The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m.

1. Roll Call

   Present:	Public Works Commissioners Beste, DiVirgilio, Marinelli Planning Commissioners Allen, Hoffman, Perotti, Pizer
   Also Present:	Richard Morgan, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Michael Flaherty, Public Works Superintendent Ken Robertson, Senior Planner Rhea Punneo, Administrative Assistant, Public Works Department
   Absent:	Public Works Commissioner Winnek Planning Commissioner Kersenbloom

2. Flag Salute

   Commissioner DiVirgilio led the flag salute.

   After the flag salute, Commissioner DiVirgilio invited Mr. Morgan who reviewed the purpose of the meeting, advising that they’re looking for free interaction between the commissioners and suggesting that could perhaps meet again in another six months.

3. Public Comment (moved from end of agenda to this position):

   John Dzus, Hermosa Beach

   Has lived on 10th Street about 2 years, advised that with parking on both sides of the street and two-way traffic it is difficult to get in and out of parking as well as getting up and down the street. Would like to see no parking on a portion of Ocean Drive between Aviation and 10th St. on the east side of street.

   Dave Rodriguez, Hermosa Beach

   Indicated support of recent mailing regarding lighting and landscaping supplemental assessment district. Also, indicated support of slowing of traffic on Pier Ave. and throughout the community. Would like to see achieving the goal of slowing traffic and adding trees to the area.

   Commissioner Pizer suggested they start the meeting by having the department heads define the jobs of the departments adding that the Planning Commission plans and the Public Works Commission sees it gets built.

   Mr. Blumenfeld’s description of the Planning Commission included:

   • It is a decision making body defined in the Municipal Code.
   • It is the only commission to make final decisions on land use matters that are non-legislative
   • Unless appealed, the Planning Commission is the final word on land use planning.
   • It makes recommendations regarding land use.
   • Comments on land issues as they relate to land with respect to the General Plan

   Mr. Morgan’s description of the Public Works Commission included:

   • It is an advisory body that makes recommendations - an example would be the criteria established for disabled parking spaces for residents.
   • Issues come to the commission with anything policy related, hears from the public, makes recommendations to Council
   • Voiced his appreciation for the existence of the PW Commission, adding that the town hall meetings highlight the open public process in Hermosa.
   • Makes job easier when go to Council, having had a town hall meeting, utilizing the resident input.

   Mr. Hoffman further defined the difference between the commissions in that the Planning Commission deals primarily with private land use issues while the Public Works Commission deals with projects in the public right-of-way, an important distinction. The Planning Commission feels the urban design element has to be addressed; noted painting the light standards has more to do with what the City looks like than all the condos. Feels a good idea to have the two commissions on the same page – each commission should be aware of what the other is doing.

   Further discussion highlighted the following:

   • There’s a need for good communication between the two commissions/departments to
   • avoid appearing to give residents “the run-around.”
   • Don’t want to get to a point where there is a duplication as effort
   • Shouldn’t feel bad sending people to the proper place
   • At an important juncture, need urban design element for the General Plan
   • These are the two commissions that should handle this project or, the department heads may discuss and then take to Council

   Commissioner DiVirgilio reopened the floor to public comments.

   Tammy Lubiani, Hermosa Beach

   Concerned about Pier Avenue – worried about safety vehicles getting out and around the traffic.

4. Discussion Items

   Aviation Boulevard

   Mr. Blumenfeld advised that the Planning Commission adopts an annual work plan and that this year the Commission directed staff to prepare an Aviation Corridor Specific Plan. He defined the elements of a Specific Plan, noting that there are many ways a plan can be oriented.

   They set out to study the area, noting the area needed a lot of help; closely looked at land use conditions. There are three components to the study: investigation, documentation and implementation. They’ll be working closely with Public Works to put the information on the City’s GIS system to develop very detailed land use mapping where they’ll soon move to identify problems which surface through this mapping process.

   They’ll then seek community input for developing policies and programs. They want to know how the community feels about the area. After amassing comments, will move to documentation phase which will become an implementation tool of the General Plan after hearings and approval/adoption by the City Council. Typically takes a year to a year and a half to complete the plan, they are ten months into it at this time.

   Mr. Perotti suggested that a member of the PW Commission would like to attend and Mr. Morgan noted that perhaps the PW Commission would form a sub-committee to attend and report back to the commission as was done for the parkway tree project.

   Mr. Blumenfeld noted that some of the offsite improvements that Public Works wants to do can be made conditions of approval by Community Development when part of the Specific Plan. Mr. Morgan concurred, adding that should ask that builders take responsibility for parkway trees and gave a brief history of the lighting/landscaping district how necessary it is.

   Mr. Perotti said the he was glad to hear that the tree project for Aviation Boulevard is finally funded since it has taken quite a bit of time.

   In response to Mr. Beste’s inquiry about adding requirements for more setbacks or adding vacations for specific properties along Aviation Boulevard, Mr. Blumenfeld said the plan is a work in process and they expect to have standard development issues spelled out in the Zone Code. Feels the additions talking about – street trees, grates - would help the area. There are some solid uses in the area, real pedestrian generators. Question is how do they develop more of these generators? How do they improve the physical use, land use, encourage building, improvement incentives, etc.? How do residents in the area feel?

   Further discussion highlighted:

   • Need to look at land use issues
   • There is no business improvement district for the area at this time
   • Need to have the businesses in league to create an underground utility district
   • Plan for trees and grates is 90% complete – 60 trees from PCH to Harper.
   • Don’t have the business base at this time to support changes
   • Plan needs further development before it is taken to Council.
   • Originated as work plan from the commission, not Council direction.
   • Level of effort for General Plan update is huge – comprised of several elements

   Commissioner DiVirgilio opened the floor for public comments. Coming forward to address the Commissions were:

   Carolyn Petty, Hermosa Beach

   Said she has seen a change in the quality of life driven by traffic; is concerned about the infrastructure – it hasn’t changed but traffic has become horrendous; without a plan for infrastructure improvement, wouldn’t like to see beautification of Aviation Boulevard. Wouldn’t want to see anything that would create more traffic.

   Dave Rodriguez, Hermosa Beach

   Have to decide if Hermosa Beach is going to be a city of a village. He tries to avoid driving on weekends. Doesn’t seem to be a cohesive plan when comparing Hermosa vs. Manhattan. Have to pick vision and plan and holistically look at it. Would rather have a community sense here rather than an urban sense.

   1. Upper Pier Avenue

      Mr. Morgan began the discussion, giving a brief history and noting that now have funding for improvements. Pier Avenue pavement is in need of refurbishing as well as solving flooding problems.

      Goal is to begin construction is in FY 06-07. Found old implementation plan that was part of plan used for Pier Plaza which included widening sidewalks and reducing to two travel lanes. Conferred with traffic engineering consultant and determined the street could handle it; then determined to do a test, which was implemented on June 7. He acknowledged there have been issues of concern.

      The goal is to create a more pedestrian friendly, small town feeling and slowing traffic is part of that. Taking steps to observe the traffic plus taking item to Council to make modifications which would relieve congestion in front of Fire Department as well as changing width of center lane. Will have another meeting to review situations. This is a major gateway street; would like to see businesses flourish, more pedestrian safety before spending a few million dollars so feel painting first is providing valuable information.

      Discussion highlighted:

      • Some would like to see STOP at Bard stay even after work is completed
      • Funding sufficient for basics – sidewalks, drainage – but may be short on amenities
      • Perhaps business improvement district could be developed as was done on the Plaza
      • Bicycle riders like median
      • Upper Pier Ave. is not the same as Aviation Blvd. – they are completely different; vision of Upper Pier hasn’t been seen yet, only the traffic plan
      • Major questions: What is goal of Pier Ave.? The “look” being discussed is an urban design issue - should be able to go to urban design element to determine.
      • Public involvement encouraged
      • There are no proposed improvements for traffic signals at Artesia and PCH or Pier and PCH
      • Don’t want to push traffic into residential areas
      • The level of service on a street like Artesia is a regional issue – City has no control at all

      Floor opened for public comment at this time:

      Tammy Lubiani, Hermosa Beach

      Widening parking?! She said she can’t make a right turn as it is…is now driving in residential areas because of the traffic on Pier.

      Carolyn Petty, Hermosa Beach

      Said the F grade indicates problems with the infrastructure. The new buildings indicate there’ll be more traffic in the future. Said she sees more people and wonders if the City can support all these people. The infrastructure will only get worse; it comes down to who drives the decisions – businesses? Poll the residents – do they want bigger sidewalks or the traffic to flow?

      Mr. Morgan noted that comments are encouraged – that’s the purpose of the test. There’ll be a large public process before any final decisions. Stay involved. Mr. DiVirgilio added that this is all part of the process determined in the 90’s.

      Dave Rodriguez, Hermosa Beach

      Said willing to sacrifice a few minutes to get to PCH for better quality of life.

      Mr. Marinelli noted that Mr. Morgan has developed and undertaken an ambitious plan to improve the infrastructure in the three years he’s been here.

   2. Street Tree Ordinance

      Mr. Morgan noted that it took a long time to develop, delaying the Aviation Street Tree Project but Staff like the improvements. Brief summary of the ordinance included:

      • Assigns administration of the Ordinance to the Director of Public Works instead of the Director of Parks and Recreation
      • A permit is required to plant a street tree
      • There is an official list of acceptable trees
      • Stipulations set for removal of parkway tree
      • Policy developed: trees in excess of 12” in diameter at 60” above ground requires a petition and PW Commission hearing before can remove
      • Puts responsibility for tree pushing up sidewalk on property owner

      Discussion of the ordinance with regard to new developments highlighted the following:

      • Public Works would speak to the issue of removing street trees by developer putting in driveway during plan check.
      • There is no list of streets where we want trees
      • Current GIS project building infrastructure layer for trees; haven’t yet addressed line of sight issues

   3. Conditions of Approval for New Projects

      Mr. Blumenfeld noted that this falls into what was just discussed about communicating with Public Works when plan first comes in. Every discretionary permit has a condition of Public Works approval. Better communication and coordination is the best interface between the departments.

      Among cooperative actions taken by the two departments, the Hold Harmless Agreement is one that Mr. Morgan said is not his ideal solution – doesn’t like that water from the public right-of-way is running onto private property. Agreement basically says that property owner recognized that he did not meet City’s requirements and City has no liability in the situation. It was noted that because many people want as much developable area as possible, the subterranean garages are being permitted, but owner must take responsibility. It was also noted that houses are no longer allowed to pump water into the street – must be done on-site. City does not issue discharge permits. Handling these issues at the beginning of a project will make a big difference with regard to drain back-ups into City streets and flooding neighborhoods.

      At this time Mr. DiVirgilio asked for suggestions for future joint meetings. Mr. Hoffman suggested more frequent meetings but asked for caution what would cause for staff. Suggested that when topic is obvious, sub-committees would be the next logical step or action. The Pier Avenue design element is an example of an obvious topic for creating a sub-committee. Forming the sub-committee could be initiated by either commission.

      Mr. Pizer suggested the commissioners review the plans from other cities that he’d provided. Mr. DiVirgilio suggested that the commissions meet at the very least on an annual basis.

5. Meeting Minutes

   April 19, 2006 meeting minutes were approved as written.

6. Commissioners' Reports

   None

7. Public Works Department Reports

   1. Monthly Activity Report – March, April
      Received and Reviewed

   2. Project Status Report – March, April
      Received and Reviewed

8. Items Requested by Commissioners

   None

9. Other Matters

   Mr. DiVirgilio thanked the Planning Commissioners for their participation.

10. Public Comment

    None

11. Adjournment

    Commissioner DiVirgilio adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. to the meeting of Wednesday, July 19, 2006.

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Public Works Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of June 21, 2006.