sum loaned by the City towards ac- quisition of the said real property bears to the total purchase price of the property." Example ?f4 "It is considered City policy that Employee is to live within the City limits of (city) while he is in office, in a City -owned house at (address) which shall be provided free of charge for the use of the City Manager. If the employee is terminated by Employer, Employee 'shall have 90 days following notice of termination to vacate the City -owned house, provided however that Employee will vacate the premises immediately if Employee is discharged because of the commission of any illegal act involving personal gain." Example #5 "Section 6. Housing Requirements 1. For the convenience of the City, Employee is required to live in a City owned home located at (address) as a condition of his employment. Em- ployee will vacate said home upon termination. 2. The City will supply the aforementioned house at do cost to the Employee. Employee will pay the cost of electric and gas services. City will pay the cost of water services." III. Relocation - The cost of moving is sometimes born by the city. Example #1 "(1 (Employee) shall be reimbursed for all reasonable expenses of relocating, packing, and m 'ng himself, his family, and his personal property from (other city) to City, which sha incluse the cost of unpacking, any storage costs necessary and insurance charges. "(ii) (Employee) shall be reimbursed for reasonable travel costs incurred by him for the purpose of selling his house in (other city) and obtaining housing in (this city); to wit, City shall reim a (employee) for coach airfare for two trips, the first round trip for him and his wi from (other city) to (this city) for the purpose of securing housing, the second trip or either (employee) or (spouse) to return to (other city) to accomplish the sale of j is (other city) residence. "(iii) (Employee) shall use his best effort;'tq sell his house in (other city) as soon as feasible. In the event the house is not sold upon his employment with the City, City shall pay him the monthly sum of $455, and any roration thereof, until his (other city) residence is sold, for a period up to four -,months, in recognition of his expenses in making two house payments." IV. Manager Evaluations Example 111 A. "Annual Performance and Goals Review "The City Council agrees to provide time for and participate semi-annual re ews foree CITY will permit the CITY MANAGER to take compensatory_ time off as he shall deem ap opriate during said normal office hours." VIII. Removal Requiring 4/5 Vote Example 411 "The City Manager may be removed by a four-fifths (4/5ths) vote of the total City Council. Before voluntarily resigning his position, the City Manager agrees to give the City Council at lea6t sixty (60) days' notice in writing of his intention to resign, stating the reasons therefore." Example 412 "Section 1. Compensation and Term of Service. City agrees to pay the City Manager at the rate of the sum of (salary) annually .as compensation for the retention of the above mentioned services for the fiscal year 1974/75, and such compensation thereafter as the City Council from time to time may determine. The City Manager shall serve for an indefinite term and may be removed by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the total City Council members." IX. Removal Not Allowed Just After Election Example 411 "Notwithstanding subsection A above (relating to removal), the MANAGER shall not be removed from office, other than for willful misconduct in office, during or within a period of ninety (90) days next succeeding any general or special municipal election held in which a member or members of the City Council is elected, or at any time a new member is appointed to the City Council; the purpose and intent of this provision is to allow any newly elected of appointed member of the City Council or a reorganized City Council to observe the actions and ability of the MANAGER in the performance of the powers and duties of his office. After the expiration of said ninety (90) day period the provisions of subsection A above shall apply." APPENDIX Housing Assistance - Loan with Variable Rate "TERM OF HOUSING ASSISTANCE. "A. Loan. At any time within (employee) discretion, so long as he is employed as City Manager for the City, (employee) may request housing assistance from City in the form of a loan not to exceed Seventy Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($70,000.00). The loan shall be used to purchase a single family residence, of (employee's) choosing, which is located within the City, and shall be occupied by (employee) as a primary, owner -occupied residence. The loan term shall be a maximum of thirty (30) years, except as provided in Paragraphs 3(E) and 3(G) hereafter. "B. Rate of Interest. The rate of interest initially charged on the loan shall equal the interest rate received by the City on the investment of all City funds for the most recently concluded fiscal year, as calculated and determined by the City Treasurer. The initial agreement, and shall thereafter be adjusted on each fifth anniversary of the agreement to the interest rate received by the city for the then most re- cently concluded calendar year. "The rate of return for City shall be calculated by the City Treasurer and shall be computed in the following manner: "The average rate of return on the City's portfolio of investment shall be com- puted by dividing the actual interest cash received during the year immediately preceding the five-year period by the average of the total City investments shown on the City's accounting books at the end of each month during said year. "The Treasurer may review and utilize such documents as she deems appropriate and necessary to establish the rate and to assure that all items of Treasury's cash investment are included in the calculations. Any interference with the City Treasurer's determination of the interest rate on this lodn by (employee) or any person acting on (employee's),behalf may be considered by City , in its sole dis- cretion, as a breach of the loan conditions. "City's rate of return shall, in each instance, be based upon a gross rate of return without deductions for the cost of salaries, borrowing, etc. There shall be no limit, excepting existing law, to circumscribe those things in which City may invest. "C. Down Payment. (Employee) must establish an equity in the residence he proposes to purchase which is equal to substantially all of the net equity he realizes from the sale of his prior residence, or 19% of the total purchase price, whichever is greater. "D. Loan a First or Second Lien. The loan must constitute either a first or second lien upon the subject residence, to be evidenced by a promissory note secured by a deed of a trust. "E. Miscellaneous Costs. (Employee) shall be responsible for all costs associated with the purchase and sale of a residence, e.g., brokerage fees, title report and insurance, escrow fees, fire insurance, etc., excepting that neither points nor loan fees shall be charged against (employees) by City. (Employee) shall obtain a title report which endorses City as a beneficiary on the title insurance policy. (Employee) shall obtain, at his expense, fire insurance based upon the purchase price of the residence with City as beneficiary to the extenct of its loan. "(Employee) shall obtain at his expense a termite and other inspections deemed necessary by City. In the event City determines, in the exercise of its discretion, that its loan is not adequately secured because of defects in the residence, because of defects in title, or because of a low appraisal, City may refuse to make any part or all of the loan. "F. Foreclosure. City shall have all rights to foreclosure that exist pursuant to law. "G. Loan Due on Sale, on Employment Terminaton. Any loan obtained by (employee), in accordance with this agreement, shall become due and payable upon sale or other transfer of the purchased residence in whole or in part. In this respect, (employee) acknowledges the holding in Wellenkamp v. Bank of America (1978) 21 Cal. 3d 943; Cal. Rptr. 379; and agrees that this loan shall not be assumable by any subsequent buyer, in that it is specifically negotiated as part of the City Manager's compensation and that the general aspects of the City Manager/City Council relationship indicate that the loan is fashioned for (employee) alone. "Further, it is agreed that upon termination of (employee) employment as City Manager for City, the loan shall be payable in full within One Hundred and Twenty (120) days from the date of termination. "H. Prepayment; Refinancing. (Employee) may prepay all or a portion of the loan re- ceived without penalty at any time within the term thereof. "At such time that the interest rate which (employee) may obtain in the open mortgage market is equivalent to or less than that rate which (employee) will be paying pursuant to this agreement. (Employee) may repay Ills loan and refinance, at his discretion. "I. Payment. Periodic Payments by (employee) to City shall not be required, but may be made at (employee's) discretion, pursuant to Paragraph 3(H) hereof. The entire amount of principal and interest due City shall be paid within One Hundred and Twenty (120) days of (employee) termination of employment as provided in Paragraph 3(G) hereof, or immediately out of escrow if (employee) sells or transfers his interest in the residence to a third party, or failing either of the above, in no event later than thirty (30) years from the date of the loan as provided in Para- graph 3(A) hereof. Interest shall be accumulated and added to principal during the term of the loan on an annual basis. "J. Year End Statement. City shall provide (employee) with a year and statement showing the amounts, if any paid to principal and the amount paid to interest, and the balance due on principal and interest." y February 6, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council of February 14, 1989 SUPPORT FOR BAN OF MILITARY STYLE WEAPONS IN CALIFORNIA Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve sending a letter to our legislators in support of outlawing military style weapons in California as well as supporting stronger penalties for those who use military style weapons in the commission of a crime. Background: There has been considerable news coverage of a growing concern in California regarding the use of military style weapons by gang members and in the commission of crimes. Councilwoman Simpson requested and received the attached resolution from the Board of Supervisors reflecting support for a ban on these weapons by the Board's action on January 24, 1989. Analysis: Military style weapons currently are openly available in California and do not require even the waiting period required for hand guns. While arguments can be made that there are lawful civilian purposes for any gun sold in California, there does not appear to be a valid civilian purpose for the availability of military style weapons to the general public. These weapons appear to be specifically designed for large scale assault applications that contravene public safety in a civilian environment. Kevin B. Northc'raft City Manager KBN/ld Steve Wisniewski Public Safety Director SYN. NO. MOTION BY SUPERVISOR EDELMAN At the Board meeting of February 23, 1988, this Board adopted my comprehensive 17 -point anti -gang violence motion aimed at suppressing the increased drug related gang violence in Los Angeles County. One of the points called for support of AB4545 (Roos) which would have outlawed the possession, manufacture or sale of military -style weapons such as the UZI and AK -47 semi-automatic assault rifles. Unfortunately, this bill failed in the State Legislature last year, despite the support of the Sheriff and other law enforcement agencies in the State. As this Board is well aware, the use of military -style weapons in the hands of gang members continues to escalate. There have been press reports of law enforcement officers shot and killed by these assault rifles and innocent bystanders, many of these children, also falling victim to these powerful weapons used by gang members. In January, 1988, this Board also voted to support legislation to require stronger penalties, including life imprisonment, when military style weapons are used in the Commission of a crime. r MOTION BY SUPERVISOR SYN. NO. In view of the increased frequency of attacks involving assault weapons on private citizens and law enforcement officers, I MOVE THAT, this Board reaffirm its support of legislation which would outlaw the possession, manufacture or sale of military -style weapons such as the UZI and AK -47 semi-automatic assault rifles. JMy (010389) # # # MOTTO'S February 7, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of February 14, 1989 SUB -COMMITTEE REPORT ON CITY MANAGER COMPENSATION AND EVALUATION PROCESS Continued from January 24, 1989 On January 24, 1989, the City Council continued the attached item for deliberation by the entire Council (Councilmember Sheldon was absent from the meeting). Prior to continuing the item, the council did approve the recom- mended adjustments to the existing agreement with the City Man - anger (page 3 of attached). The remaining issues to be resolved are: approval of the "Perfor- mance Based Compensation Program"; and establishing the City Man- ager's compensation for the upcoming contract year. At the January 24th meeting the Council indicated that any adjustment in compensation would be effective February 1, 1989. Following establishing the compensation for the upcoming contract year, staff will make the approved adjustments and submit a resolution effecting the changes at the meeting of February 28, 1989. Staff was also directed to communicate with each councilmember to get their input on the proposed evaluation form. While one specific comment was received regarding simplifying the form, the majority of the council indicated that the proposed evaluation form was appropriate. It should also be noted that, if the con- cept is approved, the submitted evaluation form and accompanying handbook will be edited further to relate specifically to the position of City Manager. Additionally, the Council will be provided instruction on completing the form prior to performing an evaluation. Respectfully submi -d, Noted: Robert A. Blackwood 'Kevin B. Nort raft Personnel Director City Manager 14b January 15, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of January 24, 1989 SUB -COMMITTEE REPORT ON CITY MANAGER COMPENSATION AND EVALUATIQN PROCESS RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Approve the Performance Based Compensation Program described below for future compensation adjustments to the City Manager's salary, and 2. Establish the City Manager's compensation for the upcoming contract. year. BACKGROUND: The sub -committee of the City Council, as directed by the City Council, met to discuss the compensation of the City Manager on January 5, 1989. As reported at the City council meeting on January 10, 1989, that sub -committee, comprised of Councilmembers Roger Creighton and Chuck Sheldon formulated the above recommendations for presenta- tion to the Council. The performance based compensation program and the proposed com- pensation increase are described below. PERFORMANCE BASED COMPENSATION PROGRAM I. Confirm that the Goals of the City Council, together with any specific previously agreed to objectives, are the criteria against which the performance of the City Manager will be evaluated. II. To annually provide an opportunity for Councilmembers to communicate to the City Manager their individual perception of his performance, an evaluation form will be completed by each Councilmember. III. A sub -committee shall be appointed by the Mayor each July to meet with the City Manager to review his agreement and make recommendations on any changes or adjustments to language items. As part of the evaluation process, staff will provide information regarding the "general management" of the City. This information will include such things as: budget compliance; city overtime usage; city sick leave usage; affirmative action implementation; and personnel turnover. In order to arrive at the amount of any adjustment in the City Manager's compensation, it is recommended that the evaluation form contain an indication of the Councilmember's overall rating of the City Manager's performance during the preceding year. this overall rating should correlate to the individual rating given for each of the individual performance dimensions. The ratings available to evaluate the performance dimensions are: Outstanding; Commendable; Satisfactory; Marginal/Improvement Needed; and Unsatisfactory. Depending upon the concensu5 overall rating, the recommendation for adjusting the City Manager's compensation will be as follows: RATING: PERCENTAGE INCREASE: > OUTSTANDING UP TO 12% * > COMMENDABLE UP TO 8% > SATISFACTORY UP TO 6% * > MARGINAL/IMPROVEMENT NEEDED 0% * > UNSATISFACTORY -10% (Manager put on notice) (* Rating nomenclature changed from initial report to fit recom- mended evaluation form) The actual amount to be awarded will be determined following an analysis of such factors as CPI changes, outcome of other negotiations within the City, and market equity. Any recommended adjustment to the Manager's compensation shall be effective January 1st of each year. The overall ratings will be submitted to the Mayor for formula- tion of the compensation adjustment. If there is substantial disparity among the Councilmember's overall ratings of the City Mananger, the Mayor will attempt to achieve a concensus. Evaluation form: The attached evaluation form is a standard form used to evaluate Management personnel which has been slightly revised to be ap- plicable to the position of City Manager. Also attached are dis- criptions of the performance indicators and a raters guide. The recommendation to initiate this process for future compensa- tion adjustments allows there to be both training in the use of the evaluation form as well as establish specific objectives (in addition to the City Council goals) by which to measure the City Manager's performance. COMPENSATION/CONTRACT RECOMMENDATION: Compensation The sub -committee is split on the recommendation for adjusting the City Manager's compensation for the upcoming contract period. Councilmember Creighton is recommending a 770 increase and Coun- cilmember Sheldon is recommending a 9% increase. The sub- committee submits the matter to the Council as a whole for its determination. To maintain the timeframes. indicated for the program described above, it is further recommended that the term of the agreement be for eleven (11) months commencing February 1, 1989 through - December 31, 1989. Contract Language In addition to the adjustment to compensation, certain adjust- ments to the current contract language are proposed. These changes, with the exception to the addition of the 4.eavement leave, are "clean-up" changes only and do not otherwise increase the value of the agreement. These changes are: 1. Amend Section 8, Vacation, sick, Holiday, Personal Business Days, to include the same provision for Breavement Leave as is in the Management employess contract. 2. Amend Section 10, Medical and Insurance Benefits, specific reference to life insurance providers. This administrative leeway in providing amount of coverage competitive rates (suggested by City Manager). 3. Amend Section 12, Management Option Benefit, to delete reference to additional P.E.R.S. payments, and allow for selec- tion of benefits at any time during the year. to delete allows more at more Prepared By: Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director Respectfully submitted, COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE By: Roger Creighton, Councilmember Chuck Sheldon, Councilmember CITY MANAGER CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - CITY MANAGER Rating Guide 5 - Outstanding 4 - Commendable 3 - Satisfactory 2 - Marginal/Improvement Needed '1 - Unsatisfactory PERIOD COVERED: DATE: RATER: HOW TO USE THIS FORM: Please refer to instructions A. MANAGEMENT: 1. Managing Human Resources (circle one) 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 (ability to secure cooperation and obtain optimum results through the efforts of others) Comments: 2. Managing Financial and Material Resources (circle one) 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 (demonstration of fiscal accountability and efficient utilization of resources) Comments: 3. Managing Work Systems (circle one) and Operations 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 7-77-1 (ability to conceptulize needs/goals of City and organize necessary programs and activities to increase efficiency and effectiveness) Comments: 4. Managing Information (circle one) 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 T 5 i (faciltiiy for written and verbal communication) Comments: B. TECHNICAL SKILLS AND ABILITIES 5. Quality (circle one) 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 Comments: 6. Quantity (circle one 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 Comments: 7. Problem Solving (circle one) 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 Comments: C. PERSONAL PERFORMANCE 8. Objectives (circle one) 111213 1 4151 Comments: 9. Accomplishments (circle one) 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 Comments: 10. Development Requirements (circle one) 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 Comments: 11. Personal (Self) (circle one) 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 Comments: 12. City Council/City Manager (circle one) 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 Comments: OVERALL RATING (circle one) 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 COMMENTS: CITY MANAGER ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (page 3 of 3) What objectives have been established between the City Council and the City Manager in terms of specific accomplishments? Description of objectives to be accomplished: ATTACHMENT TO CITY COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORT CITY MANAGER EVALUATION HANDBOOK ON PERFORMANCE EVALUATION The following Handbook on Performance Evaluation is attached to assist the City Council in understanding the performance evalua- tion process and how to complete the Performance Evaluation Form. Following City Council approval of the proposed evaluation pro- cess, this handbook will be edited to include only those parts which are pertinent to the modified evaluation form for the City Manager. a ATTACHMENT A MANAGEMENT -CONFIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Section 1 - Performance Indicators Following are descriptions of the performance indicators and some questions that, may be raised as guidance for the rater. A. MANAGEMENT 1. Managing Human Resources - Ability to secure cooperation and obtain optimum results through the efforts of others. This element involves the social skills in relating to people. It includes: leadership style, ability to train and develop others, fairness and uniform treatment of subordinates, sensi- tivity and awareness in relating to people, ability to secure_ trust and respect and develop teamwork among subordinates. Performance Indicators: developing and evaluating subordi- nates; handling grievances; affirmative action compliance; maintains discipline; monitors sick leave and safety record; low turnover rate; few complaints. Questions: Does he utilize appropriate methods of training and developing his subordinates? Is he training backup re- placements inthe event of an emergency or illness? Does he tend to keep subordinates in their jobs who have questionable ability? Does he establish with his subordinates management objectives with time tables and evaluate them on the basis of achievement of results? Can his subordinates reach him readily to discuss their problems and obtain guidance? Does he exercise participative leadership when useful and provide authoritative direction when necessary? 2. Managing Financial and Material Resources - Demonstration of fiscal accountability and efficient utilization of resources. This element involves cost factors or cost effective perfor- mance. It includes: budget planning, execution and savings; material planning, utilization, and savings; Worker's Compen- sation costs; vehicle accident control; security of resources; concerned with unit cost and productivity, most cost effective manpower utilization and overtime requirements. Performance Indicators: budget planning, execution and sav- ings; material planning, utilization, and savings; Worker's Compensation costs; vehicle accident control; security of resources; concerned with unit cost and productivity, most cost effective manpower utilization and overtime requirements. Questions: Does he use financial control techniques in stay- ing within his budget? Does he develop and rely upon objec- tive and verifiable control information? Does he develop controls that point up exceptions at critical points? Does he keep abreast of and utilize newer techniques of planning or control on managing his physical resources? Doe he help his subordinates develop control techniques and information that will show them how well they are doing? Does he know operational costs for units or phases of his responsibilities? 3. Managing Work Systems and Operations - Ability to conceptu- alize needs of department and organize necessary programs and activities to increase efficiency and effectiveness. This element involves productivity factors and includes: • planning, organizing, directing, controlling, coordination, decision making, and proper delegation of work. Performance Indicators: short and long-term planning; clear mission and purpose; makes field inspections; develops inno- vative systems and operations; establishes work standards responsive to unanticipated requirements; adaptable to change; willingness to take risk; timeliness in achieving results; monitors and controls work; effective coordination; delegates work and assigns responsibility; obtains high productivity. Questions: Does he make his delegations clearly understood? Does he clarify responsibilities among subordinates as to their contribution to his programs? Does he maintain adequate control and follow-up when delegating duties? Does he take prompt action when unplanned variations in performance occur? Questions: (continued) Do his employees have a clear understanding of expected behavior and performance standards? Does he enforce perform- ance standards consistently? Is he able to identify unecon- omical prooedures, methods, tools, or equipment? Does he have innovative suggestions for improving the efficiency or effec- tiveness of his services? Does he perform unnecessary sched- uling or rescheduling of work? Does he delegate decision making to the lowest level of competence? 4. Managing Information - Facility for written and verbal com- munications. This element involves all types of communica- tions, both on a person to person basis, as well as group presentations, and includes facility for proper report writ- ing based upon accurate data; and relations with the public. Encourages open communications with subordinates. Performance Indicators: reports are timely, concise and understandable; effective in informal talks and conducting meetings; sensitive to requirements of press; effective public contact; communicates with community groups; informs his superior and never lets him be surprised; utilizes information sources; open to suggestions; keeps staff informed. Questions: Does he issue instructions that are clear, within his authority, and fully understandable to his subordinates? Does he use effective and efficient communications techniques? Does he engage in an appropriate amount of face-to-face contact with his subordinates? Is he responsive to innovative ideas, suggestions, and the desire to be heard from his subordinates? Does the person serving. the public make a friend for the City? B. TECHNICAL SKILLS AND ABILITIES 5. Quality - This element involves appropriate attention •to work details that lead to "craftsmanship" or acceptance by technical or professional colleagues; alertness to methods or techniques which enhance quality; adherence to recognized standards of the profession; investigation of detail and consideration of accuracy. Performance Indicators: accuracy; neatness; thoroughness; extent of revision necessary; results consistently up to high professional standards. 6. Quantity - This element involves amount of work completed in a period of time; flexibility in accommodating work inter- ruptions and changes in priority; dealing with difficulties and barriers to work accomplishment; personal considerations in putting forth extra effort. `Performance Indicators: amount of work performed; completion of work on schedule; economical use of materials; consistently high productivity. 7. Problem Solving - This element involves the appropriateness.of techniques used to respond and adapt to new and different sit- uations; the recognition of a problem requiring creative effort and identifying a solution or answer; following through on a solution to ensure that it is practical and does remedy the situation; overcoming resistance and gaining acceptance of changing practices, policies and procedures. Performance Indicators: effectiveness in developing re?burces; analyzes alternatives; establishes priorities; considers fi- nancial or budgetary impact and consistently reaches sound.de- cisions for solution of problems; high degree of joint problem solving with subordinates. C. PERSONAL PERFORMANCE 8. Objectives - This element involves establishing short and long- term MBO goals, which are consistent with those of the depart- ment or City; engaging in participation with those affected and gaining their acceptance and commitment; determining priority for action. 8. (Continued) Performance Indicators: establishes short and long-term goals to ensure continued improvement of services, operations and staff in hit organizational unit; cultivates climate of parti- cipation in securing team effort. 9. Accomplishments - This element involves the amount of personal responsibility taken for completion of work; the amount of work progress made without complete supervisory direction; the willingness to think through work barriers and keep work ad- vancing toward priority objectives; the achievement of com- mitments in a timely manner. Performance Indicators: timeliness and extent to which achieves goals and objectives; imaginative and resourceful in overcoming unanticipated delays; exceeds job performance stan- dards; gives recognition to subordinates for accomplishments. 10. Development - This element involves the extent to which the individual trains and counsels subordinates; the joint devel- opment of performance standards and conduct of timely evalu- ations; the concern for job enrichment and upward mobility of subordinates. Performance Indicators: extent to which manager trains sub- ordinates through personal coaching and counseling; encourage- ment given to subordinates'to seek professional growth through their own efforts; participation with subordinates to establish and obtain MBO commitments. 11. Personal (Self) - This element involves the depths of com- mitment to the goals of management; the personal qualities that result in extra effort in the pursuit of these goals; the willingness to seek personal growth and development; the poise and integrity of a mature individual. Performance Indicators: professional integrity; management - minded attitude; thinks for himself; makes effective use of time; good attendance; seeks personal growth and development; stays current with profession; maintains self control; highly motivated; integration of individual goals with those of the organization. u. 12. Supervisor/Employee - This element involves the use of, judgment and common sense in following policies and procedures; willingly accepting responsibility for one's duties and being flexible and cooperative in working with one's superior; being loyal and supportive of the department and feeling a sense of personal responsibility for its success. Performance Indicators: flexible and cooperative; accepts responsibility willingly; team worker; supportive of the depart- ment; feels personal responsibility for effectiveness of department; able to take constructive criticism; allows sub- ordinates to manage; gives credit when due; firm but fair in dealings. Section 2 - Numerical Rating Categories There are five rating categories ranging from "Unsatisfactory" (1) to "Outstanding'= (5) . The Outstanding (5) category should be reserved for the select few who are consistently and uniformly excellent in their level of performance. They frequently far exceed expected standards for the position. This individual's performance is invariably marked by: innovation; responsible risk-taking; prudent decisions; utilizing human resources effectively and efficiently; obtaining maximum savings in financial and material resources; high motivation and productivity among those whom he supervises. The employee who is rated Commendable (4) consistently fulfills the work requirements of the unit for which he is responsible. He often exceeds reasonable goals and objectives and he regularly exceeds (sometimes far above, sometimes slightly above established work. standards and objectives for the. position. He is responsive to change, handles emergency or unanticipated problems well, makes creative use of his time, is a responsible risk -taker, and utilizes human resources effectively and efficiently. The employee rated Satisfactory (3).normally fulfills the work requirements of the unit for which he is responsible. For the most part, he is able to establish and meet reasonable goals and objec- tives. He sometimes falls short, but, he normally works as an effective member of the team, is responsive to change, makes use of available information, and often utilizes human resources effec- tively and efficiently. The employee rated Marginal - Improvement Needed (2) sometimes fails to fulfill the work requirements of the unit for which he is responsible. He lacks consistency and may, at times, demonstrate ineffectual interpersonal relations, have difficulty communicating, occasionally fail to make use of all available information, and is unable, at times, to be responsive to change.• Whilean employee may be rated Unsatisfactory (1) in one of the 12 job elements, he would normally not be rated Unsatisfactory in the Overall Evaluation section unless heqhad previously been advised as to his unsatisfactory performance. The employee rated Unsatisfactory in any one of the 12 job elements would consistently fail to measure up to the requirements of that job element. Section 3 - Relative Value The Relative Value column on the righthand side of the form is a weighting device to determine the value of the element .as it may contribute to the total job. The rater should use this column for his guidance and discretion to define the extent of the value (not the effort) which should be placed upon the contribution made. On the order of 1 to 5. of two positions in the same classification, one may entail significant supervisory responsibilities with a relative value of 4 or 5; whereas a second position, perhaps in a staff capac- ity with slight supervisory responsibilities, may obtain a relative value of 1 or 2. On the other hand, perhaps the relative value for the position with little supervisory responsibility may rate higher in Technical Skills and Abilities (Section B-5, 6 or 7). Likewise, a position with extensive public contact may rate high in Managing Information (A-4), but may have little or no relative value for items A-1, 2 or 3. HANDBOOK ON PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Table Of Contents Introduction Performance Evaluation Process Management Tool Who Should Be Rated? Who Should Prepare The Rating? What Are The Rating Officials' Responsibilities? Common Pitfalls Of The Rating Process Steps In The Rating Process Management -Confidential Employee Performance 1 1 1 2 2 2 3-4 4 Evaluation A. Comments B. Numerical Ratings C. Relative Value Assessment D. Overall Ratings E. Plans For Personal Development F. Employee Comments X. Non -Management Employee Annual Performance Evaluation A. Performance Factors and Ragings B. Overall Rating XI. Performance Evaluation Conference A: Preparing for the Conference B. Conducting the Evaluation Conference C. Ending the Conference, Future Goals, Scheduling Follow-up Discussions XII. Record Keeping A. Use of Reports B. Suggested Procedures for Record Keeping C. Criteria For Good Records Attachment A Attachment B. Attachment C Attachment D 4-5 6 6 6 6 6 6-7 7-9 9-10 10-11 11 11 12 12 12 - Management -Confidential Performance Evaluation Form - "Game Plan" Supervisor -Employee Performance Conference - Plan for Individual Improvement (Improvement Needed Program) - Report on Individual Improvement (Improvement Needed Program) RATER'S HANDBOOK ON PERFORMANCE EVALUATION I. Introduction Performance evaluation is a cornerstone.of an effective personnel system.. Evaluation of performance is one of the most important responsibilities a supervisor will perform. The execution of this duty in a fair, constructive, and consistent manner, and on a continual basis, benefits the subject employee, his/her peers, supervisory and management personnel, and the community we serve. This manual has been prepared to assist supervisors in more effectively evaluating and rating their subordinates' performance and thereby, increasing the value of the evaluation system to departmental operations. Inasmuch as performance a-::praisal is an ongoing process, all supervisory personnel should acquaint themselves with and employ the guidelines contained in this manual. II. Performance Evaluation Process Performance evaluation is not merely a report we must prepare once a year. Performance evaluation is a continuous process involving ongoing two-way communication between supervisors and their subordinates, commencing on the day of hire and ending on the day of separation with the City. III. Management Tool A sound performance evaluation system serves as a basis of: o Promoting employees o Improving employee performance and thus service to the taxpayers o Determining employee counseling, training, and other developmental needs; and o Invoking disciplinary action, if necessary. Since the supervisor should discuss an employee's work performance on a routine, continual basis, the formal evaluation mainly is a report designed to appraise management of employee progress and deficiencies. A general indication that insufficient communication has transpired between the supervisor and employee during the review period is an employee's bewilderment (sometimes coupled with other negative reaction), upon receiving his/her annual rating. IV 2 Who Should Be Rated? Performance evaluations are required for: A. Probationary employees - 10 days prior to the completion of every three month per_cd, with a'final evaluation prepared to determine satisfactory completion of the one year probationary period. The annual performance rating should not be prepared for probationary employees. B. Permanent employees - at least once a year All fir -employee evaluations cover the perioa of July 1 of each year thru June 30 of the following year. C. Specia'. Rating Periods 1. Upon the request of the employee or at the discretion of the supervisor. 2. Employees receiving an overall rating "below standard" ;or "unsatisfactory" shall be rated again three months after such rating and again three months thereafter D. Temporary, Emergency, Seasonal, Intermittent Employees -- 1. At the department head's discretion. 2. Long term, temporary employees should be evaluated annually. Who Should Prepare The Rating? A. The Rater is usually the employee's immediate supervisor. The immediate supervisor is deemed to be the most informed and qualified party to evaluate a subordinate's performance. If the employee had more than one supervisor during the rating period, the supervisors should jointly prepare the performance report. (Also see Section VII, D) B. The Reviewer is usually the rater's supervisor (applies to all evaluations, except Management -Confidential employees). C. The Department Head is responsible for overseeing the performance evaluation process. VI What Are The Rating Official's Responsibilities? A. The Rater prepares the rating report accurately and objectively, including an overall performance rating. 3 B. The Reviewer in the case of non -management performance appraisals checks the report for consistency, fairness, accuracy, and correctness of the rating procedure and may add relevant comments as appropriate. C. The Department Head takes final responsibility for the rating report. D. Any disagreement between the rating officials should be resolved by conference, with a new report prepared to reflect agreed upon changes. VII. Common Pitfalls Of The Rating Process The performance evaluation process is subject to certain pitfalls common to all judgmental processes. The most common of these, known as the "halo effect", is the tendency to rate an employee high in all of the rating dimensions because of outstanding performance in only one or a couple of the dimensions. For example, an employee may be well -liked and cooperative and, accordingly, receive a high rating on the dimension of interpersonal relations. However, the same employee may have only average skills in the quantity or quality of work produced, but the supervisor, being overly influenced by the strong interpersonal qualities, may rate the employee high in quantity and quality of work. This example illustrates the "halo" of having one strong attribute influence the entire evaluation. The reverse of this effect can also be unduly applied seen when the employee receives poor ratings under several dimensions when, in reality, the weakness only is in one area. Other common pitfalls which beset the performance evaluation process are the "central tendency effect" and "leniency effect". The "central tendency effect", is the inclination to rate most qualities of the employee as standard or close to the middle of the rating scale. The "central tendency effect" often reflects the supervisor's conscious or unconscious desire to avoid confrontation with employees who need to upgrade their performance or to offer a judgment which another person may dispute. Consequently, average ratings are given in the mistaken belief that. everyone will be happy and that this is in the best interest of the employee and employer. This clearly is a falsehood. Another error, termed*the "leniency effect", is the tendency of the supervisor to be overly generous, again avoiding controversy in the mistaken opinion that "my employees work harder and are better trained than those who work in other sections". In this instance, the ratings systematically error toward the high side of the scale and do not accurately reflect the individual levels of performance. Obviously, the majority of ratings should not necessarily be above or below standard. On the other hand, supervisors may uniformly rate all employees at the lower end of the scale. The pitfalls or tendencies characteristic of the performance evaluation process can have far reaching effects on employee morale, productivity, an# the value of future ratings. Generally speaking, supervisors should be fair, VIII IX 4 objective, constructive, and consistent in evaluating their subordinates' performance. In this manner, the employee is given an accurate appraisal of his/her strengths and weaknesses and the choice to improve his/her performance or be subject to disciplinary action. Steps In The Rating Process A. Review the tasks and standards of the job. B. Gather relevant data through the rating period including, but not limited to, performance notes made. throughout the year, time sheets, commendations and sustantiated complaints. C. Review the employee's last evaluation to assess the degree of progress and/or lack thereof. Specific attention should be directed to achievement of the employee's goals. D. Prepare the performance report comparing the employee's performance with the standards of the position for the entire rating period. Supervisors should not be disproportionately influenced by the most recent performance. A recent incident, attitude, or behavior should not be considered independent of the employee's performance throughout the appraisal period. E. Evaluate each job related factor separately before considering the next factor. F. Include complete and detailed comments. Comments mean more to the employee than any other part of the report. They are also essential to the department in such actions as discharge, reduction, transfer, and promotion. The comments should be specific and honest. Generalizations should be avoided. Use additional paper if required. The comments should amplify how the rating was arrived at and the basis for the evalution. If a standard of performance was used, include a statement of that standard. Highlight the employee's strengths and weaknesses with specific illustrations of significant aspects of the employee's performance and the description of the superior or substandard work. G. Do not limit yourself to the factors on the evaluation form. List and discuss other relevant factors (e.g. on the job safety). Management -Confidential Employee Performance Evaluation The performance evaluation .form for permanent Management -Confidential employees consists of three major categories: Management and Technical skills and abilities, and Personal Performance. These categories are divided into twelve job related indicators on which employee performance is evaluated. A. Comments The most meaningful source of information contained in the performance evaluation report is the "Comments Section" under each indicator. The comments should reflect the strengths or weaknesses in the employee's 5 performance and be used to substantiate a numerical rating. Comments should be specific and based on facts. The narrative is the basis upon which employees can strive to improve their performance. Moreover, comments are the basis of an employee's personnel record. Employees appreciate the time taken to prepare fair, objective, and constructive remarks on their performance. A discussion of the performance indicators is provided to assist the rater in preparing the performance evaluation (See Attachment A, Section 1). A few helpful Do's and Don'ts in formulating comments follow. 1. Include In Comments a. Tasks performed as part of the employee's assignment. b. Standards of performance for the position and how the employee's performance compares with those standards. c. Explanation of indicator ratings in'terms of job performance. d. Elements of the employee's performance which are especially strong or which need improving. Include specific illustrations of significant aspects of the employee's performance, and description of superior or substandard work. e. Plans developed jointly with the employee for improving performance or acquiring additional skills. f. Employee's skills and work performed beyond job requirements. 2. -Avoid In Comments a. Labels of personality types. You may describe behavior which might be unusual or indicative of a pattern, but be sure and refer to specific instances. b. Rumors or personal interpretations of actions and attitudes. c. Complicated terminology. d. Non -constructive, sarcastic comments which discourage improvements. 3. Criteria For Good Comments a. Brevity, specificity, and clarity. b. Factual support of generalizations. c. Objective statements, measuring the employee against well defined standards. 6 B. Numerical Rating{ Five numerical rating categories appear in the boxes opposite each performance indicator. A rating of 5 is equivalent to an "Outstanding" rating and 1 to "Unsatisfactory" performance. The numerical rating categories are defined in Attachment A, Section 2. C. Relative Value Assessment The Relative Value Category on the righhand side of the form is a weighting device to determine the value of each performance indicator as it may relate to the total job. This category defines the relative value, not the actual performance (effort put forth or achievement). The relative value scale is from 5 (completely relevant) to 0 (irrelevant). Attachment A, Section 3 discusses this aspect of the evaluation form in greater detail. D. Overall Rating The overall rating is a composite evaluation of all of the job related indicators for each employee. The overall rating is NOT the sum total of check marks. The method of determining each employee's overall rating is: Multiply the "Numerical Rating" score by the "Relative Value" for each performance indicator in the evaluation form. These totals are then added together and divided by the total of the "Relative Values". The overall rating should be based on the employee's cumulative performance throughout the rating period, and not influenced by the most recent experience. E. Plans For Personal Development The supervisor and employee should jointly develop goals and plans for personal development to be achieved in the forthcoming year. F. Employee Comments This section is designed to elicit any employee feedback of a positive or negative nature concerning the performance evaluation. It is particularly important for the employee to communicate strong feelings of agreement or disagreement. X. Non -Management Employee Annual Performance Evaluation The Annual Performance Management -Confidential Evaluation form is used: for all permanent non - personnel. A. Performance Factors And Ratings Personnel are evaluated on thirteen job related factors. An additional seven factors apply only to supervisors (i.e. only those employees who supervise the work of others). Each performance factor is evaluated in terms of four possible ratings as follows: 1. Outstanding means the employee's work is demonstrably above the compeent level and that the employee's contribution f/ara .' raga exceeds what would be expected from the position. 2. Average means that his part of the emplyee's work consistantly meets or occasionally exceeds job requirements. 3. Marginal -Needs means that this part of the emplyee's work is usually below the minimum requirements of the job and that improvement of the Standard level is needed. • 4. Unacceptable means that this part of the employee's performance is inadequate and cannot continue at the current level. B. Overall Rating The overall rating is a compo evaluation of all of the job related factors. There is no formula for determining the orverall rating. Clearly, the overall rating is NOT merely the sum total of the ratings in each category. The job factors differ in importance and should be weighed according to the respective position. For example, in the case of field personnel, the factos of "amount and quality of work performed" are far more, significant than "neatness/personal appearance". On the other hand, "meeting and handling the public" is more important for someone who frequently works with the public than "performance in emergencies". The Overall Rating should be determined on the employee's total work performance for the entire rating period based on the following Standards. 1. Outstanding The overall rating of "Above.Standard" indicates that a substantial part of the emplyee's performance is well above the standards of performance require for the position and all other facets of performance are at least standard or competent. Some myths surrounding the overall rating of "Outstanding" are: a) outstanding is synonymous -with "perfect" and b) employee must perform "above and beyond the call of duty" (i.e. do something outside of his/her regular job assignment). An "outstanding" rating does not mean that the employee is "perfect" or that an employee must do someting highly unusual and outside his/her regular job assignment to warrant such a rating. Outstanding eveluations should be given based on the degree or performance as it relates to the job requirements. Outstanding ratings must be ful:'y substantiated in writing before. they will be accep.:ed by the Personnel Officer. The pel-foriance report must specifically describe how -the -employee's accomplishments exceed job requirements, including description of the department's standards for the position. 8 2. Above average or average The above average or average ratings indicates a competent employee. Work consistently neets and occasionally exceeds job requirements. This does not mean that the emplyee's performance cannot be improved; there may even be one factor rated below standard. 3. Marginal -Needs improvement A rating of Marginal -Needs improvement is given when a significant part of the employee's overallperformance is below the minimum standards of the position. The implication of this rating is most significant. The supervisor must have well-defined performance goalsand criteria and provide the employee with the opportunity and assistance to raise the level of performance. The Marginal -Needs Improvement rating is a transitional assessment. It is a warning that performance at this level cannot be continued and mandates improvement or the employee's performance will be considered unsatisfactory. Although a "Marginal -Needs Improvement" normally will preclude an Unsatisfactory rating, there is no requiremtn for this sequence. A realistic date should be set in which improvement will be expected. This provides a goal and deadline for both the supervisor and employee. Supervisory assistance to the employee includes, but is + not limited to, counseling, formal training, change of supervisor, etc. Thorough records should be maintained during this period while keeping the employee informed of his/her progress. If the supervisor and employee achieve their planned responsibilities, employee performance should improve and warrant a rating of Standard or Competent. If the employee cannot or will not improve, the alternatives are progressive disciplinary action, including reduction or discharge. 4 Unacceptable Performance . A rating of "Unacceptable Performance" should be given when: o A substantial part of performance is definitely substandard. o The employee has failed to improve his performance in factors previously rated Improvement Needed. o The employee has committed an act of sufficient seriousness to destroy his value to the department or City service. Unacceptable Performance ratings must be fully substantiated in writing before they will be accepted by the Personnel Officer. 9 o Performance requirements of the 'position and how the employee's performance failed to meet them. Cite specific instances. o Records of production, attendance, or other relevant data justifying the rating. o Warnings given the employee in writing or orally (what, when, where, why, and how) o Training or counseling given, and how the employee responded. o Date, place, natire of specific act, if such is basis for rating. Narrative Section the Narrative Section should be used to substantiate any rating above or below standard. Several helpful suggestions for preparing comments of employee performance appear in Section X, A, 1-3. XI. Performance Evaluation Conference Each performance report shall be thoroughly discussed with the employee. The evaluation is understood and hopeffuly accepted by the employee. The employee understands both the strong points, as well as his/her weakness. The process results in a better understanding between the supervisor and the employee about the standards of the position and the degree to which they are being accomplished. The evaluation is a basis to help the employee improve where needed. A. Preparing for the Conference The conference to discuss the perfomance evaluation report should be carefully pre-lanned. SOme helpful hints follow (also see Attachments B, G, and D). 1. Know what you want to accomplish. The preparation of a written."game plan" will help you keep on track and assist in achieving the conference and broader performance evaluation goals. a. What specifically do you want the employee to do differently as a result of this discussion? b. What effect will this discussion have on the employee's morale? c. What do you expect to Learn about your performance as a supervisor through this discussion? 10 2. Have the Facts a. Be clear about the employee's strengths and weaknesses. b. Show how present performance relates to the tasks and standards for his/her position. c. Have, specific suggestions about how he/she can improve. Although you will try to assist the employee's efforts, the choice and follow-through for improvement rests solely with the employee, --you can't do it for him! 3• Consider What you Know About the Employee. a. His/her personality. b. His/her reactions to different situations. 4. Arrange A Place For The Conference. a. Allow sufficient time for the conference. b. Select a place where you will not be• interrupted. B. Conducting the Evaluation Conference 1. Set an appropriate atmosphere. a. Be relaxed and help the employee to relax. b. Start on a friendly, positive note. c. Avoid becoming defensive or getting into an argument. d. Be specific and constructive in your comments. Vagueness gives the employee nothing to work with. 2. our comments should be specific and constructive. 4 a. Give the employee credit, sincerely and willingly, for the strong points in his performance. b. Tell him/her specifically the areas in which improvement is needed. c. Use tasks and standards to point out job requirements. _ d. Discuss weaknesses in a factual manner; avoid personal criticism. e. Be prepared to suggest what the employee could do tocorrectthe weaknesses, but try to facilitate his/her own suggestions for corrective action. f. Keep your objectives in mind. 11 3. Make the conference a two-way conversation. a. Encourage the employee to express how he/she feels. Above all listen effectively to insure you understand what the employee is saying. b. Explain that you and the employee are talking about his/her performance and you are not defending the rating you give. c. Be willing to acknowledge any problems you may have caused the employee through your methods of supervision. C. Ending the Conference, Future Goals, and Scheduling Follow-up Discus- sions Conclude the conference by helping the employee plan ways to improve his/her performance. 1. To the extent possible, endeavor to arrive at goals with the employee during the conference. Be prepared to present your own goals. Record the goals on the evaluation form. 2. Let the employee know how you are going to help him/her. 3. Let the employee know that it is his/her responsibility to upgrade the performance level. 4. Set a date for another discussion of his/her performance. Provide --enough time so that progress can be made in correcting the weakness. 5. Give the employee the opportunity to note any comments on the evaluation form. 6. Finally, enter the date of discussion and ask the employee to sign the performance evaluation report. If he/she refuses to sign the report, explain that the signature does not necessarily indicate agreement with the report, but only that the rating has been discussed with the employee. Additionally, the rating may• still be appealed after the report is signed. If the employee still refuses to sign the report enter on the form "employee refuses to sign" in the space provided for his/her signature. 7. End the discussion on a friendly, positive note. XII Record Keeping Record keeping should commence with the start of each rating period. Documentation of employee performance serves as a permanent reminder of an employee's behavior. This is especially important when the employee's performance is above or below the requirements of the position. The written records should describe both single incidents and patterns. The records may be progress reports or summaries of performance. Include specific descriptive comments to support any findings. Avoid using generalizations. 12 A. Use of Records The accuracy and objectivity of the ratings you prepare depends upon the accuracy and regularity in which you document employee performance. Documenting the employee's performance will help you: 1. Formulate the employee's overall performance rating. 2. Give the employee specific examples of good and poor performances. 3. Justify taking. steps to. discipline (including discharge) an employee. 4. Justify your rating. B. Suggested Procedures For Record Keeping 1. Notes to file, citing examples of above and below standard performance. 2. Periodic checks of the employee's performance, culminating with a memoranda to file, indicating the results of these checks. 3. Regular counts of the amount of work performed, errors made, etc. where it is measurable. 4. Memorandum recording the date and content of evaluation reviews held with employee, and commendations, warnings, and reprimands given to him 1 Note: Effective supervision necessitates that you periodically meet with your subordinates to discuss both their strengths and weaknesses. Positive and negative feedback are both beneficial and essential. C. Criteria For Good Records 1. Include date, time, and location of incidents as well as full particulars. 2. Be objective to the degree that a photograph is objective, recording accurately what has actually transpired. 3. Include only facts; no conclusions. 4. Indicate trends in the employee's behavior. 5. Indicate positive, as well as negative qualities. 6. Be brief ang specific. 7. Record the information promptly. 8. Include a signature as the observer. January 17, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of January 24, 1989 GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DECEMBER ACTIVITY REPORT PARKING ENFORCEMENT 12/87 12/88 87/88FY 88/89FY Parking Cites Issued 4,396 4,211 46,427 42,679 Vehicles Impounded/Booted 34 49 338 277 Calls Responded To 132 107 889 743 Booting Revenue $10,393.00 $7,283 $42,272.50 $30,154 ANIMAL CONTROL Citations Issued 102 55 395 320 Warnings Issued 0 0 10 1 Complaints Responded To 41 46 407 279 Total Number of Animals 40 25 357 308 Picked -Up of which: Returned to Owner 4 11 109 81 Taken to Shelter 14 3 109 110 Injured, taken to Vet 1 0 17 14 Deceased 25 8 112 106 CONCUR: .man Noon, Director General Services Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Respectfully submitted, Joan Noon, Director by �• ��% Michele D. Tercero, Administrative Aide January 17, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of of the City Council January 24, 1989 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY RESOURCES DECEMBER, 1988 ACTIVITY REPORT The Department of Community Resources has been involved in the following activities for tne month of December. SPECIAL EVENTS Staff began processing special event requests for 1989. Requests received to date include six volleyball tournaments, which will be reviewed at the February commission meeting. • Staff wrapped -up planning for the annual Sand and Strand run scheduled for Sunday, February 5tn. 5,000 flyers were distributed at race sites, area businesses and mailed to past participants. This event is co-sponsored by the City of Hermosa Beach and tne 1736 Family Crises Center. • Staff escorted 27 seniors to the Huntington Harbor Lights Tour on December 15th. The event was evaluated to be very successful despite inclement weather. COMMUNITY CENTER FOUNDATION • Ticket sales continued for the 1989 series. To date ticket sales for the sixth annual gala are at 219. Tne series shows are 40% sold to date. • A slide was developed for display at the new AMC theatres advertising the 1989 series. ▪ The reception for the Gala has been moved back to the theatre and will feature cuisine from Jeanette's and ' dancing onstage. The concert entertainment will star Paul Williams (in place of Pia,Zadora who cancelled all engagements for six months). ADVISORY COMMISSION • The Commission is planning a presentation to Council to include information about the Master Plan, recreation programming and current achievements. The presentation is tentatively scheduled for March, 1989. 1 RECREATION PROGRAMMING • Recreation Specialist Andy Herbold has been lining -up a spring recreation program for mid -year budget review. ▪ Recreation Specialist Terri Edison began full time work after the holidays. Her primary responsibility will be as facility manager for the City. She will also assist with the large-scale special events. MEETINGS ▪ Staff attended the following meetings: Commission, City Council, Trail Grants Program, SCAATS, Foundation Board, Foundation sub -committee, CBVA, Sand and Strand and three event planning meetings. FACILITY RESERVATIONS • In December we received approximately 20 calls per week regarding facility reservations. • New reservations this month include: Wilson Holiday Party, Limelight Christmas party, Barker party, Wieganat Christmas party. COMMUNITY CENTER MEETING ROOMS Hope Chapel Community Center Foundation Community Center Advisory Commission Sister Cities Teen Advocate Chamber of Commerce Little League Pre/Post Exercise SuperKids Gym 1736 Family Crisis Center City Testing COMMUNITY CENTER GYMNASIUM Cooley Basketball Colen Basketball General Services Cascio Basketball Byron Basketball Wohn Basketball Andre Activities Intl Bilingual School Botelho Basketball ARC Easter Seals SuperKids Gymnasitcs DeMoss Basketball Youth Basketball 2 COMMUNITY CENTER LEASES Easter Seals Project Touch Hope Chapel Salvation Army Dispute Resolution So. Bay Free Clinic Teen Advocate Center Historical Society Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC) COMMUNITY CENTER THEATRE Hope Chapel IMA Los Cancioners IBS Foundation Bishop Montgomery HS Active 20/30 Club Hospital Charter CLARK BUILDING We average four private parties per month in addition to the following weekly/monthly meetings. Jazzercise Aerobics Senior Exercise Senior Club Meeting Women's Club City Testing Sunday AA meeting Monday AA meeting South Bay Unity Church Top Notcners H. B. Police Department CLARK FIELD AYSO Slow Pitch Dog Obedience DEPARTMENT REVENUE: See attached. Noted: "Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager VALLEY PARK RESERVATIONS January, 1988 February, 1988 March, 1988 April, 1988 May, 1988 June, 1988 July, 1988 Aug., 1988 Sept., 1988 Oct., 1988 Nov., 1988 Dec., 1988 Respectfully submitted, Alana Mastrian-Handman Director Dept. of Community Resources 1 0 4 7 7 18 16 14 7 8 3 2 DEPT. OF COMMUNITY RESOURCES REVENUE TO DATE DECEMBER 31 L 1988 1987-88 1988-89 COMMUNITY CENTER RENTALS $25,038,98 $26,819.61 COMMUNITY CENTER LEASES $26,218.54 $32,803.33 COMMUNITY CENTER THEATRE $ 5,908.00 $ 7,027.63 CLARK BUILDING* $11,910.40 $13,293.75 SPECIAL EVENTS* $14,360.00 $17,775.50 TENNIS COURTS $ 5,914.25 $ 5L324.95 $89,350.17 103,044.77 *Finance report groups these two categories under the heading "Otner Facilities". DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY RESOURCES REVENUE/EXPENDITURES 1988/89 DECEMBER, 1988 REVENUE COMMUNITY CENTER RENTALS $2,205.33 COMMUNITY CENTER LEASES 5,003.50 COMMUNITY CENTER THEATRE 2,670.00 CLARK BUILDING 2,859.75 SPECIAL EVENTS .00 TENNIS COURTS 945.35 REVENUE TO DATE: $13,683.93 12/88 12/87 $103,044.77 $89,350.17 REVENUE PROJECTION: PRESENT FISCAL YEAR: $194,500 REVENUE: ACTUAL: LAST FISCAL YEAR: $189,078 COMMUNITY RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GENERAL FUND REVENUE FOR 50 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR IS $103 044.77 OR 53 % OF THE PROJECTED FIGURE. COMMUNITY RESOURCES EXPENDITURES FOR 50 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR IS 37.6 % OR $ 124,896.07 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL January 17, 1989 Regular Meeting of January 24, 1989 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DECEMBER 1988 Staff reports were prepared for the following: 1. 5 4th Quarter General Plan Amendments 2. 3 Zone Changes • 3. 1 Lot Merger Appeal 4. 3 Final Maps 5. 1 C.U.P. for a condominium 6. 1 C.U.P. for commercial use 7 1 Variance 8. 1 CTIP Agreement The following activities were undertaken for transit projects: 1. Routine tasks. Meetings and seminars attended by the Planning Department Staff: 1. 26 meetings Budget Update Ending 11/30/88, expenditures were 870 below budget for 4170 of the year. Ending 11/30/88, revenues were 10170 above budget for 4170 of the year. Ending 12/31/88, expenditures were 1370 below budget for 50% of the year. Ending 12/31/88, revenues were 12370 above budget for 5070 of the year. Transit Update "WAVE" Dial -a -Ride Ridership December 1988 - 5387 passengers Hermosa Beach riders - 758 Redondo Beach riders - 4299 Satellite point riders - 330 1 C.U.P. Enforcement Update: 1. Casey's Isuzu was inspected and issued a citation for 3 C.U.P. violations. 2. A & H Motors was inspected for being an illegal business. Since then, they have obtained a business license and applied for a C.U.P. 3. Hermosa Pavillion was routinely inspected and no violations were reported. 4. The Spot was inspected and no violations were reported. 5. Jammers was inspected and sent a notice of violation. 6. Lien's Place was inspected and sent a notice of violation. 7. Paradise Sushi was inspected and sent a second notice of violation. 8. Cantina Real was inspected and sent a second notice of violation. 9. Scotty's was inspected and no violations were reported. 10. Back Burner Cafe was sent a notice by the Public Works Department regarding outdoor dining, since that time they have abated the violation. POLICE CUP INSPECTIONS: No violations were reported for Besties, The Lighthouse, the Comedy and Magic Club, California Beach, End Zone, Hermosa Saloon, Hennessey's Tavern, and Pier 52, other than apparent noise violations. * Noise enforcement is pending the Police Department obtaining a noise measuring device. Upcoming agenda items to City Council: 1 Zone change from M-1 and Open Space to R-2 at 603 First Street. 1 Text Amendment to eliminate zero lot line in R -2B zone. - 2 1 Text Amendment regarding view blockage and height measurement. 1 Planning Commission recommendation regarding grading plan on Power Street. Planning Director NOTED: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager 3 Respectfully submitted, if A ex er .n•ez Assistant Plann JANUARY 16, 1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council of January 24, 1989 PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT DECEMBER ACTIVITY REPORT Recruitment: * Conducted promotional testing for Police -Sergeant. * Completed recruitment for Advanced Planner (contract), selected candidate to commence employment Jan. 30th. * Selected candidate for Pooled Secretary position. * Initiated recruitment for Deputy City Engineer and • General Services Officer. Labor Relations: * A joint meeting between the City Coucil and the Civil Service Board was held during December. * Scheduled presentations for city employees on ICRMA deferred compensation plan. * Department coordinated annual holiday dinner and presentation of Service Awards. Risk Management: * Completed renewal of City's Vehicle and Property Insurance. * Conducted seminar on drug abuse identification for the City of Redondo Beach. * Coordinated employee attendance at risk management seminar on Contract Insurance Requiremnts presented by the IC::MA. Respectfully submitted, Robert A. Blackwood Personnel Director Noted: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager Honorable Mayor and January 17, 1989 Members of the City Council ACTIVITY REPORT DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY DECEMBER, 1988 Attached for your information are recap sheets of department ac- tivity for the month of December as well as the quarterly report of buildings completed and demolished during the quarter ending on December 31, 1988. Overall permit activity was high during December as the depart- ment issued 98 permits of which 45 were building permits. Four permits were issued for single family dwellings, four permits were issued for duplex dwellings and three permits were issued for triplex dwellings. There were twenty-two permits issued for alterations or additions to existing dwellings. Five dwelling units were demolished resulting in an increase of sixteen dwell- ing units to the housing inventory. Building Department general fund revenue for 50% of the fiscal year is $216,705.01 or 61% of projected revenue for the fiscal year. The Business License division reports that 352 licenses were is- sued during December resulting in revenue of $35,184.77 Business License revenue to date is $211,706.41 or 42.3% of projected revenue for the fiscal year. The department logged 11 new code enforcement complaints during December of which one was for a suspected illegal dwelling unit. The department abated two illegal dwelling units during December and has 26 illegal dwelling unit cases under investigation. Noted: Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager 1 Respectfully Submitted, William Grove Director, Bldg. & Safety CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED Month of DECEMBER, 1988 TYPE OF STRUCTURE DWELLING UNITS PERMITS PROVIDED VALUATION 1. Single Dwellings 4 4 557,768 2. Duplex Dwellings 4 8 1,037,458 3. Triplex Dwellings 3 9 1,200,345 4. Four Units 5. Five Units or More 6. Commercial Buildings 7. Industrial Buildings 8. Publicly Owned Buildings 9. Garages - Residential 10. Accessory Buildings 1 5,000 11. Fences and Walls 3 21,500 12. Swimming Pools 13. Alterations, additions or repairs to dwellings 22 514,562 14. Alterations, additions or repairs to Commercial Bldgs. 2 90,000 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. 1 18. Signs 85,000 19. Dwelling units moved 20. Dwelling units demolished 5 5 21. All other permits not listed TOTAL PERMITS 45 TOTAL VALUATION OF ALL PERMITS: 3,511,633 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS PERMITTED : 21 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS DEMOLISHED: 5 NET CHANGE: +16 NET DWELLING UNIT CHANGE FY 88/89 +10 CUMULATIVE DWELLING UNIT TOTAL: 10,031 (INCLUDES PERMITS ISSUED) 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REVENUE REPORT Month Ending DECEMBER, 1988 UMBER OF ERMITS uilding lumbing lectric lan Check ewer Use es. Bldg.Reports omm. Inspections arks & Recreation n lieu Park & Rec. oard of Appeals ign Review ire Flow Fees LAST MONTH THIS MONTH 29 19 25 7 3 27 13 6 1 4 9 45 25 28 22 6 23 8 4 6 1 18 THIS YEAR DATE 209 141 141 89 13 222 97 4 20 1 14 60 TO THIS MONTH LAST YEAR 30 17 17 10 3 25 16 3 1 2 LAST YEAR TO DATE 174 157 126 71 33 165 129 3 19 6 18 OTALS 143 186 1011 124 901 EES uilding** lumbing lectric lan Check ewer Use es. Bldg. Reports omm. Inspections arks & Recreation n lieu Park & Rec. oard of Appeals ign Review ire Flow Fees 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 36,643.85 2,336.00 2,720.00 13,681.75 3,578.72 920.00 200.00 27,301.00 39,204.00 25.00 30,202.59 98,170.77 13,361.00 20,683.00 72,710.24 10,243.07 8,888.00 2,525.00 27,301.00 91,476.00 75.00 300.00 71,207.59 11,367.88 2,390.00 2,405.00 7,095.00 1,929.05 1,000.00 400.00 79,339.66 15,900.50 18,564.00 57,058.01 13,883.19 6,590.00 3,225.00 21,000.00 26,136.00 123,146.00 75.00 450.00 50.00 450.00 OTALS 79,680.78 156,812.91 416,932.67 52,847.93 339,606.36 ALUATIONS 1,725,079 3,511,633 6,322,045 1,127,522 7,575,759 *Includes State Seismic Fee $253.01 1 QUARTERLY REPORT FOR HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA BUILDINGS COMPLETED AND BUILDINGS DEMOLISHED OCTOBER 1, 1988 THRU DECEMBER 31, 1988 ADDRESS NO. OF UNITS 914 13TH Street 429 Bayview 430 Manhattan Ave. 946 17th Street 1770 Valley Park 3222 Morningside 624 3rd Street 618 3rd Street 546 llth Street 1018 2nd Street 1326 Owosso 2415 Silverstrand DEMOLISHED ADDRESS 1014 4th Street 845 15th Street 621 9th Street 957 16th Street 835 15th Street 721 9th Street 1025 8th Place 701 21st Street 625 10th Street 330 Culper Court 600 llth Street 1261 5th Street 1021 Loma Drive 1078 Monterey 1636 Monterey 1423 Manhattan Ave. 1415 Manhattan Ave. 722 9th Street 634 8th Place 222 24th Street 456 Ocean View 339-341 Manhattan Ave. 2211 Loma Drive 1110 3rd Street 532 llth Street 1 (SFR) 1 (Condo.) 1 (Condo.) 1 (SFR) 1 (SFR) 1 (Apt) 1 (SFR) 1 (SFR) 3 (Condos.) 1 (SFR) 1 (SFR) 1 (SFR) NO. OF UNITS 1 (SFR) 1 (SFR) 1 (SFR) 1 (SFR) 1 (SFR) 1 (SFR) 1 (SFR) 1 (SFR) 1 (SFR) 1 (SFR) 1 (SFR) 1 (SFR) 1 (SFR) 2 (Duplex) 1 (SFR) 1 (SFR) 1 (SFR) 1 (SFR) Garage & Pool 1 (SFR) 1 (SFR) 1 (SFR) 1 (SFR) 1 (SFR) 1 (SFR) DATE COMPLETED 10/13/88 10/13/88 10/13/88 11/9/88 11/17/88 11/29/88 11/30/88 11/30/88 12/5/88 12/5/88 12/6/88 12/6/88 DATE COMPLETED 10/3/88 10/11/88 10/11/88 10/11/88 10/12/88 10/17/88 10/18/88 10/24/88 10/24/88 11/9/88) 11/9/88 11/14/88 11/17/88 11/21/88 11/21/88 11/23/88 11/23/88 11/23/88 11/29/88 12/1/88 12/7/88 12/8/88 12/13/88 12/14/88 12/29/88 BUSINESS LICENSE REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 1988 TO: Wm. Grove, Building & Safety Director FROM: Mary Fehskens, Administrative Aide DATE: January 4, 1989 NEW BUSINESS LICENSES ISSUED: Out of City License Issued: Home Occupation License Issued: New Business' Opened: New Owners of Existing Business: 22 8 2 0 TOTAL NUMBER OF LICENSES ISSUED: 32 BUSINESS LICENSE RENEWALS MAILED: 456 DELINQUENT NOTICES MAILED: 179 NEW & RENEWAL LICENSES ISSUED: 352 REPORTS SOLD: 0 BUSINESS LICENSE REVENUE: $35,184.77 BUSINESS LICENSE REVENUE YEAR-TO-DATE: $211,706.41 1 fa January 5, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting the Hermosa Beach City Council January 24, 1988 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - DECEMBER 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 5 8 28 46 Sewer Lateral 2 1 7 28 Street Excavation 9 4 36 114 Utility Co's only 6 3 114 276 Dumpster/Lumber Drop 2 1 12 20 Banner Permits 0 0 4 9 ENGINEERING Status of Current Capital Improvement Projects: CIP 85a.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 for design received on January 9, 1989 and are being evaluated. CIP 87-165/Bicycle Path Repairs: Contract awarded to Neff Con- tracting Corp. Work is complete. Staff has negotiated a credit from the contractor for portions of the work which has a substan- dard appearance. CIP 87-171/Asphalt Street Repairs: Proposals for design received on January 9 and are being evaluated. CIP 85-202/Hermosa Avenue -Pier Lighting: The street light poles for Pier Avenue have been delivered. Installation is expected to - 1 - 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. Council awarded bid for construction services on December 13, 1988 to Colich & Sons and awarded inpsection services on December 19, 1988 to James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineer. Construc- tion to start in January. CIP 87-406/Sanitary Sewer Improvements, Target Area 4: Antici- pate Council to award bid for design services on January 10, 1989. CIP 87-508/Park Irrigation Restoration: Proposals received on January 9, 1989 for engineering services to determine repairs or upgrading of irrigation systems for the City's parks and medians. CIP 87-606/Police Department Remodel: Anticipate Council to accept as complete January 24, 1989. 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 completed the annual Poinsettia planting throughout the City and City Hall. The touch of holiday color was appreciated by all. Work continues on installation of play equipment in various City parks. Irrigation repairs in the City Parks and the Greenbelt area are underway. Street Maintenance crew installed new parking information signs on the west side of PCH from Artesia to Pier; set meter poles for motorcycle parking in the 14th Street lot. All the "dog leash" signs were prepared for installation on the Greenbelt area. Street Lighting crew put up all the Christmas decorations in the downtown area and City-wide.. 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. New plants in redwood planters have been added. Completion of the patio area is expected by January 31, 1989. Equipment Service - On-going vehicle maintenance. Respectfully submitted, An 'ny Antich Director of Pubtlic Works mon/m Noted: /Kevin B. Northcraft City Manager January 17,1989 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council January 24, 1989 FINANCE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT, DECEMBER 1988 Development of fixed asset policies is complete. The final procedures/policies will be issued to all departments in January. All utility companies and hotel/motel operators were notified of changes to ordinances governing the Transient Occupancy Tax and Utility User's Tax. STATISTICAL SECTION FISCAL FISCAL DECEMBER 1988 DECEMBER 1987 YEAR TO YEAR TO DATE 88 DATE 87 CITATION PAYMENTS 3,680 3,571 30,561 30,284 INVOICES 2 6 46 65 CASH RECEIPTS 1,047 964 7,123 7,759 WARRANTS 185 162 1,672 1,527 PURCHASE ORDERS 203 156 1,690 1,594 UUT EXEMPTIONS 593 566 FILED TO DATE PAYROLL FULL TIME 150 142 PART TIME 46 44 Noted: evin B. NorZhcraft City Manager aL,LWL) Viki Copeland Finance Administrator HERMOSA BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT DECEMBER 1988 FIRE STATISTICS PARAMEDIC STATISTICS THIS MONTH THIS MONTH ONE YEAR AGO YEAR TO DATE LAST YEAR TO DATE 1. Total Calls 77 73 801 789 (TYPE) a. False Alarm 2 7 47 84 b. Mutual Aid 0 0 11 10 c. Paramedic Assists 41 35 438 359 d. Residence Fire 11 3 59 31 e. Commercial Fire 8 1 30 18 f. Other 15 27 217 288 PARAMEDIC STATISTICS INSPECTIONS THIS MONTH THIS MONTH ONE YEAR AGO YEAR TO DATE LAST YEAR TO DATE 1. Total Responses 80 85 . 1014 1052 (TYPE) a. No Patient/Aid 11 9 137 112 b. Mutual Aid 1 0 2 4 c. Auto Accident 14 20 163 184 d. Strand Accident 6 6 94 46 e. Medical 39 39 403 354 f. Trauma 30 38 453 357 g. Assault 6 12 100 97 h. Jail 6 10 61 * i. Transports 34 30 391 331 j. Base Hosp.Con. 17 23 302 224 k. Trauma Center 2 0 10 62 INSPECTIONS AND PREVENTION THIS MONTH 1HIS MONTH ONE YEAR AGO YEAR TO DATE LAST YEAR TO DATE 1. Commercial 67 111 944 572 2. Assembly 0 0 2 9 3. Apartments 30 22 371 323 4. Fumigations 8 4 157 210 5. Institutions 0 0 9 22 6. Industrial 0 0 10 17 NOTED: evin B. Northcraft, City Manager * figures not available R ubmitted, ve Wis iew i Director of Public Safety January 18, 1989 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL OF JANUARY 24, 1989 POLICE ACTIVITY REPORT FOR DECEMBER 1989 On December 29, 1988, the Police Department officially began dispatching both Police and Fire Departments. The integrated Computer Aided Dispatching (CAD) Program was also up and running. The only item not completed to integrate the entire system is the JDIC software interface which is supplied by Command Data Systems. The software allows the dispatcher to check people for outstanding warrants through .the dispatch computer system. After several time delays for installation by CDS, the JDIC program is scheduled for installation in mid-January. Currently, the warrants are checked through.an external system. No computerized system is infallible. Glitches are expected during the first six months of operation. The system will begin to operate on a steady course as the hardware and software becomes more reliable, operations and managers become more familiar .with the product and maintenance systems are in place. During the holiday season, two special anti -alcohol enforcement programs were conducted. Our officers assisted in the South Bay Regional DUI Task Force for two weeks. 183 persons were arrested for drunk driving and 11 for other miscellaneous charges. Our alcohol "decoy" program to enforce the statutes against selling or serving alcohol to a minor by commercial establishments throughout our town netted 15 violations out of 35 locations. All 15 were cited and are being prosecuted. The newly established Narcotics Unit has been very active. A local resident and narcotics dealer was arrested and charged with narcotics for sale and possession of injecting instruments. Found during the execution of a search warrant was $2390.00 in currency, packaging materials for sale of narcotics, and 400 hypodermic syringes. Approximately, 250 syringes contained a mixture of heroin, cocaine and anabolic steroids ready for distribution and use. The street term for this fix is called "speed ball". This is the same narcotic mix that was the cause of death for comedian John Belushi. CRIME PREVENTION On December 5th, we had a benefit show at the Comedy and Magic Club for the D.A.R.E. Programs in the South Bay. The L.A. Region of the California D.A.R.E. Officers Association sponsored the show, which raised over $1,100.00 dollars. The robot naming contest winner was announced at the show. The name that won was "R.A.D." - Robot Against Drugs. The student was from Jefferson School in Redondo Beach. The Cable T.V. program had a program on the Coast Guard and driving under the influence. A follow-up program on driving under the influence will be aired on January 9th. Several different crime prevention ads have been shown in the Easy Reader over the last few months. This was as a cooperative effort on the part of George Wiley, news editor, and Richard Budm also of the Easy Reader who gave free ads in the newspaper for the D.A.R.E. benefit. NOTED: STEVE WISNIEWSKI, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY KEVIN NORTHCRAFT CITY MANAGER Respectfully Submitted, /4,- VAL STRASER, COMMANDER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT December 1988 OFFENSES REPORTED THIS MONTH THIS MONTH THIS MONTH ONE YEAR AGO YEAR TO DATE LAST YEAR TO DATE 1. Murder 0 0 3 0 2. Rape 1 2 5 11 3. Robbery 2 2 17 27 4. Assault 7 3 110 89 5. Burglary 24 19 291 267 6. Larceny 39 25 436. 483 7. Motor Vehicle Theft 15 7 168 156 8. DUI 36 • 39 298 531 9. All Other Offenses 269 276 3249 3922 PERSONS ARRESTED • THIS MONTH THIS MONTH ONE YEAR AGO YEAR TO DATE LAST YEAR TO DATE 1. Adults 110 116 1082 1446 2. Juveniles 0 0 • 3 5 3. Criminal Citations 71 52 885 431 4. 5-24/5-42 HBMC * * 59 * Innr r av RIrvnr THIS MONTH THIS MONTH THIS MONTH ONE YEAR AGO YEAR TO DATE LAST YEAR TO DATE ACCIDENTS 0 0 0 3 1. Fatal 2. Injury 8 10 123 118 3. Property damage only 19 18 232 301 CITATIONS 575 346 3921 3461 I. Traffic Citations 2. Parking Citations 37 26 314 442 CALLS FOR SERVICE THIS MONTH THIS MONTH ONE YEAR AGO YEAR TO DATE LAST YEAR TO DATE 1. Total Calls 1136 1781 19433 20464 To: Steve Wisniewski, Public Safety Director From: John Mebius, Commander Subject: 3rd Quarter SWITERS Report Review Date: January 18, 1989 I recently reviewed our quarterly CHP/SWITERS report for the third quarter 7-1-88 to 9-30-88. The following is an overview of the computations therein. Total Accidents . 69 fatal 0 Injury 44 severe wounds 0 visible injury 17 complaint of pain 27 Third quarter total 1987 - 69 Third quarter total 1988 - 69 No increase or decrease Primary cause of accidents 1. Automobile right-of-way 2. Driving influence alcohol/drug 3. Unsafe starting or backing 4. Improper turning 5. Following to closely 26 (37.7%) 11 (15.9%) 6 ( 8.7%) 5 ( 7.2%) 4 ( 5.8%) . TOTAL 52 75.3% Accidents by hours 1200-2000 36 (30.4%) 2000-D400 13 (19.8%) 0400-1200 20 (29.0%) Accidents per street location Pacific Coast Highway Hermosa Avenue Manhattan Avenue 21 (30.4%) 16 (23.2%) 5 ( 7.2%) ,t 61% of our accidents are occurring on the arterial roadways or major collector streets. 52% of the accidents are occurring between 1200-2000 hrs. 77% of the accidents occur during weekdays and 23% occur on weekends. Respep ully Submitted, John Mebius, dQmmander Operations Division Hermosa Beach Police Department